power sources for all classes?

I have spent sometime trying to playtest. One of the problems I see in the current version (and all previous) is the disparity between casters and non casters. In the attempt  of evoking an “old school feel” the playtest falls in a vats list of options for wizards and clerics, as fighter and rogues are left with much less possibilities. The CS mechanic helps a bit, but not well enough IME. If you go back to 4E the rogue and the fighter better represent the classes’ archetypes.


I think bringing back old mechanics, is not the best way to emphasize the “feel“of the classes, neither the best way to bring back the old school feel of D&D.


I imagine the idea of abandoning the power system as an attempt on pleasing traditionalist players that don´t like the idea that a fighter could use daily resources, and in some cases those who think the power system limits improvisation. I disagree with that, but in an inclusive game I agree we must listen to both sides, so, I´m not married to the AEDU system, I would absolutely accept alternative methods, what I kind of don’t´ like is the idea that casters get all this options and fighters get CS and rogues get skills and sneak attack.


Seeing what they are doing with the monsters, making a pool of common powers for all monsters helps streamlining the system a lot, makes the powers easy to identify on the fly. I think this is pretty nice, and as much as I think monster still need a lot of work , I think they are headed in a good direction, we don’t really need every single monster to have completely unique powers.


Going in the same tread, it’s perfectly coherent that arcane and divine powers are represented in a common list for certain classes to have access. It terminates the problem of similar powers, and prevents power bloat as new classes emerge in the game.  I think the fixed spell list along with fixed monster power list can work well in the game, it can be an improvement from 4E if they do it right.


What is missing is a fixed list of martial powers, available for rogues and fighters, so these classes have the same degree of options and powers than wizards and clerics.  Martial powers could be delivered in different ways than magic powers, not necessarily AEDU. Later a primal power fixed list should be added to the game for classes like Druid and Ranger. Paladins could choose from the martial and the divine list, rangers from martial and primal, and so on. With this method the game could avoid the excessive amount of powers and too many similar powers, and at the same time would give all classes equal opportunities in the game.  


I think something along those lines would be nice for D&D, rather tha complete disparity between classes. I don’t think CS is all bad, but it’s a mechanics that is so different than what the other classes have now it looks like it belongs in a different game. One could build a whole new system with similar mechanics for wizards and clerics, but it would be another game. For the young folks that are just starting with D&D it makes complete sense that their dwarf fighter have as much cool moves as the all mighty wizard. The idead that half of the PHB is dedicated to wizards and clerics doesn´t make any sense anymore. This only pleases the traditionalists of D&D imo. The designers should be aware of this crowd, but the new crowd is important as well, if not more important, as they represent the future of the hobbie. For me, as a personal impression, this is a big problem in the current playtest.

Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?
Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?



1985 called, it wants its arbitrarily restrictive game design back.

i agree with Rupert here, the martial classes could definitely use some more options than what they're offered currently.
So no actual rationale for your position?
So no actual rationale for your position?




Why should only half the people in a team-based game have access to dramatically more options?
So no actual rationale for your position?




Why should only half the people in a team-based game have access to dramatically more options?




I think there's a version of D&D that works the way the OP wants. I for one fervently hope that Next doesn't look much like it when it's on the store shelves, or that's where it will stay.
So no actual rationale for your position?




Why should only half the people in a team-based game have access to dramatically more options?




*content removed*



you can be condescending all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no reason for the majority of the options to fall to only some of the classes.
So no actual rationale for your position?




Why should only half the people in a team-based game have access to dramatically more options?



Because we're all here expert RL wizards and know, know for a fact that it simply isn't magic if it isn't overpowered

Seriously let's say I'm generous and believe people are all master swordsman who know the limits of swordplay enough to fact check it, but then the same people are also master sorcerers who know exactly how manny times a day you can throw a fireball.
So no actual rationale for your position?




Why should only half the people in a team-based game have access to dramatically more options?





Because they realistically would. It's not a pvp match, it's a simulation through narrative.



if it were truly a simulation, the earliest editions of the game would not have twentieth-level fighters capable of performing heroic deeds like slaying dragons and chopping through hoards of lower-level humanoids.

it's first and foremost a game; a game designed for the enjoyment of all the people playing.
I don’t think CS is all bad, but it’s a mechanics that is so different than what the other classes have now it looks like it belongs in a different game. One could build a whole new system with similar mechanics for wizards and clerics, but it would be another game.



Having had a lot of experience with 3e fighter, and some with 4e fighter, the current version of the fighter in Next feels like what I have always expected out of that class. When I opened up the playtest pack and saw that, I thought, "Well, they got that down right out the gate, now if they can do half that good on the other classes this early in the playtest then we're getting somewhere." I do think that classes should have different mechanics. In fact I think class mechanics should be as different as one can reasonably allow without breaking the game. I don't particularly like the idea a common power spell list either. In fact, that is the element of your post that I most strongly disagree with. Was "power bloat" a problem in 3e? Yeah, it was, but that was because each new supplement introduced new spells for each and every available class up to that point. I don't think wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers should all use the same set of spells, with only a small degree of modularity to separate them. Homogenization makes game balance easier, but it makes the game less interesting.

Now for characters like fighters and rogues, and their options. I have to say, I really disliked the power system as a whole with 4e. I ran a bunch of tests and in every single test, I felt like I was playing the same class with a few minor variants and a swapped spell list. I have had some minor exposure to 2e, and I prefered that more than 4e. Am I saying I think fighters and rogues shouldn't have options? Actually, when I see a class like the fighter and the rogue, I think the only thing that should really limit them is their basic staying power, like hp and degree of fatigue. I think the fighter and the rogue should have special techniques and abilities. For the fighter, I can see various strikes, parries, footwork techniques, and the like. For the rogue, I envision more of a dirty fighting style, like throwing dirt into peoples' faces.

Note that is not to say that fighters shouldn't be able to use under-handed tactics, and rogues can't be skilled swordsmen, those are just basic concepts. I don't think that rogues or fighters should have to worry about expending these abilities either. They are just body motions, they should be able to use them until they can't move anymore or they are dead or something. Magic users have always been about resoviors of energy and power. They may have more options, but their resources are finite, at least in comparison to the warriors. I definitely think the fighters and rogues needed more options in 3e than they had, but 4e's homogenization made me sad.



Oct 21, 2012 -- 10:44PM, trebor_rjf wrote:


if it were truly a simulation, the earliest editions of the game would not have twentieth-level fighters capable of performing heroic deeds like slaying dragons and chopping through hoards of lower-level humanoids.

it's first and foremost a game; a game designed for the enjoyment of all the people playing.






The first part of your post sounds like your mincing words. It's designed to simulate a fantasy/mythical experience.

As for the second part of your post, I direct you to the Fallacy of Fun thread in the "What's a DM to do" section.



Trebor, Ta, this thread has the potential for good discussion, but not if some of your earlier comments are spring-boarded off of to start edition warring. When we all registered accounts we agreed to certain constraints on our behavior for the privledge of posting on these forums. We also signed up because we enjoy the game, enjoy talking about it, and want to make it better. That means working with each other instead of against each other. Not trying to be forum police or anything, just trying to have good discussion.

nothing in the game actually models reality. even fighters and rogues end up with superhuman abilities. what i'm proposing is that if everyone's going to have mythical abilities, then why not have everyone's mythical abilites be more or less equal for the sake of fun amongst the participants.

I think we have a case of irreconcilable difference here. CS is almost universally hailed as the most successful and awesome innovation in Next so far and it adds a wealth of options to the fighter class.


As far as mandated character options all being in the same quantity, I still haven't seen any compelling reason for that to be so. If the fighter's got 3 really well written, widely applicable options and the wizard's got 10 well written, situational options then I struggle to see why it matters. The other thing that justifies having more to do at the start of the day is once a wizard does something, that option is gone. The fighter can do their stuff all day long, but the wizard must carefully budget their power and use it wisely throughout the day... at least, until we see more of these magic systems.



Anway, it could be argued that demanding all classes have the same number of options is every bit as restrictive and limited as not demanding that condition. Actually I could see how it could lead to some pretty awful writing as designers are forced to slot in abilities that simply aren't necessary to meet the quota. Come to think of that, 4e is full of examples where this is the case.

nothing in the game actually models reality. even fighters and rogues end up with superhuman abilities. what i'm proposing is that if everyone's going to have mythical abilities, then why not have everyone's mythical abilites be more or less equal for the sake of fun amongst the participants.



So, you're not trying to say that D&D isn't a narrative simulation? Okay, now that that is out of the way we can continue. The reason we shouldn't, (theoretically we could, but just because you can do something doesn't necesarily make it a good idea.) is because they are very different types of abilities. They aren't so much mythical abilities for the physical fighters, but mythically exaggerated real-world combat abilities. That is kind of a paraphrase of one of MM's articles where he mentions design goals for the fighter. Sword techniques, even mundane sword techniques of mythical proportion, and magic spells, are not conceptually the same thing.

In much of fantasy role-playing, and in fantasy story-telling of the past, this has always been demonstratably so. Now, should we keep it that way because that is how we have always done it? No, that would be an appeal to tradition logical fallacy, and in the world of scholarly debate, that amounts to bestiality porn. Sure, some like it, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to engage in that kind of thing. Ahem. Anyway, with the tangent done, the thing to do is look at why this has always been done. One, the fighter does have its basis in the real world, and even with mythical abilities, it needs to stay somewhat grounded, or it risks losing its identity, which leads me to my second point.

Homogenization will kill a game faster than anything. Once you start making everything the same, class distinctions become more arbitrary and less meaningful. Names become token labels that lack descriptive power. Each class needs to be different enough to retain its own identity. Personally, that was one of the few major things that turned me off from 4e. I hated that the game felt like it really only had one class with a whole bunch of different moves. Each class just felt derivitive of another.

Now, this isn't to say that the various class abilities can't be balanced against each other, but this is where things get tricky. In doing this, homogenization has to be kept to a minimum. In a case like this, asymetrical balance is called for. Magic users, with a finite resource, warriors able to fight until their bodies give out, magic users with strong magic, warriors with reliable techniques. Finite but powerful vs. steady and reliable. Again, this doesn't mean warriors can't have a bevy of options, in fact that was something I wished the fighter had more of in 3e, instead of just a bunch of bonus feats. Again, I really like the way the fighter is laid out so far in Next, as I think it is moving in that direction.

Now, about that fun caveat. The problem I have with that is the assumption that drawing more simlarities between the warriors and magic users automatically equates to fun. See, the truth is that people don't play D&D to have fun. That's what some of us call the fun fallacy. People play D&D for a variety of reasons, leveling up, a social activity with friends, killing nasties, collecting loot, experiencing a character arc, the list goes on. It is the attributes of D&D that people find fun, not D&D in and of itself. Now, some people find different attributes of D&D more fun than others, which means that changing things to be more fun in the way your talking about, won't mean fun for everyone. In fact, for some it may mean sadness, frustration, and a mild case of indigestion, like my experience with 4e.

This ultimately comes down to what kind of game D&D is supposed to be. At its heart, what is D&D? 1e and 2e brought foundational elements to D&D, 3e and 4e should have been improvements, and in some cases I think they were, in others I don't. Next represents a hope for the quality of this game and the community that we haven't had before, but not if we throw away the foundation. Next isn't meant to be a reboot of D&D, but an amalgamation of its greatest elements, with enough modularity to cater to multiple different tastes. I don't see any evidence that homogenization will accomplish that, and in fact I am scared it will impede that goal.

As an aside, I really agree with Kad and the first two paragraphs in his post. I don't know about the third since I never really bothered to seriously sift through everything in 4e, but some of those abilities did seem a bit superfluous.

Another thing to consider is we haven't seen any of the fighting style abilities past lvl 4. Once we hit the properly high levels I wouldn't be surprised if CS takes on a more mythic stature.


The system is designed to start in one place and end up at a more mythic place. If you start off at lvl 1 as crazy mythic then by lvl 5 you've got nowhere to go. The game becomes a caricature even to our all ready suspended disbelief.

I think people are attacking two different statements here. 

The first is something along the lines of:

"The Fighter isn't as powerful as the Wizard"

In this iteration of the rules, that statement couldn't be more wrong. In every playtest session I have run, the Fighter has out-fought the wizard. He consistently throws out incredible damage. This is not what the OP was saying either... I don't think he was complaining about the Fighter being any worse to the Wizard in any shape of form. Which leads to the second statement.


"The Fighter has less options than the Wizard."

This is not a balance issue at all. Mechanics wise, it is fine, for the most part. So the fighter can't put the horde of orcs to sleep with a spell. But really, a Fighter shouldn't do this within basic rules. That's what buying a sleeping potion and poisoning the well is for.

But can the Fighter replicate the Fireball? Sure, I believe CS is capable of that - making a close attack against all enemies within reach... Or hurling a boulder.

Can he replicate a spell that does ongoing damage? Sure, CS is capable of that. Give him a grevious bleeding wound.

Can he replicate Darkness? Sure... Well to a point... I am sure CS is capable of blinding someone.

However, I do understand that you want more options to choose from as the fighter - and I am certain that they will release more fighting styles as the playtests go on. I wouldn't want the amount of styles they get to have in game increase any more quickly though. (I feel that 12 should be plenty to cover just about anything you want to do by that point).

So yes, I agree, more fighting styles, but I'm betting that's planned anyway.  Looking forward to it.

Another thing to consider is we haven't seen any of the fighting style abilities past lvl 4. Once we hit the properly high levels I wouldn't be surprised if CS takes on a more mythic stature.


The system is designed to start in one place and end up at a more mythic place. If you start off at lvl 1 as crazy mythic then by lvl 5 you've got nowhere to go. The game becomes a caricature even to our all ready suspended disbelief.




Seconded.
Well for the sake of argument I would firmly like to pitch my tent in the "fighters dont need more options" camp. And I want emphasis to be on need in that sentence. Everything doesnt have to be equal, and fighters shouldnt have to have the same amount of options.

I think the key importance here is to remind people that ... fighters are not wizards, and wizards are not pineapples. There are going to be a few differences coming up, such as a spent wizards relative uselessness in a lot of situations. But as for options, big things that get spent up with lots of options is a good trade for little things that return every round is a good trade off, and if the fighter can keep going in this way it should help the wizard get through more of the day without having to burn through all their spells.

 *mumbles to himself*
Why is it always the fighter and the wizard getting into bother, and occasionally the rogue. Why cant they be good boys like the cleric. 
I don't particularly like the idea a common power spell list either. In fact, that is the element of your post that I most strongly disagree with. Was "power bloat" a problem in 3e? Yeah, it was, but that was because each new supplement introduced new spells for each and every available class up to that point. I don't think wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers should all use the same set of spells, with only a small degree of modularity to separate them. Homogenization makes game balance easier, but it makes the game less interesting.



I agree with that, i would ratter have individual spells for all casters, I like for example the individual spells the druid has in 4E and I don´t see wy they should share a common cleric spell list as it used to be. the same for wizard/ wrlock/ sorcerer ...

My suggestion of common martial powers lists is actually based in the direction the designers are going with other things, like spells and mosnters.

Now for characters like fighters and rogues, and their options. I have to say, I really disliked the power system as a whole with 4e. I ran a bunch of tests and in every single test, I felt like I was playing the same class with a few minor variants and a swapped spell list. 



Well, that might be the problem the designers need to address, some people felt classes are very distinct in game play, as other felt the opposite, like you. Maybe they didn't do the job right on communicating how the game works, as they choose the powers to rely more on a technical side, presentation wise. Maybe it´s time to reinvent it, but not abandon it whatsoever.


 Actually, when I see a class like the fighter and the rogue, I think the only thing that should really limit them is their basic staying power, like hp and degree of fatigue. I think the fighter and the rogue should have special techniques and abilities. For the fighter, I can see various strikes, parries, footwork techniques, and the like. For the rogue, I envision more of a dirty fighting style, like throwing dirt into peoples' faces.



That´s the kind of fighting styles I like to see in D&D, and the things you are saying here are an exactly description of some rogues powers in 4E. Ime it plays very different playing as a rogue posed to play as a fighter. I understand some people don´t feel like this, I got a player that couldn´t tell the difference when playing with a halflng paladin, and playing with a halfling rogue in the other day. He just got it after playing the game for a few sessions, but he loved it once he got it. It happened to me too, I didn´t really get 4E immediately, but after insisting on it for a little while, I totally got the game, but I understand it´s not for everybody, specially the types of players that want their game to never change. I think the designers have to work to make something that makes sense to everybody, absolutely.

Note that is not to say that fighters shouldn't be able to use under-handed tactics, and rogues can't be skilled swordsmen, those are just basic concepts. I don't think that rogues or fighters should have to worry about expending these abilities either. They are just body motions, they should be able to use them until they can't move anymore or they are dead or something. Magic users have always been about resoviors of energy and power. They may have more options, but their resources are finite, at least in comparison to the warriors.



I agree with that, It doesn't´need to be magic like expendable resources for the martial characters, i didn't propose it in the OP.

 
I definitely think the fighters and rogues needed more options in 3e than they had, but 4e's homogenization made me sad.



Yes, I don´t like homogenization either. I think 4E took the right step giving all classes more options during game play, maybe it´s time do work on distinct delivery systems to individualize the mechanics in the game, I reiterate that the game doesn´t need the fighter to have the excact same amount of powers than the wizard, neither it needs to be implemented with the same mechanics, vancian or AEDU or whatever... It just doesn´t make sense to build the game with half the PHB dedicated to cool stuff for half of the core classes only.





I think the key importance here is to remind people that ... fighters are not wizards, and wizards are not pineapples. There are going to be a few differences coming up, such as a spent wizards relative uselessness in a lot of situations. But as for options, big things that get spent up with lots of options is a good trade for little things that return every round is a good trade off, and if the fighter can keep going in this way it should help the wizard get through more of the day without having to burn through all their spells.

 



I dont´think fighter and rogues should be like wizards, (neither wizards should be like pineapples =)...)It´s clear in the OP. I just advocate for more or less the same amount of game options available for those who want it.

I think we have a case of irreconcilable difference here. CS is almost universally hailed as the most successful and awesome innovation in Next so far and it adds a wealth of options to the fighter class.


As far as mandated character options all being in the same quantity, I still haven't seen any compelling reason for that to be so. If the fighter's got 3 really well written, widely applicable options and the wizard's got 10 well written, situational options then I struggle to see why it matters. The other thing that justifies having more to do at the start of the day is once a wizard does something, that option is gone. The fighter can do their stuff all day long, but the wizard must carefully budget their power and use it wisely throughout the day... at least, until we see more of these magic systems.


Anway, it could be argued that demanding all classes have the same number of options is every bit as restrictive and limited as not demanding that condition. Actually I could see how it could lead to some pretty awful writing as designers are forced to slot in abilities that simply aren't necessary to meet the quota. Come to think of that, 4e is full of examples where this is the case.





Well yeah I dont´think it has to be the "same amount" of meaningful options, i didn't state it in the OP. I dont´think it need to be the same 4e model again, its pretty clear theya are moving away from it. But take the rogue for example, at this moment they dont´have a power list, they don´t have CS... it really doesn´t have lot´s of meaningful choices in the game out of the RP realm. that´s kind of a flaw, when all options goes to one side of the scale.

Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?



Because this is a game where everybody involved should have more or less the same oportunities to have fun.
nothing in the game actually models reality. even fighters and rogues end up with superhuman abilities. what i'm proposing is that if everyone's going to have mythical abilities, then why not have everyone's mythical abilites be more or less equal for the sake of fun amongst the participants.



That's what you had in 4e.  All classes had spells.  It wasn't as much fun for a large portion of the market.  IF WOTC keeps that, the people who took their business elsewhere like me will not give their business again. 

If I could put a number too it, I will be happy with next if it is 70% older edition style, and 30% 4e style.  If they can't do that there is no reason for me to stop playing Pathfinder and return to D&D.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?



Because this is a game where everybody involved should have more or less the same oportunities to have fun.



Which was empirically present from OD&D on.  Everyone had the same oppurtunities to have fun.  They had it in 3rd, 4e, AD&D, and BECMI.

If AEDU is more prevalent, WOTC will not get my money. 

The players I talk too think the resource management of 4e is less fun than Pathfinder.  So it looks like NEXT is indeed succeeding in making the better game.  I prefer playing the playtest over 4e as it stands NOW.  If they keep with this trend, I will sign on. 

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?



Because this is a game where everybody involved should have more or less the same oportunities to have fun.




A bar fight has more options than a game of chess.  I don't find it to be more fun.  Equating number of choices with "fun potential" is a mistake.
 
Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?

Because this is a game where everybody involved should have more or less the same oportunities to have fun.

It's impossible to dictate what is "fun" for everyone. Some people might have more fun if the fighter had fewer options. Making the number of options the same does not necessarily equal having the same amount of fun.

The classes are different in several ways, and I think that's a good thing.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

All the crap in this thread about Fighters not being allowed to have more options is exactly why I am despairing I will see a new edition of D&D that even vaguely looks like something I want to play. Seriously the double standard against martially focused classes is as wide as the grand canyon, and most of these people won't even admit there is a double standard there.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Which was empirically present from OD&D on.  Everyone had the same oppurtunities to have fun.  They had it in 3rd, 4e, AD&D, and BECMI.





Well I played a lot of basic D&D and 2E, I love those games, and I still collect AD&D stuff. it was fun, absolutely, but back then we didn´t know what we know today, no one questioned why half of the PHB covers a couple of classes only back in the day. Now we know better. And to be honest, it was only when they released the complete fighters hand book that the game started to have enough options for fighters, it took another book to equals the great disparity it has with wizards from the PHB. That one book was the best seller amongst all complete books just because it was offering options that should be there from the begging.

I don´t state that this system must be AEDU, please read the OP. this is not an AEDU discussion.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
I don't care if one class has more options or fewer options than another class. I worry more about the quality of those options and how they interact with the options of another class. My worry stems from one class overshadowing another by having options that make the first class irrelevant.

A mage (using a generic term, as these comments have applicability to both divine and arcane casters of different sorts within the game), in many editions of DnD, can cast certain spells and be a better thief and skill-monkey than a Rogue/Thief. A mage can, in many editions, cast either personal buff spell(s) and/or summon spells that either make himself nearly equal to or sometimes even better than a warrior class (again, generic terminology used) at melee combat or he/she can summon in a creature that is actually equal to our better than the warrior at melee combat. They can cast spells that allow them to find out information better and more quickly than those using charisma and skills. And, depending on edition and the availability of certain feats, they can do much of this in only a round or two. Depending on level and spell slot availability, the mage may be able to do all of this at any given time (meaning they can buff themselves to be a great warrior AND summon in a creature to be a great warrior AND still cast mage spells to enchant, damage, controll, etc. all in the same conflict/situation).

As long as the game keeps the ability for one class to outshine another in that class's given area of expertise to a minimum, I will be happy. Hopefully each class has some option, like CS for warriors and spells for mages, so they can do cool things. I leave the actual number of those options up to the experts to figure out.
Balance = Equally effective, but different, ways of reaching a goal or overcoming an obstacle.
It's impossible to dictate what is "fun" for everyone. Some people might have more fun if the fighter had fewer options. Making the number of options the same does not necessarily equal having the same amount of fun.

The classes are different in several ways, and I think that's a good thing.



Yaeh, No one should dictate what is fun. I know people who prefer to play with fewer options, great. OTOH, there is a lot of people who likes the opposite. You cannot dictate that lack of options is represents more fun to this group, right?

I think adding possible options for martial classes, for example a complete list martial powers (call it maneuvers, tricks or whatever you like) doesn´t hurt the game for those who like simpler characters, as long as there are mechanics in the game that allow you to play in such style. The other way around is not possible, simple extracting a huge chunk of options that part of the players base consider important part of game play won´t work.

I´m not talking about 4E vs previous editions here, I´m talking about game balance and options for different game styles here. I don´t understand why you old-schoolers get all upset about having fighter and rogue powers in 5E. It was there in 2E, (at least for the fighter). It won´t hurt your game as long as it is designed to live other play styles from the beginning.

What I understand is that for those of us who prefer having martial characters with clear options, CS just scratches the surface, and the rogue have almost nothing in the playtest. I´m not intending to hurt you play style, and I don't care if you will continue playing pathfinder or whatever game, I´m discussing here what is important to the future iteration of D&D if it wan´ts to cover several play styles. I dont´want´to hurt you playstyle, just want mine represented in the game. don´t be so upset.


Why in the world should we assume all classes must have the same number of options?



Because this is a game where everybody involved should have more or less the same oportunities to have fun.




A bar fight has more options than a game of chess.  I don't find it to be more fun.  Equating number of choices with "fun potential" is a mistake.
 



You are talking about completely different things here, comparing a bar fight with a chess game to measure levels of fun is nonsensical. I´m discussing the difference between characters in the same world, in the same game, D&D. It would be more lie playing chess with only pawns, as you buddy plays with the full set.

I think there should be options for playing with a simple martial character, that can only swing it´s sword, and is pretty happy with it. I was like that in basic D&D. I think 5E should start with a basic version, of course. but let us have interesting stuff to do, for those of us that prefer playing with the whole set of options.

Fundamentally I don't think anyone could criticse the sentiment in the OP. People need options and fun is about having the ability to focus on the bits they like and discard the bits they don't.


The particular suggestions as to why is debatable though and is largely a matter of perspective. I find the playtest fighter to be really interesting and there's bags of potential to get more fighting styles in there. I don't mind that they pick one fighting style and that locks them into a couple of abilities; the options are well written and interesting to me so I don't really need them to have as many options as a wizard. Actually I like that the wizard's got more options but has to budget their power more carefully. It creates uniqueness.



I think it's really important to remember the playtest abilities aren't there because Mearls had a bunch of stuff in his D&D file and he figured he'd just throw it at us. He's picked the CS options we're playtesting quite deliberately and I have no doubt he's got quite a few others in the works that he can basically refine using data from the ones he's released.


If classes look bare, it's because they want us to playtest specific things. It's not because they want that particular class to be bare.

I agree that having a simple fighter is OK in the basic version of the game, but where are the wizard and cleric basic versions ? 

Why wizards player don't want to start with a basic version ? If a martial character doesn't get to learn how to hit vital points, some of them allowing instant kill, why magic classes should be able to do that in their unique versions ?

Why don't anyone beg for a simple wizard and a simple cleric ?
Clerics were already healing bot before, they just needed an armor and two legs to be effective with heal and buff spamming. This can be as simple as a simple fighter.
Wizards deprived of the same options as the simple fighter just need to deal damage in zones, being able to spam a defensive spell to compensate the lower global defenses, and being able to cast cantrips.

Here are the simple wizard and the simple cleric.
If they do not please you, then ask yourself why people who like martial combat are not pleased with the simple fighter.

I agree that having a simple fighter is OK in the basic version of the game, but where are the wizard and cleric basic versions ? 

Why wizards player don't want to start with a basic version ? If a martial character doesn't get to learn how to hit vital points, some of them allowing instant kill, why magic classes should be able to do that in their unique versions ?

Why don't anyone beg for a simple wizard and a simple cleric ?
Clerics were already healing bot before, they just needed an armor and two legs to be effective with heal and buff spamming. This can be as simple as a simple fighter.
Wizards deprived of the same options as the simple fighter just need to deal damage in zones, being able to spam a defensive spell to compensate the lower global defenses, and being able to cast cantrips.

Here are the simple wizard and the simple cleric.
If they do not please you, then ask yourself why people who like martial combat are not pleased with the simple fighter.




Perfect, you got a great point here.


You are talking about completely different things here, comparing a bar fight with a chess game to measure levels of fun is nonsensical. I´m discussing the difference between characters in the same world, in the same game, D&D. It would be more lie playing chess with only pawns, as you buddy plays with the full set.

I think there should be options for playing with a simple martial character, that can only swing it´s sword, and is pretty happy with it. I was like that in basic D&D. I think 5E should start with a basic version, of course. but let us have interesting stuff to do, for those of us that prefer playing with the whole set of options.



Er...that's what they've been diong.
Then you're complaining that they don't have every eventual module included in the basic core?  Now I can't even see what you're complaining about.

I agree that having a simple fighter is OK in the basic version of the game, but where are the wizard and cleric basic versions ? 

Why wizards player don't want to start with a basic version ? If a martial character doesn't get to learn how to hit vital points, some of them allowing instant kill, why magic classes should be able to do that in their unique versions ?

Why don't anyone beg for a simple wizard and a simple cleric ?
Clerics were already healing bot before, they just needed an armor and two legs to be effective with heal and buff spamming. This can be as simple as a simple fighter.
Wizards deprived of the same options as the simple fighter just need to deal damage in zones, being able to spam a defensive spell to compensate the lower global defenses, and being able to cast cantrips.

Here are the simple wizard and the simple cleric.
If they do not please you, then ask yourself why people who like martial combat are not pleased with the simple fighter.





I hear it all the time on this site. People dont want casting times, they dont want metamagic. 
Ive heard people complain that the spell count is too high and needs to be consolidated, many prefer the empty spell books of vancian magic for the joys of resource management. We already had the simple mage in D&D. 




I agree that having a simple fighter is OK in the basic version of the game, but where are the wizard and cleric basic versions ? 

Why wizards player don't want to start with a basic version ? If a martial character doesn't get to learn how to hit vital points, some of them allowing instant kill, why magic classes should be able to do that in their unique versions ?

Why don't anyone beg for a simple wizard and a simple cleric ?
Clerics were already healing bot before, they just needed an armor and two legs to be effective with heal and buff spamming. This can be as simple as a simple fighter.
Wizards deprived of the same options as the simple fighter just need to deal damage in zones, being able to spam a defensive spell to compensate the lower global defenses, and being able to cast cantrips.

Here are the simple wizard and the simple cleric.
If they do not please you, then ask yourself why people who like martial combat are not pleased with the simple fighter.





I hear it all the time on this site. People dont want casting times, they dont want metamagic. 
Ive heard people complain that the spell count is too high and needs to be consolidated, many prefer the empty spell books of vancian magic for the joys of resource management. We already had the simple mage in D&D. 







No we didn't.

Vancian Wizards are FAR from "simple".

I agree 100% with Monsieur_Moustache here.

There IS a need for simple and complex classes, but there need to be simple and complex classes which cover all the basic concepts. 

There are plenty of Harry Potter kids coming through who will want to get into D&D and might well want to start playing with a simple class, but they will want to play a "Wizard".

So there need to be simple Arcane and simple Divine classes to cater for those players who like the fluff of a Wizard or a Cleric but who don't want to (or aren't ready yet) to manage the complexity of the "classic versions" of those classes!     

No we didn't.

Vancian Wizards are FAR from "simple".

I agree 100% with Monsieur_Moustache here.

There IS a need for simple and complex classes, but there need to be simple and complex classes which cover all the basic concepts. 

There are plenty of Harry Potter kids coming through who will want to get into D&D and might well want to start playing with a simple class, but they will want to play a "Wizard".

So there need to be simple Arcane and simple Divine classes to cater for those players who like the fluff of a Wizard or a Cleric but who don't want to (or aren't ready yet) to manage the complexity of the "classic versions" of those classes!     




You just asked for it for Harry Potter kid. Ill give you examples of it from someone else.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... Call for less spells

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... Salla calls for clean, elegant, and easy. 

Im not in this camp. Im sure Harry Potter kid can grasp spell components and casting time. 

It doesnt take a brain to grasp Vancianc magic or AEDU magic. Vancian magic is simple by nature. "Here Wizard you have one spell and 4 hp see me after 2500xp and Ill give you another one". That was 2e. How is that not simple. By the time you have a decent spellbook you have already played the game for days. 

Anyhoo back on topic



The “powers” of 4e were central to its disappointment. I can list 6 critical flaws-failures



1. The martial exploits didn’t expand on the options that were already there. 2E gave plenty lip to actions that arent covered and called shots, 3e gave a little lip service to actions that arent covered and listed example of locational damage so it was easy to homebrew called shots. Many of the exploits In 4e could have been covered with with a touch of creativity. They would have been better served as examples of what a player can try than given powers. As hard powers people had little need to be creative.



2. AEDU
For martial classes utility and encounter could be put in Atwill usage limitations. Daily is just dumb.



3. Destroyed the D&D mage


4. The exploits themselves were poor


Pigeonholish, ungrounded, redundant, there to keep pace with the already stunted D&D mage



Example. Level 1 Encounter Exploits for the Rogue



Dazing Strike – Its a called shot. The fact that it can only be used once makes it spell like. Every other class has something that does the same thing.



King's Castle- I like this one but its redundant and should be universal. The requirements dont make sense.



Positioning Strike- Should be atwill based on opponent aggression. This should not work against an opponent that is fighting defensive.



Torturous Strike- Very redundant. Its basically a power attack for the Rogue.




5. The multiclass system was too mechanical



6. Powers that were supernatural in nature
ie 70% of the Warlord.  

nothing in the game actually models reality. even fighters and rogues end up with superhuman abilities. what i'm proposing is that if everyone's going to have mythical abilities, then why not have everyone's mythical abilites be more or less equal for the sake of fun amongst the participants.



Because that's called 4th Edition.

And all evidence suggests that it didn't make WoTC/Hasbro enough $.

nothing in the game actually models reality. even fighters and rogues end up with superhuman abilities. what i'm proposing is that if everyone's going to have mythical abilities, then why not have everyone's mythical abilites be more or less equal for the sake of fun amongst the participants.



Because that's called 4th Edition.

And all evidence suggests that it didn't make WoTC/Hasbro enough $.




Because 4th edition was the only way to balance anything, and attempt at balance is what caused all of the problems.

You sir are a brilliant analyst. I expect your career to go far. 
I expect if they make a game that 4e folks hate as many on here seem to want that they will still not meet hasbro's marketing goals.

Just a hunch.

The developers have the self declared but still unenviable task of making something that will bring ALL fans of DnD under the same tent.  I wish them luck.