An optimistic view of DDN from a 4E lover?

So i'll state right out that i like 4E.....a lot.

Balance issues are prevalent, yet tend to be the result of someone WILLINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY trying to push the rules to the extreme.  Fun if everyone does it, yet sadly, in my group, has been the biggest point of contention in the entire 4E system.

That being said, classes being more or less "normalized" was a huge benefit over 3.X's days of classes being utterly useless at certain levels, or unstoppable at other levels.  static defenses, scaling bonuses, a ritual system that was useful in certain games and could be completely ignored, with no drawback, in others.  Yep, 4E has been my choice since the MOMENT it came out.

DDN, on the other hand, is something i've been dreading since i heard about it.  A system that would please everyone? are they crazy?  Its like someone coming into the presidential debate and saying they can satisfy every one of the demands and agendas of both sides all at once.  If it was possible, it'd have been done long ago right?

But the more i hear about DDN, the more i realize that SOME of Wizards' goals and expectations are being met.  Sure they have steps backwards, but they are managing to satisfy some pretty big opposing desires as well.

(this section will call everyone who does not like exactly what i like crazy....it is a joke, do not take it seriously)
 - I heard that there are crazy people out there who want to do DnD combat with no grid....and DDN seems to be trying to answer with options for gridded and gridless combat
 - I heard that some crazy people actually LIKE vancian spellcasting.....and DDN supposedly has an option for vancian spellcasting, but with a few at-will variants so that wizards with no spells aren't just glorified peasants with crossbows anymore
 - I heard that REALLY crazy people wanted save-or-die effects back....And DDN has basically said that the DM and players can agree to include or exclude things like that from their games....and really, that feels right anyways, why would you want to run or play a game where you don't agree with the rules?
 - I heard that some crazy people actually LIKE rolling for stats....and DDN has gone back to making that the default option for building characters, BUT has included variants to help other people who prefer different methods of building.

All in all, though i have my doubts that DDN will replace 4E as my PREFERRED game, my group definitely WANTS to give it a try.  And i think i'll be able to get over my prejudice enough to give it an honest-to-goodness open-minded test drive, because for all their potential pitfalls in this crazy of a do-everything system, i honestly believe they have a CHANCE to pull off, if not a please-everyone game, at least a "please-a-larger-group-of-people-than-they-have-now" game.     
thats awesome man, here are the 5e forums


community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/7588...
thats awesome man, here are the 5e forums


community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/7588...



Quit being rude Frothy one. 5e does have some fancy bits though he seemed to manage to avoid mentioning any of them as far as I can tell.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I personally can't wait to see it come out. I really do wanna give it a try. And I too like vancian magic, at least more than whatever 4e magic is. My favorite type though is a magick/mana pool styled casting where casting spells costs points. Rolling for stats has never really been a big deal to me.
And seeing save or die effects comeback full force is a really good thing, some complain they aren't fair , but if you mess with the bull you get the horns, or in this case you mess with the catoblepas and you get the look.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

Save or die is fine as long as they resemble 2nd ed more than 3rd ed. IN 2nd ed raise dead was easy and save or dies generally only had a 5-10% chance of killing you. Probably make it a double save as well like the old 3.5 phantasmal killer. 1st failed save sickins you or knocks you unconscious, 2nd failed save kills you.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I hated 4e (you couldent pay me to play it again) and everything you mention that crazy and really crazy people want, I want.

1) I hate point buy stats (ok lets all make sure we have two 18s in the two major stats for every class and make sure dump stats like Cha are completely ignored so every party member looks and acts like gilligan with big muscles etc)
2)Gird combat is great when absolutely necesary but running without the grid is just fine when the encounter really isnt too deadly or important. actually without measuring and forcing people to look over exactly what their characters need to do speeds up minor combats a lot so in a typical 4hr session your not restricted to 2 minor and 1 major combats.
3)I dont care what spell system we use but I dont want at-will abilities or any casting that cannot be easily disrupted by a peasant with a rock.
4)save or die is absolutely fine with me as long as the players dont mind when its used on them.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
I wouldn't use the word "hate" myself to describe 4th edition, I think the word "uncooperative" captures it a bit better.  I found the mechanic imposed on role-playing with regularity as well as distracted players from it.  In part I believe this to be caused prodominantly by combat taking far too long and powers that where supposedly not magical breaking reality too often for certainly behaving as if it was.  The forced grid combat was also extremly disruptive to role-playing, it just became the focal point of the game, all eyes where on the bloody miniatures.  The straw that broke the camels back however was healing surges, without question one of the stupidest mechanics ever put into a role-playing game that attempt to fix something (apperantly it wasn't fun to be a cleric) by breaking the entire system making it not fun to play any class or actually the game as a whole.  Pretty poor trade off if you ask me.

It seems to me most of these issues are being addressed in some form in 5th edition so for now I think it looks quite good.  Im still not however convinced that its worth buying more books, so far it really hasn't wow'ed me.

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

Im glad to hear people excited as much as I am about next.

You forgot one thing. We get the chance to share our dnd experiences and form the game! Feedback is there and they are definately listening.

Its an exciting time to playtest dnd imo Cool
Save or Die: I like Save or die if it's used sparingly. One of my biggest complaints with 4E was that monsters just weren't scary enough. Against a prior edition medusa, you'd want to close/avert your eyes or fight with mirrors. That petrifying gaze was a big deal and people feared it.

In 4E, you'd just basically soak it and treat it like any other monster.

Now, I didn't like 3E where save or die basically became the norm, and everything was basically a SoD at high levels. Hit point combat became a sucker's game, and you either had SoD or you didn't, which made the spellcasters ungodly powerful.

Rolling for Stats: Always hated it from day 1. I have never liked any mechanic that makes a character screwed for life, and rolling for stats/HP has always been one of those. Adding random rolls to the mix at character generation only leads to dissatisfied players and feeling of stat envy, and when you don't like your character, you're going to find a way to kill him off so you get a reroll. With point-buy you basically eliminate the stat envy problem, and everyone feels like their character gets an equal chance.

Grids and the Battlemap: Honestly using a grid all the time got plain tiring. While it's nice as an organizational tool, having to set it up for each and every combat got very limiting and felt tedious. Worse still it really felt like it emphasized a lot of the storytelling problems of turn based combat, where the other guy is standing frozen in time while you move around him to flank and attack. 

Vancian Casting: I've never been intensely against vancian casting, if anything my main objection to it is that it doesn't work well with 3E style open multiclassing, a concept that I love. I feel like Vancian casting is overly complicated and bloated, but it's one of those things that I could accept in the game without much objection, so long as wizards as a class are balanced.
Save or Die was just to.......boring for me to really enjoy. In 3E it became a contest of who could cast the first SoD/SoS spells first and then roll over the bad-guy in the encounter. There is LITTLE tactial play when it comes to "instant-win" buttons and for me, that doesn't fit the cinematic view I have of D&D battles. IT's like walking into the bad guys lair and as soon as he finishes the speech of doom and gloom, someone fires off a disintegrate, Phantasmal Killer, Finger of Death, etc.... and *wham* he's dead, the battles done, no one else does anything else except search him for loose change. That is boring.

Instead, I like 4E take whre it might take 2 or 3 rounds of saves to finally die, but each failed save makes your condition worse (like 4E's medusa). Also, lets hope D&D:Next doesn't make the mistake of changing people's ability scores and levels to which all the math has to be redone as the effects stack or are removed on a round-by-round basis. That was REALLY freakin' annoying.

As for rolling for stats, this is an area that I really don't care either way. The average rolling for stats nets you higher scores that a set number of Point-Buy, but at the chance of  getting a few REALLY low ones. I always let my players decide, either rolling 4d6 seven times and dropping the lowest die/lowest score Or just taking Point-buy. Most PCs go with point buy because it's a safer bet than rolling. Same with HP, though more likely than not I just like giving max-HP because rolling for it really does suck.
^^ Agreed my main beef with save or die is how boring it is.  Finger of Death should be a wrestling match at equal lvls

  

Vancian Casting: I've never been intensely against vancian casting, if anything my main objection to it is that it doesn't work well with 3E style open multiclassing, a concept that I love.




Vancian has its place with multiclassing. It allows you to pick and choose the right spells. If there is a sorcerer theme with mirror image it would be a multiclass boon. Most of the themes lack the defense magic.
I too enjoyed very much 4E and I'm very very excited about DDN. In part because of the reasons the OP mentions, and in part because I did have some problems with 4E regarding out of combat mechanics. So far, I am loving backgrounds and stuff like skill mastery and rituals (much better than 4E's). 
I hated 4e (you couldent pay me to play it again) and everything you mention that crazy and really crazy people want, I want.

1) I hate point buy stats (ok lets all make sure we have two 18s in the two major stats for every class and make sure dump stats like Cha are completely ignored so every party member looks and acts like gilligan with big muscles etc)



This is only a problem if the there is no downside to dumping stats.  4e made a great effort to make every stat valuable in some form for every class, so assigning points had some degree of variance.  Escalating point costs makes raising stats exponentially more expensive.  Fighters made STR their primary stat (given that almost all powers were based on STR), and then usually had DEX, CON, or WIS as a secondary.  It wasn't really worth making that secondary stat (let's say...CON) as high as the primary, because your tertiary stats would then be as low as your dump stat, and a fighter with low INT, CHA, WIS, and DEX would suck, even with the 18 STR and 18 CON.  A bunch of Gilligan's with big muscles would be as ineffective as it sounds.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
  A system that would please everyone? are they crazy?  Its like someone coming into the presidential debate and saying they can satisfy every one of the demands and agendas of both sides all at once.  If it was possible, it'd have been done long ago right?



Wether in D&D or politics, it is possible.  Or pretty close. 
The reason it's not done is an equel combination of $ (IE; someones not profiting enough by doing x) & just plain trying to screw over the other guy - even if it's not in anyones interest.
 

Save or Die was just to.......boring for me to really enjoy. In 3E it became a contest of who could cast the first SoD/SoS spells first and then roll over the bad-guy in the encounter. There is LITTLE tactial play when it comes to "instant-win" buttons and for me, that doesn't fit the cinematic view I have of D&D battles. IT's like walking into the bad guys lair and as soon as he finishes the speech of doom and gloom, someone fires off a disintegrate, Phantasmal Killer, Finger of Death, etc.... and *wham* he's dead, the battles done, no one else does anything else except search him for loose change. That is boring.

Instead, I like 4E take whre it might take 2 or 3 rounds of saves to finally die, but each failed save makes your condition worse (like 4E's medusa). Also, lets hope D&D:Next doesn't make the mistake of changing people's ability scores and levels to which all the math has to be redone as the effects stack or are removed on a round-by-round basis. That was REALLY freakin' annoying.

As for rolling for stats, this is an area that I really don't care either way. The average rolling for stats nets you higher scores that a set number of Point-Buy, but at the chance of  getting a few REALLY low ones. I always let my players decide, either rolling 4d6 seven times and dropping the lowest die/lowest score Or just taking Point-buy. Most PCs go with point buy because it's a safer bet than rolling. Same with HP, though more likely than not I just like giving max-HP because rolling for it really does suck.



Quickened Split-Ray Disintegrate, followed by a Split-Ray Disintegrate. That was always fun... 

And yes let's avoid the headache inducing book keeping of modifying levels and stats in the middle of combat, I'm with you on that one.

As for point buy vs rolling, I'll usually go with point buy as I feel it is far more balanced and even, and avoids a lot of the problems with what one poster above called stat-envy. There are times my group and I like to roll for stats just for the nostalgia of it though, but I usually try and make sure that everyone is around the same amount of points. If this means someone rolls really well, everyone else (unless they roll well on their own) will be within a few points of the high roller.

As for rolling HP, we didn't in 4e (obviously), but towards the end of 2nd we tended to roll once and then take the average if it was lower than the average and I carried that into 3rd when it came out. I like that Next has the choice between rolled or average baked in. 

 
So my last post was more of a response. I was thinking of starting my own thread, but then realized this is as good a place as any to make the post I want to make since it falls in line with what the OP stated to a degree. 

First off, like the OP, I am a 4e lover and I have a soft spot for 2nd as well, and I personally do not care for 3rd. My time with it was...well, for me and my group, not fun. I'll leave it at that. Now I've made it no secret that the first playtest packet did not inspire me or my group to even try it, let alone give the system a second chance mainly because to us it smacked of 3rd edition design. I tossed the printed off packet after my group and I looked through it and never gave it another thought. But I kept an eye out on things here to see if things were looking up at all. To see if the designers were even taking our feedback to heart. To see if they were going to keep their word to us and do things like add fighter complexity and make the rogue more interesting. So it was that I saw that there was a new packet out as of a few days ago. 

I started reading through it, and not seeing many changes at first I became a bit disheartened. But then I saw them. The changes, and they were many once I got further into the packet(s). I was very, very, pleasantly surprised. Fighter expertise dice are a nice concept, and I actually kind of like the rogue, though it still seems a bit...lacking to a small degree. So now I have actually managed to talk my group into playtesting it, and honestly I'm kind of excited about it.

I like that it seems a bit more streamlined and easier to manage overall. To me it looks like they took the parts of 4e that made it easy to run and play and mixed them with the parts of 2e that made it easy to run and play. All in all that's a good thing. Like 2e the mechanics are obvious and it's easy to see how things run under the hood (4e wasn't so clear on some things), like 4e it looks like they are trying to balance classes, make them interesting, and make sure that everyone will have fun no matter what they play. Also the added basic fluff is a plus for me. It's one of the things I missed in 4e to be quite honest. Also, Specialties and Backgrounds? Very nice. Allows for a wide breadth of character concepts, even with just the ones we have now. Can't wait to see what else they have in store for us.          
I hated 4e (you couldent pay me to play it again) and everything you mention that crazy and really crazy people want, I want.

1) I hate point buy stats (ok lets all make sure we have two 18s in the two major stats for every class

I see you only ever play with extreme char-oppers. But rather inept ones; most char-oppers in 4E prefer to have a 20 in their primary stat at level 1, and that makes it impossible to have 18 in a secondary stat using standard point-buy. In fact, even having 18 in two stats isn't possible unless you get racial bonuses for both, which rather restricts the race/class combos. I've never played a character that had 18 in two stats at level 1, and only a few have had over 18 in even one stat.

If I were playing alongside the sort of player you are apparently so accustomed to that you think they are universal... I'd much prefer 4E over 3E or 3.5E, because it's vastly less abusable.

And even at that, I'd rather have them abuse the system by *restricting themselves* to race/class combos that get racial boosts to both stats, than abuse it by rerolling (or, worse, committing suicide-by-orc) until they get an array of 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14 or better.

But if you really want to enable that sort of abuse... guess what, rolling for stats is an officially approved way of building them in 4E, if the group likes it (and, if the group likes it, could be done WITHOUT official approval).

and make sure dump stats like Cha are completely ignored so every party member looks and acts like gilligan with big muscles etc)

I also see that you haven't looked at the assortment of classes in 4E. Every attribute is a primary or secondary attribute for at least 4 builds in PHB1 alone, with the sole exception of Constitution - which is primary or secondary for only two builds, but is also the basic attribute for the rather important issue of hit points. All Warlocks, some Warlords, some Clerics, and some Paladins are going to be rather upset if you tell them to dump Charisma.

4E is the least bad edition to date at what you condemn it for.

So, since you have no understanding of 4E point-buy of ability scores, and no understanding of 4E classes... exactly what exposure to 4E did you have before deciding you hate it?

2)Grid combat is great when absolutely necesary but running without the grid is just fine when the encounter really isnt too deadly or important. actually without measuring and forcing people to look over exactly what their characters need to do speeds up minor combats a lot so in a typical 4hr session your not restricted to 2 minor and 1 major combats.

Guess what, that's how we've done combat in 4E.

And here's why I don't want a 4 hour session to be restricted to 2 minor and 1 major combats: because that doesn't leave enough time for anything else. I'd rather 1 major combat and use the remaining 3.5 hours for other things.

But I was part of a rather large group when we made the change-over from 3.5E to 4E. We usually did 5-hour sessions, sometimes 6-hour. It was a large group. In 3.5e (11 PCs) our combats routinely lasted a full session to a session and a half - yes, that's for ONE combat encounter. In 4E, with the same DM and 7 PCs, usually fifteen minutes to an hour.
 
3)I dont care what spell system we use but I dont want at-will abilities or any casting that cannot be easily disrupted by a peasant with a rock.

That's purely a matter of taste. I don't have a problem with your taste so dramatically differing from mine... as long as you don't try to claim that the system which matches my taste better is objectively bad for that reason.

4)save or die is absolutely fine with me as long as the players dont mind when its used on them.

I don't mind it in any game I am not part of. It will have no place in any game I am part of.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

Vancian has its place with multiclassing. It allows you to pick and choose the right spells. If there is a sorcerer theme with mirror image it would be a multiclass boon. Most of the themes lack the defense magic.



The problem inherent with vancian magic and multiclassing is that by definition you're not getting level appropriate abilities. The whole concept of vancian magic is that each spell level is better than the one before it, and what constitutes a 5th level spell is an appropriate ability for a 9th level wizard. The problem is that when you're an 8th level fighter multiclassing into wizard to fighter 8/ wizard 1, you're not getting an ability appropriate for a 9th level character (which is what you are). Instead you're getting a level-appropriate ability for a 1st level character. That's a huge problem and why 3E required a ton of bandaid classes for multiclass casters to try not to have thier casting fall behind.

Compare that with the 4E paradigm and you'll see a definite difference. There a 9th level character wants to multiclass to wizard, his powers remain level appropriate, he's just swapping out a fighter power for a wizard power, but the actual levels of his powers don't change. So power wise, he's not any weaker. Now he just has a splash of wizard with his fighter.

It's almost unavoidable in a vancian system though to not screw over the guy multiclassing to a spellcaster. Yeah, he can rely on just buffing himself with displacement and mirror image, but most people who multiclass want to be throwing damage spells too, and you just can't do that effectively.
I would like the save effect from 4E to be carried over to 5E, but instead of making it a 50/50 propositon, just replace it with the current saving throw system. This was a great method to esculate tension, epecially with increasing effects after each failed roll. In addition, it was easy to track because each round it was on or off. But utimately I am going to find it hard to accept the pacing of encounters and recovery in 5E. 4E addressed this much better, but it went to far on the hit point scale, damage, and constant conditions changes to make combat slower than it needed to be. With 5E, things will swing very fast, as evident in previous editions of D&D.

The problem inherent with vancian magic and multiclassing is that by definition you're not getting level appropriate abilities. The whole concept of vancian magic is that each spell level is better than the one before it, and what constitutes a 5th level spell is an appropriate ability for a 9th level wizard. The problem is that when you're an 8th level fighter multiclassing into wizard to fighter 8/ wizard 1, you're not getting an ability appropriate for a 9th level character (which is what you are). Instead you're getting a level-appropriate ability for a 1st level character. That's a huge problem and why 3E required a ton of bandaid classes for multiclass casters to try not to have thier casting fall behind.



I take no issue with this at all. A huge problem would be if the fighter could all the sudden cast 5th lvl spells with 1 lvl in mage. A lvl in wizard gives you a nice buff or utility and the ability to use magic items. That can be more valuable than the extra lvl in Ftr. 


Compare that with the 4E paradigm and you'll see a definite difference. There a 9th level character wants to multiclass to wizard, his powers remain level appropriate, he's just swapping out a fighter power for a wizard power, but the actual levels of his powers don't change. So power wise, he's not any weaker. Now he just has a splash of wizard with his fighter.



Reason why I dont use 4E's multiclassing. Swapping a fighter power for a wizard power of the same level is absurd and artificial.


It's almost unavoidable in a vancian system though to not screw over the guy multiclassing to a spellcaster. Yeah, he can rely on just buffing himself with displacement and mirror image, but most people who multiclass want to be throwing damage spells too, and you just can't do that effectively.



You can if you invest more than 10% of your lvls or use a wand. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I take no issue with this at all. A huge problem would be if the fighter could all the sudden cast 5th lvl spells with 1 lvl in mage. A lvl in wizard gives you a nice buff or utility and the ability to use magic items. That can be more valuable than the extra lvl in Ftr. 


Well you should take issue, because it means that a multiclass character is getting hosed and is weaker than the single class variant. You'll never make a balanced game sticking with vancian multiclass, because getting 1st level wizard spells is absolutely meaningless for a 10th level character. 

Do you disagree that the multiclass character is underpowered, or do you just think that it's fine if multiclass characters suck worse than everyone else?


Reason why I dont use 4E's multiclassing. Swapping a fighter power for a wizard power of the same level is absurd and artificial.


Why?

The guy crossed his training in fighter and wizard, so some of his powers are fighter and some are wizard. It seems perfectly logical to me.



You can if you invest more than 10% of your lvls or use a wand. 



If you're just going to use a wand, you might as well just be a UMD rogue, not to mention you may not be able to get a wand under the current magic item system.

As far as investing levels, it really doesn't matter what percentage you invest, in any case you fall behind. Even if you're a fighter 5/Wizard 4 and take a 5th wizard level, you're a 10th level character and getting an ability appropriate for a 5th level character. You're still getting hosed.

To put things in perspective with earlier editions, in 1E/2E, a multiclass character would be roughly 1 level behind (because you had to split your XP and XP progression doubled each level), so you'd end up wtih a fighter 5/mage 5 and a fighter 6 travelling in the same group. Which wasn't so bad. Going with the 3E open multiclassing however, you'd end up with with a fighter 6 and a fighter 3/mage 3. That's a huge power hit.


Do you disagree that the multiclass character is underpowered, or do you just think that it's fine if multiclass characters suck worse than everyone else? 



As near as I can tell anyone who bothers taking levels in "mundane"
gets what they deserve /sarcasm
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sufficiently advanced science skill - becomes indistinguishable from magic,
Although it isnt always advanced - sometimes its just esoteric. The ancients certaily attributed magic to many skills including Warrior magic, Kings Magic, Blacksmith Magic, little rituals and behaviors (like meditation, like actions used to pump up your adrenaline, like creating sling stones out of enemy brains, tasting the blood of an enemy or taking oaths of fealty) that just werent always comprehensible to the uninitiated and results seemingly disconnected which astounded.

I like explicit gish glasses because when designing magics for them natural connections are created
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Well you should take issue, because it means that a multiclass character is getting hosed and is weaker than the single class variant. You'll never make a balanced game sticking with vancian multiclass, because getting 1st level wizard spells is absolutely meaningless for a 10th level character. 

Do you disagree that the multiclass character is underpowered, or do you just think that it's fine if multiclass characters suck worse than everyone else?



All things being equal a small dab in any class should be less efficent than a pure complete focus in one class. Thats good. It promotes pure characters. The exception may be had with a surplus of wands, rods, scrolls, and maybe a low lvl ring of wizadry. In a high magic setting or situation that Ftr 9 Wiz 1 is a more effective character than the Ftr 10. 




Why?

The guy crossed his training in fighter and wizard, so some of his powers are fighter and some are wizard. It seems perfectly logical to me.



Then it should cost more xp. Crossing training should result in a more even split of classes or swordmage type. Where is the sacrafice in fighting skills? 3E already has an exessive amount of low level martial dabbling, this would make high lvl caster dabbling esseintial. 





If you're just going to use a wand, you might as well just be a UMD rogue, not to mention you may not be able to get a wand under the current magic item system.

As far as investing levels, it really doesn't matter what percentage you invest, in any case you fall behind. Even if you're a fighter 5/Wizard 4 and take a 5th wizard level, you're a 10th level character and getting an ability appropriate for a 5th level character. You're still getting hosed.

To put things in perspective with earlier editions, in 1E/2E, a multiclass character would be roughly 1 level behind (because you had to split your XP and XP progression doubled each level), so you'd end up wtih a fighter 5/mage 5 and a fighter 6 travelling in the same group. Which wasn't so bad. Going with the 3E open multiclassing however, you'd end up with with a fighter 6 and a fighter 3/mage 3. That's a huge power hit.




You are selling it short. Even when splitting xp it kept pace up to lvl 10. Give a party 500Kxp and you have a pure 10th lvl ftr and a ftr/wiz at 9/9. If it wasnt for racial limits that would have made multiclassing overpowered. Instead it was an unbalanced seesaw worse than the pure mages supremacy arc though not as bad as dual classing. An even 3e split was also dependant on situation. It was more valuable to smaller parties, more valuable in high magic settings/situations, or just a bridge to a prestigue class. 





Then it should cost more xp. Crossing training should result in a more even split of classes or swordmage type. Where is the sacrafice in fighting skills? 3E already has an exessive amount of low level martial dabbling, this would make high lvl caster dabbling esseintial. 


The sacrifice in fighting skills is in a lower BAB and hit poionts and the fact that you can't cast your spells in armor, and a loss of feats because of fewer fighter levels.

And given what you're giving up to utilize spells, those spells better give you something. I'm not saying you should have anywhere near the assortment of options a full blown wizard has, but at the very least give the guy a level appropriate spell. Honestly there's no problem with a Fighter 3/ Wizard 3 throwing fireballs. Not as many spells as a full blown wizard of course, but there's nothing really wrong with a 6th level character behaving like a 6th level character.


You are selling it short. Even when splitting xp it kept pace up to lvl 10. Give a party 500Kxp and you have a pure 10th lvl ftr and a ftr/wiz at 9/9. If it wasnt for racial limits that would have made multiclassing overpowered. Instead it was an unbalanced seesaw worse than the pure mages supremacy arc though not as bad as dual classing. An even 3e split was also dependant on situation. It was more valuable to smaller parties, more valuable in high magic settings/situations, or just a bridge to a prestigue class.



An even 3E split was never useful, that is why they created the Eldritch knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, Spell sword and god knows how many other prestige classes specifically targetted to make multiclass casters not totally suck.

Now you might be right that being 1 level behind in 2E was overpowered, but the 3E even split was heavily underpowered and only got worse so. Fighter 1/ Wizard 1 was passable, Fighter 10/wizard 10 was pathetically underpowered. The problem is that you kept getting weaker and weaker abilities.




The sacrifice in fighting skills is in a lower BAB and hit points and the fact that you can't cast your spells in armor, and a loss of feats because of fewer fighter levels. 


5e is supposed to curve hp bloat so im not sure you are going to get full hit dice at later lvls. A fighter's hp and BAB have value in their total. Losing a levels worth for high level spells is an unbalanced deal. Its also not feasible without AEDU and overly mechanical with it. Who wouldnt trade a couple combat manuvers for the ability to cast high lvl spells? There would be no reason to not start off as a fighter before multiclassing to a spell caster. Its dual classing all over again.... 


And given what you're giving up to utilize spells, those spells better give you something. I'm not saying you should have anywhere near the assortment of options a full blown wizard has, but at the very least give the guy a level appropriate spell. Honestly there's no problem with a Fighter 3/ Wizard 3 throwing fireballs. Not as many spells as a full blown wizard of course, but there's nothing really wrong with a 6th level character behaving like a 6th level character. 


If you dont like the trade dont make it. If the ability to use magic items, cantrips and bump your AC with shield isnt worth a lvl in ftr then take the lvl in fighter. Its situational thus its balanced on its own. If something is already balanced, follows sound logic, then fix something else. 



An even 3E split was never useful, that is why they created the Eldritch knight, Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, Spell sword and god knows how many other prestige classes specifically targetted to make multiclass casters not totally suck. 

Now you might be right that being 1 level behind in 2E was overpowered, but the 3E even split was heavily underpowered and only got worse so. Fighter 1/ Wizard 1 was passable, Fighter 10/wizard 10 was pathetically underpowered. The problem is that you kept getting weaker and weaker abilities.


An even split was useful in some context and viable in many until higher lvls. I agree Prestige Classes did accommodate the Fighter 10/wizard 10 who was underpowered. Ive roleplayed Ranger/Bards and Ranger/Sorcerers so I know well how underpowered they will become and to what extent the Prestige Class may or may not make up for it. 



The solution is to be honest and explain that certain class combos or any high lvl split should take a Prestige class. Thats what I liked about 2e. It was honest if nothing else. They told us that men were stronger than women and the wizard would suck in the beginning.






5e is supposed to curve hp bloat so im not sure you are going to get full hit dice at later lvls. A fighter's hp and BAB have value in their total. Losing a levels worth for high level spells is an unbalanced deal. Its also not feasible without AEDU and overly mechanical with it. Who wouldnt trade a couple combat manuvers for the ability to cast high lvl spells? There would be no reason to not start off as a fighter before multiclassing to a spell caster. Its dual classing all over again.... 




It's not quite that simple. You give up your ability to wear armor (at least if you want to use your spells). Not to mention lets not forget ability scores. To be a multiclass you need an extra ability score, which is also likely to weaken your overall fighting ability, since you now have to split between str/dex/con/int. 


As far as giving up combat manuevers. That was only an issue in 3E, because the high level feats tended not to be worthwhile. In fact, fighters didn't get level appropriate abilities back then, so being a 10th level fighter was a suckers game anyway due to imbalance, so obviously yeah, you'd rather be a mage, but that's only because mages were flat out better back then. If the fighter powers are competitive, then choosing if you want a fighter or wizard ability now becomes a valid choice.




If you dont like the trade dont make it. If the ability to use magic items, cantrips and bump your AC with shield isnt worth a lvl in ftr then take the lvl in fighter. Its situational thus its balanced on its own. If something is already balanced, follows sound logic, then fix something else. 




That sort of attitude leads to bad game design. The fighter/mage is a staple fantasy concept and handling it poorly under the rules is just not acceptable. While it shouldn't be so good as to make the straight fighter or straight mage look suboptimal, it shouldn't be so bad where taking it just makes you suck.



The solution is to be honest and explain that certain class combos or any high lvl split should take a Prestige class. Thats what I liked about 2e. It was honest if nothing else. They told us that men were stronger than women and the wizard would suck in the beginning.




Prestige classes for simple concepts like fighter/mage is just a symptom of bad game design. It's overly complex and quite honestly unnecessary. You already have a multiclass system, why not actually you know... make it work?

Trap options were one of the reasons I hated 3E. There were just way too many feats, Prestige classes, and spells that were totally useless that you had to wade through to get to anything worthwhile. The goal of the gaming system should be to make as many options work as possible. I mean, if I want broken multiclassing, I can just play 3rd edition. That's already been done. I'd like the system to work this time around, otherwise, why buy a new edition if it's the same bad design that the old edition suffered from?

As far as having deliberate imbalance and just being honest with us about it. No. I don't want to have to deal with having to put up with the designers preferences where they think greatsword warriors are the greatest thing ever and finesse fighters suck and design it accordingly. If they're going to make a class, make it competitive. They already made that edition. If i wanted to play that I'd just dig out my 3rd edition books.

This is really not that hard a problem to solve.

When you snag a level in another class, you don't get any "If X is your first class..." abilities.

If the new class has better armour options, you only climb one type. No armour > Leather > Chainmail etc.

And you base some powers on Class level, and some on Character level. So a Wizard 1/Fighter 5 would only get three spell levels (like a 1st level wizard) but could use them on any spell up to 3rd level (based on their character level of 6th.)







 


It's not quite that simple. You give up your ability to wear armor (at least if you want to use your spells). Not to mention lets not forget ability scores. To be a multiclass you need an extra ability score, which is also likely to weaken your overall fighting ability, since you now have to split between str/dex/con/int. 


As far as giving up combat manuevers. That was only an issue in 3E, because the high level feats tended not to be worthwhile. In fact, fighters didn't get level appropriate abilities back then, so being a 10th level fighter was a suckers game anyway due to imbalance, so obviously yeah, you'd rather be a mage, but that's only because mages were flat out better back then. If the fighter powers are competitive, then choosing if you want a fighter or wizard ability now becomes a valid choice.


Wizards should be able to cast with armor on albeit with some penalty or delay. I dont want to use that restrictive nonsense to discourage a fighter with average intelligence from taking one spell casting level. I just dont want that lvl to give them Cloudkill. 

It depends on the feat. A Barbarian breaking someone's back is a good high lvl maneuver that might match a high lvl spell the difference is that the Barbarian worked his way up to get there and deserves to be able to break backs. You are saying that if the Barbarian has average intelligence teach him how to read and give him Finger of Death? What?? We might as well go full on anime if we are going to hand out magic that easy. Not only is it artificial, ungrounded, and no more or less balanced than simply giving them 1st lvl spells.  I'm not ok with that and its not because I like playing mages.  My favorite class in 3E was the weakest. The Ranger baby.  
 




That sort of attitude leads to bad game design. The fighter/mage is a staple fantasy concept and handling it poorly under the rules is just not acceptable. While it shouldn't be so good as to make the straight fighter or straight mage look suboptimal, it shouldn't be so bad where taking it just makes you suck. 

 

Dont question the attitude question the logic behind. In some situations a Fighter 10/ Mage 1 will have an advantage over a Fighter 10.  You cant dispute that.  

You wont suck unless you dont take a prestige class. A Fighter 5/Mage 5 is a solid character. Not a great killer but one hell of a survivalist.

Bad game design is taking something that isnt broke and fixing it. The cool thing about D&D is it cant and doesnt just live up to philosophical game mechanics. Even if you could balance the Barbarian casting Finger of Death with one level in Mage it would not work. Breaks the ambiance.







Prestige classes for simple concepts like fighter/mage is just a symptom of bad game design. It's overly complex and quite honestly unnecessary. You already have a multiclass system, why not actually you know... make it work?


Trap options were one of the reasons I hated 3E. There were just way too many feats, Prestige classes, and spells that were totally useless that you had to wade through to get to anything worthwhile. The goal of the gaming system should be to make as many options work as possible. I mean, if I want broken multiclassing, I can just play 3rd edition. That's already been done. I'd like the system to work this time around, otherwise, why buy a new edition if it's the same bad design that the old edition suffered from? 



 erdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">


Some people want to use the classes. Even if you were to be honest about the Fighter 10/ Mage 10 being weak and lowered their CL giving them more xp some folks would still aspire to be arcane archers and spell blades. The Prestige classes are problematic. Some are too powerful and some are too weak. They are bloated... yet they have two functions. They let people roleplay cool exotic and grounded characters while saving certain multiclass combos from suckyness. 






As far as having deliberate imbalance and just being honest with us about it. No. I don't want to have to deal with having to put up with the designers preferences where they think greatsword warriors are the greatest thing ever and finesse fighters suck and design it accordingly. If they're going to make a class, make it competitive. They already made that edition. If i wanted to play that I'd just dig out my 3rd edition books. 






It wasnt deliberately imbalanced. The weak low lvl mage was balanced by the reward of a strong high lvl mage. If it was imbalanced it wasnt deliberate.   

Rory the 5/5 f/mu in 3e was horrible compared to either a f 10 or heaven help us a mu 10 it was so horrid they made multiple prestige classes and even basic classes to give the feel of a traditional f-mu.

A MUCH better example of that archetype was the 4e Swordmage or Hybrid Swordmage-Wiz (which would be my preffered example if I were to run that sort of char) .
I have to agree.  Fighter/Wizard was simply terrible - a complete and utter trap option.
At F5/W5 : 
1/ BAB was 7 vs Fighter's 10.   He gets his 2nd attack, but has to wait till 8th level to get it.  The F10 is about to get his 3rd attack.
2/ NADs are 5/2/5, which tanks Reflex compared to either Mage or Fighter, but only really by 1 point. The other two defenses are a decent compromise.  No real problem here.
3/ 3rd level Spells. This is the biggie.  A Wizard 10 has 5th level spells.  The difference, in 3rd edition is collossal (they don't call them Quadratic Casters for nothing) .  And CL is still only 5, vs 10.   CL 5 isn't going to really do much of anything vs Save DCs, or Spell Resistance appropriate to a Level 10 party.  So this guys is probably going to be focussing on self-buffs.   But for every one of those , he's just playing catch up to the F10 (boosting STR, for example, to make some of the lost BAB back).  

Lets follow this to the foregone conclusion, Level 20 : Fighter 10/Wizard 10.  

He has no Prestige Classes which allow him to cast in armor, so he's either fighting in Melee without armor (relying on Mage Armor and other buffs) or he's casting all his spells as early as possible and donning armor to go into combat (this was only possible before 3.5, because 3.5 reduced hour-long buffs to minutes-long). 

His BAB is only 15.  He misses out on the last of the iterative attacks.  The real problem is he has 5 pips out of 20 fewer chances to hit his enemies. This is a gigantic deficit.. Hopefully he has enough touch-attacks to make it possible for him to contribute.
His Hps are poor compared with his other front-line friends. 
And his Spells are only 5th level, compared with 9th level.   That's the difference between, say, Gate and Summoning V.. Or Wish and Cone of Cold. Or Shapechange vs .. well his whole character. 

His caster level  is a mere 10.  He is almost completely unable to affect any level-appropriate enemy with his spells (save or dies are useless to him) and the direct-damage spells are now far below the output of either the F20 or the W20.  


At 1/1 the character is just fine,
At 5/5 the character is suffering.
At 10/10 the character is a joke, pure and simple.

In 3.5, making a gish character *viable* required a careful juggling of prestige classes (you'll need more than Eldritch Knight if you're planning to go to level 20, because most prestige classes don't have more than 10 levels.. and while F2/W3/EK10 was .. adequate..  you still have 5 more levels to go)
Multiclassing shouldnt be a trap option let heros be true talents... and ditch that thinking entirely.

You didnt find out til late in life and arent as versatile as you might have been but you are still a walking poster boy of power.

Or its been a subtle part of your training all along and your meditations have been building up to their greater expressions.

Visualize any multiclassing in the style of the swordmage... an integrated manifestation not.. a pasted on Im learning like a newbie.


 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Rory the 5/5 f/mu in 3e was horrible compared to either a f 10 or heaven help us a mu 10 it was so horrid they made multiple prestige classes and even basic classes to give the feel of a traditional f-mu.

A MUCH better example of that archetype was the 4e Swordmage or Hybrid Swordmage-Wiz (which would be my preffered example if I were to run that sort of char) .




Not horrible. The character had versatility. It was a matter of usage. My preference for free multiclass splits and prestige classes to 4e Hybrids might just be the Forgotten Realms freak in me. I'm also a variety-is-the-spice-of-life ADHD type. 3E multiclass characters cover every possible combo and does a decent job of discouraging the odd.

Rory the 5/5 f/mu in 3e was horrible compared to either a f 10 or heaven help us a mu 10 it was so horrid they made multiple prestige classes and even basic classes to give the feel of a traditional f-mu.

A MUCH better example of that archetype was the 4e Swordmage or Hybrid Swordmage-Wiz (which would be my preffered example if I were to run that sort of char) .




Not horrible. The character had versatility. It was a matter of usage. My preference for free multiclass splits and prestige classes to 4e Hybrids might just be the Forgotten Realms freak in me. I'm also a variety-is-the-spice-of-life ADHD type. 3E multiclass characters cover every possible combo and does a decent job of discouraging the odd.




I used to prefer the 3rd edition version. I really did.  But I have to ask myself why?  For me it was the "mini-game" of char-op. Well, actually, not so much "optimization" as "can I make this character concept viable?"  I used to play a lot of GURPS -- well, DM it mostly.  The granularity of control over abilities in that game was something I'd become accustomed to.  D&D and it's classes seemed like straightjackets to me.  When I started back as a casual player of 3rd edition, I wanted to build one of my favourite character styles - a sword wielding wizard.  (basically, a bladesinger or sword mage).  Stylistically, I love that idea.  So dabbling in Swashbuckler seemed like a great idea... at first.   But then the reality set in.  I was a lot less of a wizard for every one of those levels I would take.  And I didn't make much of a swashbuckler either. 

It was a trap.

So I found the Char-Op board and things started to get much clearer.  And FUN.. 

I felt ripped off when 4E came along and ripped out that mini-game.  Multi-classing just wasn't as much of a challenge anymore.

But it also wasn't a trap.  No more did you need to take W3/F1/Abjurant Champion 5/EK5/Spellblade 1 to build your Gish character. You could just make a Swordmage or a Bladesinger Wizard and have an acceptable character.  Sure you *could* hybrid and multiclass three or more classes on your half-elven Bard with Eldritch Strike at-Will .. or something. But it wasn't required just to be viable. 
 


So I found the Char-Op board and things started to get much clearer.  And FUN.. 

I felt ripped off when 4E came along and ripped out that mini-game.  Multi-classing just wasn't as much of a challenge anymore.

But it also wasn't a trap.  No more did you need to take W3/F1/Abjurant Champion 5/EK5/Spellblade 1 to build your Gish character. You could just make a Swordmage or a Bladesinger Wizard and have an acceptable character.  Sure you *could* hybrid and multiclass three or more classes on your half-elven Bard with Eldritch Strike at-Will .. or something. But it wasn't required just to be viable. 
 



Its only viable if that is what you want from lvl 1. Even if I wanted a Gish at 1 having a prerec is a worthy trade for imbalanced multiclasses. 


So I found the Char-Op board and things started to get much clearer.  And FUN.. 

I felt ripped off when 4E came along and ripped out that mini-game.  Multi-classing just wasn't as much of a challenge anymore.

But it also wasn't a trap.  No more did you need to take W3/F1/Abjurant Champion 5/EK5/Spellblade 1 to build your Gish character. You could just make a Swordmage or a Bladesinger Wizard and have an acceptable character.  Sure you *could* hybrid and multiclass three or more classes on your half-elven Bard with Eldritch Strike at-Will .. or something. But it wasn't required just to be viable. 
 



Its only viable if that is what you want from lvl 1. Even if I wanted a Gish at 1 having a prerec is a worthy trade for imbalanced multiclasses. 



Not sure what you mean here. "..having a prerec is a worthy trade for imbalanced multiclasses." 

Are you saying that you want the evolution of a character from 1 class (say Fighter) over the course of his existence to pick up spells later (say, Wizard levels) and that this is a viable course for a character to develop?  If so, I can agree with that in principle.  I can see a "fighting man" eventually realizing his aptitude for magic and ending his "Career" as a powerful mage (and even retaining his fighting form).  

So long as we can avoid the "trap" where doing it by taking 5 levels of fighter, and then 5 levels of wizard, gives me a gimpy character.  As someone else observed, in 3rd edition the only way this was viable was if you took spells that supported being a fighter.  The fighter levels did almost nothing for the Wizard side of the character, and every one of them made you less useful as a wizard (and arguably, less useful overall, because being a Wizard was just that good). 

 
Multiclassing shouldnt be a trap option let heros be true talents... and ditch that thinking entirely.

You didnt find out til late in life and arent as versatile as you might have been but you are still a walking poster boy of power.

Or its been a subtle part of your training all along and your meditations have been building up to their greater expressions.

Visualize any multiclassing in the style of the swordmage... an integrated manifestation not.. a pasted on Im learning like a newbie.


 




What you are describing isnt my vision of a swordmage. A swordmage is someone who decided to learn magic and sword from day one together. Its Link from Zelda. So from day one they were beginners, newbies etc.



Your description is multiclassing as it was in NWN 2.. in a way. It was just a Dwarf that went from an 8th lvl ftr to an 8th lvl monk. I didnt like it in the game. Nice game though. I would have rather the Dwarven fighter become a monk slowly so I get an initial slop of Monk skills ie 3e frontloading then a trickle of low lvl Monk feats. You could do this without giving low level useless feats. Hybrid feats that offer a strong ftr influence to make up for monk inexperience could solve the issue.  Im seeing a feat tree that connects all classes. Something like that would discourage people from using more than three classes. I would want the tree to be optional with an xp scaled alternative so not every Ftr/Wiz has to be a swordmage.  

Multiclassing shouldnt be a trap option let heros be true talents... and ditch that thinking entirely.

You didnt find out til late in life and arent as versatile as you might have been but you are still a walking poster boy of power.

Or its been a subtle part of your training all along and your meditations have been building up to their greater expressions.

Visualize any multiclassing in the style of the swordmage... an integrated manifestation not.. a pasted on Im learning like a newbie.
 

What you are describing isnt my vision of a swordmage. A swordmage is someone who decided to learn magic and sword from day one together. Its Link from Zelda. So from day one they were beginners, newbies etc.



Right I wasnt shooting for a swordmage... really I was saying if you were multiclassing the kinds of abilities you pull in from the merger could be like those of the swordmage (allmost like you are the original inventor of the swordmages art but are getting it later if that makes any sense.) 

Hybrid feats that offer a strong ftr influence to make up for monk inexperience could solve the issue.  


Fighter and monk are almost a trivial inter connect if you allow your forceful combatant style to merge with a forceful flavored martial artist (ie a hard style where strength plus whatever your fighters secondary emphasis are the same.) perhaps the feat cost you mention would make them merge. Many of the 4e Str/Wis Weapon Master Fighter....  flavors very well as a Samurai who mixes up martial arts with his weapon use.... tweaking that in to a monk?

I question without glue whether you can smash classes together and have them work.
  I would want the tree to be optional with an xp scaled alternative so not every Ftr/Wiz has to be a swordmage.  



The swordmage and spellsinger in 4e are kind of point and counter point styled characters the former is very much the mystical swordsman where his abilities very much incorporate his sword use and are manifestations of his sword forms   the latter has some intriguing elements he has learned to be in effect a two fisted combatant where one hand is a sword and the other is an adroit speed emphasized magical attack not very compex but almost like a cantrip simultaneous to a physical attack... 

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 It was just a Dwarf that went from an 8th lvl ftr to an 8th lvl monk.   


Umm no it means I still fight awesome and one of my moves is now a high kick that crashes them across the room (but I dont get any or all of the monkish weapons and I dont get his quivering palm trick.... or I do and dont get that kick or some such)

What it isnt ... is no I can fight like a level 1 monk or a level 8 fighter....  trap.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Sign In to post comments