AEDU/Vancian Hybrid?

There's been discussions (understatement of the year) about the merits of AEDU versus Vancian. Recent interviews with Mearls may point at having both classes in the same D&D edition. (Wizards being vancian and Sorcerer/Mage being AEDU).

Many of you have proclaimed the dealbreaker-iness of having the system you dislike in DDN. However, having both seems like a perfect solution for the unifying goals of DDN, at the cost of having to learn two systems as a DM (which is a large flaw, no question). If we could get the designers to see a united community, willing to have a game that caters to both types of players, it'd go a long way to reduce the uncertainty and internet drama we're seeing right now.

I'm on the AEDU side, being a 4E player, but as long as the power levels are balanced, I wouldn't mind having a vance wizard blasting away in a fight.

So, what do you think of having both in core?


(Really hope DDN will have a clean, playable system at the end of development)
Many of you have proclaimed the dealbreaker-iness of having the system you dislike in DDN. However, having both seems like a perfect solution for the unifying goals of DDN, at the cost of having to learn two systems as a DM (which is a large flaw, no question).

We'd all like to think that, but no.  It turns out people just aren't rational, and the very existence of "that thing I don't like" (regardless of "that thing I do like" also existing) is a totally legitimate (right?) reason to rant and complain.

Just mention "fighter dailies?" and watch the crapstorm ensue.
Many of you have proclaimed the dealbreaker-iness of having the system you dislike in DDN. However, having both seems like a perfect solution for the unifying goals of DDN, at the cost of having to learn two systems as a DM (which is a large flaw, no question).

We'd all like to think that, but no.  It turns out people just aren't rational, and the very existence of "that thing I don't like" (regardless of "that thing I do like" also existing) is a totally legitimate (right?) reason to rant and complain.

Just mention "fighter dailies?" and watch the crapstorm ensue.


You don't pay much attention, do you?  Most of us are fine with including your beloved AEDU as a module.  In fact, you can shove the entire system in so long as it isn't forcing certain things from us or choking the size of the PHB with bloat.  It's the AEDU people that typically have responded 'oh that isnt enough, if its not core it just wont work'.



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

I've seen none of this stuff people have mentioned in this thread.

I have seen people want AEDU put into their favorite class concept (the bookish wizard, or the defender fighter), I have not seen anyone say they don't want the other to get what they want.

Well maybe those people that keep telling the AEDU people that they can have their blaster sorcerer and just 'reflavor' it to be a wizard, which is complete bull...
"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.
What about people like me, who dislike both Vancian and AEDU structures?  I don't like daily resources at all, and AEDU, well, obviously includes D.  Actually, I don't like limited resource management in general.  I don't mind if some classes have AEDU or Vancian, mind you, I just want there to be some other options, too.  

Ideally, I'd want a lot of passives and at-wills.  Warlocks/Dragon Adepts from 3.5 were fantastic, for example, but I'm among the few who'd be totally happy with a Fighter that just gets +X to roll Y (assuming those flat bonuses to various rolls were significant).  I want what abilities I've chosen and how I choose to use them to be more important than when I choose to use them.  
I have seen people want AEDU put into their favorite class concept (the bookish wizard, or the defender fighter), I have not seen anyone say they don't want the other to get what they want.

Go do a search for "verisimilitude".  Every post that isn't mocking it essentially boils down to "[thing] ruins my immersion and/or is totally unrealistic!"

Well maybe those people that keep telling the AEDU people that they can have their blaster sorcerer and just 'reflavor' it to be a wizard, which is complete bull...

Why is it complete bull?

Random thought:
Hmm, maybe the fighter could be the Melee Basic Attack guy, while another class like the Warblade or Ranger, could have encounter powers and special abilities.

On topic: We'd need both in core or else, AEDU classes would become like the extra base classes in D&D, a.k.a. not supported outside of the module the've been published in.

(Maybe Modules could rather define the tone of the game with crunch, i.e. having a really hardcore world with little healing, no item creations and perma death?)
I have seen people want AEDU put into their favorite class concept (the bookish wizard, or the defender fighter), I have not seen anyone say they don't want the other to get what they want.

Go do a search for "verisimilitude".  Every post that isn't mocking it essentially boils down to "[thing] ruins my immersion and/or is totally unrealistic!"

Well maybe those people that keep telling the AEDU people that they can have their blaster sorcerer and just 'reflavor' it to be a wizard, which is complete bull...

Why is it complete bull?



No one is talking about having their verisimilitude ruined by the presence of an optional module in a -book-. 

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

Fighters have dailies in 5e so do rogues. In fact everyone has dailies. Why I will never know. There hasn't really been a crapstorm because the dailies are not 4e dailies.

As for the actual topic I believe it is possible to have both systems but impossible to balance the two. From what we have seen a wizard may have 20 spells per day at 20th level. So how do you balance someone with 4 dailies and 4 encounter powers to 20 dailies? Well let us assume a 4 encounter work day at 5 rounds a combat. This means the wizard casts every spell he knows by the end of the day. So by that logic each encounter power for the AEDU character must be comparable to a Vancian daily. Think about that for a second. The wizard also has the option of going nova far better than AEDU, has more versatility because he has more total spells, has more versatility from more spells known, and benefits far more from shorter workdays/combats.
I have seen people want AEDU put into their favorite class concept (the bookish wizard, or the defender fighter), I have not seen anyone say they don't want the other to get what they want.

Go do a search for "verisimilitude".  Every post that isn't mocking it essentially boils down to "[thing] ruins my immersion and/or is totally unrealistic!"

Well maybe those people that keep telling the AEDU people that they can have their blaster sorcerer and just 'reflavor' it to be a wizard, which is complete bull...

Why is it complete bull?




Yeah, nice strawman since I didn't say anything about versimilitude...

The bookish wizard gets a wide veriety of spells, can trade them out and doesn't focus solely on blaster type spells.

Its complete bull because we don't want the sorcerers flavor or mechanics. We want the wizard with AEDU spells.

The main problem is WotC isn't going to make two seperate classes that are functionally identical except one uses AEDU and the other uses Vancian... its just not gonna happen...
"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.
Random thought:
Hmm, maybe the fighter could be the Melee Basic Attack guy, while another class like the Warblade or Ranger, could have encounter powers and special abilities.

On topic: We'd need both in core or else, AEDU classes would become like the extra base classes in D&D, a.k.a. not supported outside of the module the've been published in.

(Maybe Modules could rather define the tone of the game with crunch, i.e. having a really hardcore world with little healing, no item creations and perma death?)



The problem with this is that some people don't want to play a ranger or warblade, they want to play a fighter...
"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.
The problem with this is that some people don't want to play a ranger or warblade, they want to play a fighter...

Classes are just a container for level-locked abilities.  The names of those class are essentially meaningless.

The problem with this is that some people don't want to play a ranger or warblade, they want to play a fighter...

Classes are just a container for level-locked abilities.  The names of those class are essentially meaningless.




Your right. Its the mechanics and flavor tied to those classes. I bet you that the ranger will be an out door type with two weapons or a bow...
"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.
Fighters have dailies in 5e so do rogues. In fact everyone has dailies. Why I will never know. There hasn't really been a crapstorm because the dailies are not 4e dailies. As for the actual topic I believe it is possible to have both systems but impossible to balance the two. From what we have seen a wizard may have 20 spells per day at 20th level. So how do you balance someone with 4 dailies and 4 encounter powers to 20 dailies? Well let us assume a 4 encounter work day at 5 rounds a combat. This means the wizard casts every spell he knows by the end of the day. So by that logic each encounter power for the AEDU character must be comparable to a Vancian daily. Think about that for a second. The wizard also has the option of going nova far better than AEDU, has more versatility because he has more total spells, has more versatility from more spells known, and benefits far more from shorter workdays/combats.



I wouldn't say impossible, but yes it would not be easy. However, isn't that a small concern compared to balancing rogues/fighters to vancian wizards? 3E has shown us the huge chasm between the two.

Random thought:
Hmm, maybe the fighter could be the Melee Basic Attack guy, while another class like the Warblade or Ranger, could have encounter powers and special abilities.

On topic: We'd need both in core or else, AEDU classes would become like the extra base classes in D&D, a.k.a. not supported outside of the module the've been published in.

(Maybe Modules could rather define the tone of the game with crunch, i.e. having a really hardcore world with little healing, no item creations and perma death?)



The problem with this is that some people don't want to play a ranger or warblade, they want to play a fighter...



Well that's true, though a warblade is pretty close to a fighter, if you consider them as skilled weapon users (if you ignore the wuxia inspired 3E fluff for Tome of Battle).

(Apologies, my mistake with using the ranger as an exemple, has different fluff, even if its abilities are sometimes close to a figther.)
I have seen people want AEDU put into their favorite class concept (the bookish wizard, or the defender fighter), I have not seen anyone say they don't want the other to get what they want.

Go do a search for "verisimilitude".  Every post that isn't mocking it essentially boils down to "[thing] ruins my immersion and/or is totally unrealistic!"

Well maybe those people that keep telling the AEDU people that they can have their blaster sorcerer and just 'reflavor' it to be a wizard, which is complete bull...

Why is it complete bull?




Yeah, nice strawman since I didn't say anything about versimilitude...

The bookish wizard gets a wide veriety of spells, can trade them out and doesn't focus solely on blaster type spells.

Its complete bull because we don't want the sorcerers flavor or mechanics. We want the wizard with AEDU spells.

The main problem is WotC isn't going to make two seperate classes that are functionally identical except one uses AEDU and the other uses Vancian... its just not gonna happen...



Simmer down people, please. Wouldn't it be preferable not to generalise your opinion to correlate with the collective opinions of a vague "we"? Remember that "we" can only speak for ourselves. ;)

Peace & love etc.

inb4 2k posts


Fighters have dailies in 5e so do rogues. In fact everyone has dailies. Why I will never know. There hasn't really been a crapstorm because the dailies are not 4e dailies. As for the actual topic I believe it is possible to have both systems but impossible to balance the two. From what we have seen a wizard may have 20 spells per day at 20th level. So how do you balance someone with 4 dailies and 4 encounter powers to 20 dailies? Well let us assume a 4 encounter work day at 5 rounds a combat. This means the wizard casts every spell he knows by the end of the day. So by that logic each encounter power for the AEDU character must be comparable to a Vancian daily. Think about that for a second. The wizard also has the option of going nova far better than AEDU, has more versatility because he has more total spells, has more versatility from more spells known, and benefits far more from shorter workdays/combats.



I share this perspective on the problem. I do believe a system that applies a cost to each spell from a resource that is gained throughout combat can balance the systems, but as far as I know no such system has ever existed in D&D history and I doubt the designers are looking into that line of development. 

Of course for many people the workday problem is solved by DM intervention, but that isn't a system solution. Perhaps the designers will develop a novel solution, but my bet is they will simply seperate the systems by way of modules.
Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want.

Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.
Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want. Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.



Hmm, interesting, but would such a system be more difficult to balance and design than one where power types are separated by class?

It could also take a lot of place in the books, creating a lot of bloat. I guess that if the same spells could be taken as an encounter ability at level X by Mages and could be taken as a vancian spell (daily) at level Y by Spellsligners, it could save a lot of space and keep it streamlined.

Could that be a good solution?

There's really no reason why Wizard can't have vancian and AEDU (and points, and defiling, and whatever else) as seperate tables under a "pick one" heading.

It seems to me the reason Mearls wants to make a seperate class for each is to facilitate categorizing spell descripts like they've been doing since rougly forever:  Spell (class lvl/classB lvl/classC lvl)
Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want. Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.



Hmm, interesting, but would such a system be more difficult to balance and design than one where power types are separated by class?

It could also take a lot of place in the books, creating a lot of bloat. I guess that if the same spells could be taken as an encounter ability at level X by Mages and could be taken as a vancian spell (daily) at level Y by Spellsligners, it could save a lot of space and keep it streamlined.

Could that be a good solution?




Sure, so could an effect line that says:

As Encounter: Deals 1d4+int mod damage, dex save for half.

Tack that onto the bottom of burning hands and you have an encounter spell. The same can be done for all spells. Some special cases might take 10 seconds worth of thought, or you can just keep those as dailies...

Dispel magic:
As Daily: Removes a magical effect from a target or area.
As Encounter: Effect does not remove enchantments, only surpresses them for 1d4 rounds.

Fireball:
As Daily: 6d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.
As Encounter: 3d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.

StoneSkin:
As Daily: absorbs 10 points of physical damage, until 4 hours have passed or 75 points of damage have been absorbed.
As Encounter: Reaction, absorbs 5 points of physical damage, until 5 rounds have passed or until 25 points of damage have been absorbed.

See 5 minutes worth of work...
"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.
There's really no reason why Wizard can't have vancian and AEDU (and points, and defiling, and whatever else) as seperate tables under a "pick one" heading.

It seems to me the reason Mearls wants to make a seperate class for each is to facilitate categorizing spell descripts like they've been doing since rougly forever:  Spell (class lvl/classB lvl/classC lvl)



I've suggested just this in another thread.

The problem with different classes and spell lists is that they usually share a lot of spells. In 3.xE the wizard and sorcerer shared all spells. The cleric and wizard had some cross-over, and the druid and ranger used the same spell list. The cleric and paladin used the same list...
"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 hadn't considered it that way, Iokiare. It's interesting but I meant something like this:

Fireball
Encounter level 9, Vancian level 4 (as in the 3E spell levels [so the wizard would get it at level 9] and 4E power levels [also at level 9])
Attack vs. dex
Effect: 10d6 fire damage

Having two versions of the spell could be a little unweildy.
Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want. Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.



Hmm, interesting, but would such a system be more difficult to balance and design than one where power types are separated by class?

It could also take a lot of place in the books, creating a lot of bloat. I guess that if the same spells could be taken as an encounter ability at level X by Mages and could be taken as a vancian spell (daily) at level Y by Spellsligners, it could save a lot of space and keep it streamlined.

Could that be a good solution?




Sure, so could an effect line that says:

As Encounter: Deals 1d4+int mod damage, dex save for half.

Tack that onto the bottom of burning hands and you have an encounter spell. The same can be done for all spells. Some special cases might take 10 seconds worth of thought, or you can just keep those as dailies...

Dispel magic:
As Daily: Removes a magical effect from a target or area.
As Encounter: Effect does not remove enchantments, only surpresses them for 1d4 rounds.

Fireball:
As Daily: 6d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.
As Encounter: 3d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.

StoneSkin:
As Daily: absorbs 10 points of physical damage, until 4 hours have passed or 75 points of damage have been absorbed.
As Encounter: Reaction, absorbs 5 points of physical damage, until 5 rounds have passed or until 25 points of damage have been absorbed.

See 5 minutes worth of work...

5 minutes of work for those spells, which have not really been tested for balance at all, but I agree with the premise. It's actually why I want to see either in addition to AEDU or replacing it: AE with any D combat spells removed, and U folded into E and non-combat D. I think if you give a class Daily powers only, and another class scaled down versions as Encounter powers, but also the full powered forms as Dailies, then you make the distinctions between the casting styles seem rather meta-gamish. If one doesn't have Dailies, and only has Encounter powers, the differences are a lot more solidified. The two classes might be able to do roughly the same thing, but one is more reliable, but doesn't have that daily "Nova" and another has to conserve resources, but can be that much more useful, when the fight really needs it. 

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.

I hadn't considered it that way, Iokiare. It's interesting but I meant something like this:

Fireball
Encounter level 9, Vancian level 4 (as in the 3E spell levels [so the wizard would get it at level 9] and 4E power levels [also at level 9])
Attack vs. dex
Effect: 10d6 fire damage

Having two versions of the spell could be a little unweildy.

Another reason to advocate dropping the D from AEDU. If you have a weakened Encounter power Fireball, that may do only 5d6, when the Mage (working title for the Encounter power class) uses it, you know it's the weaker version, and when the wizard uses it, you know it's the full 10d6 version.

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.

Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want. Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.



Hmm, interesting, but would such a system be more difficult to balance and design than one where power types are separated by class?

It could also take a lot of place in the books, creating a lot of bloat. I guess that if the same spells could be taken as an encounter ability at level X by Mages and could be taken as a vancian spell (daily) at level Y by Spellsligners, it could save a lot of space and keep it streamlined.

Could that be a good solution?




Sure, so could an effect line that says:

As Encounter: Deals 1d4+int mod damage, dex save for half.

Tack that onto the bottom of burning hands and you have an encounter spell. The same can be done for all spells. Some special cases might take 10 seconds worth of thought, or you can just keep those as dailies...

Dispel magic:
As Daily: Removes a magical effect from a target or area.
As Encounter: Effect does not remove enchantments, only surpresses them for 1d4 rounds.

Fireball:
As Daily: 6d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.
As Encounter: 3d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.

StoneSkin:
As Daily: absorbs 10 points of physical damage, until 4 hours have passed or 75 points of damage have been absorbed.
As Encounter: Reaction, absorbs 5 points of physical damage, until 5 rounds have passed or until 25 points of damage have been absorbed.

See 5 minutes worth of work...

5 minutes of work for those spells, which have not really been tested for balance at all, but I agree with the premise. It's actually why I want to see either in addition to AEDU or replacing it: AE with any D combat spells removed, and U folded into E and non-combat D. I think if you give a class Daily powers only, and another class scaled down versions as Encounter powers, but also the full powered forms as Dailies, then you make the distinctions between the casting styles seem rather meta-gamish. If one doesn't have Dailies, and only has Encounter powers, the differences are a lot more solidified. The two classes might be able to do roughly the same thing, but one is more reliable, but doesn't have that daily "Nova" and another has to conserve resources, but can be that much more useful, when the fight really needs it. 



I wouldn't mind if they dropped dailies off of the AEDU structure. It would work pretty well as long as the AEDU could still learn and swap spells out like a regular wizard. They would have to figure out how many encouner spells are equal to 1 daily though...
"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 think most people on here are for allowing a variety of playstyles.  I think most of the time it is a misunderstanding when one side thinks the other is against them getting what they want.  Note I said "most".  Those who do not want a big gaming tent, I'd ignore as they are opposing the success of D&D.

I think one thing to consider to how sensitive people are to the balance issues.  Those that love AEDU are very concerned about balance and highly sensitive to any lack.  Whereas those who dislike AEDU, are not AS sensitive.  I'm not saying they don't care either.  Just not as sensitive.   So if we provide 20 classes and you can choose 12 and have the game be super balanced or choose a different 12 and have it be more flexible optionswise but less balanced then we can all be happy.  For myself I don't mind a simple fighter alongside a vancian wizard.  I don't think sufficient balance for a fun game is that hard to achieve even in that circumstance.  For others, I imagine the vancian wizard is practically impossible to balance (and when I say vancian I mean the 4 spell per level kind) and perhaps we should stop trying so hard.  Just realize that those who want that wizard are not as susceptible to the balance issue.



 
Fireball
Encounter level 9, Vancian level 4 (as in the 3E spell levels [so the wizard would get it at level 9] and 4E power levels [also at level 9])
Attack vs. dex
Effect: 10d6 fire damage

Couldn't we simplify things a bit by defaulting to Spell Level and mapping Es to those?

Has there ever been mention on encounter features? I don't think I've seen any mention of it's return, so I'd like to know why people are assuming this.

 More on point. So far, all we know on daily resources is that every class so far gets them, and the difference in quantity between them isn't too great for now. We also know that the spellcasters are allowed to prepare spells, but we've never been given any details on how they can acquire new spells to prepare outside of level-up .

 It's really assumptions on that last point that's got people on edge; for instance, we've no idea if preparation will work as in 3.5, where Clerics drew from a huge pooled spell list and Wizards acqurired new spells from scrolls and enemy spellbooks, but for all we know, it'll work more similar to 4E Wizards, where the spells they learned on level-up is all they get. Well, there's also the scope certain classes and features occupy, but that's not here nor there.

Fireball
Encounter level 9, Vancian level 4 (as in the 3E spell levels [so the wizard would get it at level 9] and 4E power levels [also at level 9])
Attack vs. dex
Effect: 10d6 fire damage

Couldn't we simplify things a bit by defaulting to Spell Level and mapping Es to those?





Sorry, I don't understand what that means. The spell is Level 4 (thus a lv9 vancian wizard gets it) and what happens with the encounter power level?

I'd like to know
Fireball
Encounter level 9, Vancian level 4 (as in the 3E spell levels [so the wizard would get it at level 9] and 4E power levels [also at level 9])
Attack vs. dex
Effect: 10d6 fire damage

Couldn't we simplify things a bit by defaulting to Spell Level and mapping Es to those?





Sorry, I don't understand what that means. The spell is Level 4 (thus a lv9 vancian wizard gets it) and what happens with the encounter power level?

I'd like to know



Vancian wizards get level 4 spells at 7th character level.
You're absolutely correct. Have played 4E for so long, I guess I've been spoiled with lv7 characters getting lv7 powers.
Sorry, I don't understand what that means. The spell is Level 4 (thus a lv9 vancian wizard gets it) and what happens with the encounter power level?

I'd like to know

A 9th level AEDU wizard gets a level 4 spell as an encounter power.  Leave the spell levels in place, and just tell the AEDU guy to pick a few of some arbitrary spell level.

Daily resource bloat. Will they or won't they?
http://collectingrealities.blogspot.co.nz/