One step forward, 1 edition back.

I was curious until recently of what the next iteration of DnD will have. As of this week I found out, and I am disappointed. DnD has reverted back to essentially 3rd Edition from what I witnessed of a playtest in my local comic store. Again you will have more purpose to a party as a fighter at all levels; whereas spell casters are once more the "one spell a day" wonder having to fall back to bad crossbow attack rolls starting out. Don't say that the concept of unlimited cantrips is an improvement; because it is really nothing new from what I have heard people who play Pathfinder speak of. Ray of Frost may be a little more damaging, but go up against a cold proof monster and say hello to the crossbow and bad attack rolls again. I am not so much disappointed in seeing them switch from 4th edition which tried to make every class different but equal in usefulness then I am angry that they are trying to rehash old editions and putting a bright new cover on it. I will not be buying into DnD Next.

Put it this way. I like vancian but did not like this packets wizard. Or the rogue, good job on the cleric thoguh and fighter to a lesser extent.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

That half the threads about DDN complain the wizard is now too powerful, and half complain the wizard is now too weak, makes me think they got it exactly right.



I'm actually quite fine with how the Wizard was shaping up in this packet. Though the improvements coming are welcome, it was a pretty good balance this time.


Power-level-wise?  Sure.  But actual ability-wise?  The Wizard feels like a mess in this packet, but really just because the Traditions feel like a mess at the moment.  Great idea, it just needs work.

But hey, that's what the playtest is for.



The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that. 


Good news! At wills are going back to being able to choose them. As well, they will scale in the next packet. So, you might just like what you see




Bad news...

The scope and capability of at-wills has been dramatically reduced in 5e as compared to 4e.  Look at the list of 4e wizard at wills, they do cool and interesting things.  5e At-will burning hands, magic missle, or ray of frost are still "boring" compared to the at-will capabilities of the 4e wizard.



Really? Then we have completely different senses of what makes an interesting spell. how is 2d4+int damage magic missile any more interesting than a ray of frost in 5e? Because it deals more damage? How is scorching burst more interesting than burning hands? Because it has more range? The mage hand, presitidgitation, and light are virtually identical, plus this time we get minor illusion (one of the coolest level 0 spells ive ever seen), as well as disguse self, mage armor, and more. I don't see how 4e at wills are any more engaging then what we have in 5e.



Ooh, you went there. Glad you did though.

Storm Pillar: Summons a pillar of lightning that zaps enemies who move next to it

Flame Arrow: Enchant your allies ranged weapons to do additional fire damage

Howling Wall: Summon a wall of wind to hinder your foes movements

Beguiling Strands: Blast a group of enemies for minor damage and making them see visions causing them to stumble away from you

Freezing Burst: Blast a group of enemies and with frozen winds that deals damage and sends your enemies flying in all directions

Hypnotism: Make the target attack one of its allies or move the target to a short distance

Beast Switch: Touch a foe turning it into a small woodland animal who scurries a short distance away from you

Cloud of Daggers: Blast a creature with magical force and make a zone of whirling magical daggers that harms enemies who approach 
Of which only 1 of those spells came from core material, which is what I was comparing. Splat will be splat. You can't compare an edition in it's infancy to a fully developed edition with tons of splat. That's just a completely one-sided comparison.

That's like saying "I like Mists of Pandaria WoW more than Vanilla because there's much more to do." Of COURSE there is because it had 7 years to develop :P

If you are going to include splat, come back to me in 3-4 years when 5e has as much splat under its belt to make a fair comparison.
My two copper.
haha...good point. 

Several books, errata, and an online resource vs. playtest material...hmmm

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

The funny thing is how many people are equally convinced it's jut regurgitated 4e, or thinly vieled AD&D.  They're always the ones angry about it, too.  5e is trying very hard to capture the feel and the best bits of every edition, but its critics latch on to that resemblance to whichever ed they /hate/.  Doesn't bode well for the all-things-to-all-D&Ders idea, sadly.


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

My theory is that MasterBedlam is Lokiare...Laughing

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

The funny thing is how many people are equally convinced it's jut regurgitated 4e, or thinly vieled AD&D.  They're always the ones angry about it, too.  5e is trying very hard to capture the feel and the best bits of every edition, but its critics latch on to that resemblance to whichever ed they /hate/.  Doesn't bode well for the all-things-to-all-D&Ders idea, sadly.





Aye. I compare how a large portion of the community views D&DN as how someone comming from another country might view the USA. We are a melting pot and you can pretty much find influences, people, and culture from all around the world. But if you are coming from, say, India, you should expect that there will be aspects of India, and that you will be able to find many Indian customs and ideals here. But it will not be India. You have to accept the other cultures of the USA along with your own.

I know it's a wierd example, but it's seemed to help a few people understand.
My two copper.
What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

The funny thing is how many people are equally convinced it's jut regurgitated 4e, or thinly vieled AD&D.  They're always the ones angry about it, too.  5e is trying very hard to capture the feel and the best bits of every edition, but its critics latch on to that resemblance to whichever ed they /hate/.  Doesn't bode well for the all-things-to-all-D&Ders idea, sadly.





 Ignore the forums, ts the casuals that will determine D&Ds fate.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Of which only 1 of those spells came from core material, which is what I was comparing. Splat will be splat. You can't compare an edition in it's infancy to a fully developed edition with tons of splat. That's just a completely one-sided comparison.


I know, reasonably, that's the reality of it - but man is that a disappointing attitude to see justifying "a lack of interesting options" in core (not that I necessarily agree that there is such a lack).  "These things were all really popular choices - but splat will be splat.  We only have so much room.  We'll get around to it later."

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

The funny thing is how many people are equally convinced it's jut regurgitated 4e, or thinly vieled AD&D.  They're always the ones angry about it, too.  5e is trying very hard to capture the feel and the best bits of every edition, but its critics latch on to that resemblance to whichever ed they /hate/.  Doesn't bode well for the all-things-to-all-D&Ders idea, sadly.

 Ignore the forums, ts the casuals that will determine D&Ds fate.

I have yet to see the "silent majority" come through for any cause.  

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?)

Thunderwave, which pushed enemies out of an area?  Or Cloud of Daggers, which was ony 1 square but did auto damage to the enemy in it at the /start/ of its turn (questionable area denial, since they never have a chance to leave it on their own)?  

Though, eeally, any AE is area denial becaue it punishes enemies for standing too close together (while spreading out keeps melee enemies from concentrating damage, and makes ranged enemies vulnerable to being picked off by melee allies), even Scorching Burst.  


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Of which only 1 of those spells came from core material, which is what I was comparing. Splat will be splat. You can't compare an edition in it's infancy to a fully developed edition with tons of splat. That's just a completely one-sided comparison.


I know, reasonably, that's the reality of it - but man is that a disappointing attitude to see justifying "a lack of interesting options" in core (not that I necessarily agree that there is such a lack).  "These things were all really popular choices - but splat will be splat.  We only have so much room.  We'll get around to it later."

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?



I agree. Ideally, 5e launch at-wills should be on par with the best-of-the-best of late 4e at-will design. Keeping Magic Missile is marginally acceptable for various legacy reasons, but other wizard at-wills shouldn't do just pure damage and nothing else.
Or Cloud of Daggers, which was ony 1 square but did auto damage to the enemy in it at the /start/ of its turn (questionable area denial, since they never have a chance to leave it on theirown)?



Cloud of Daggers was pretty interesting.
Partial auto-damage, single target but did improved damage versus swarms, and left an area denial in its wake. (Creatures that enter the area are damaged, so it could be used at a choke point to punish anyone coming through.) In addition, it combo'd with forced movement teamwork to allow extra damage. 

Also AOE at-wills was kind of a big deal at PHB1 time, much less impressive at this point in the game. 
The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that. 



I agree, the at-will spells for wizards in 4e were alot of fun. I'd rather they placed more emphasis on the at-will spells and much less on the daily spells in 5e. Sadly, that is unlikely to happen. But as long as the wizard gets a good enough variety of at-wills and they are strong enough that I don't feel like a complete waste of space next to the martial classes when I'm not using daily spells, I'll be okay with that.
The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that. 



I agree, the at-will spells for wizards in 4e were alot of fun. I'd rather they placed more emphasis on the at-will spells and much less on the daily spells in 5e. Sadly, that is unlikely to happen. But as long as the wizard gets a good enough variety of at-wills and they are strong enough that I don't feel like a complete waste of space next to the martial classes when I'm not using daily spells, I'll be okay with that.



Humans made great wizards because of the extra at-will... not to mention some sneaky cool human feats that played off of it.
  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."

 


That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?


This is more or less what I was getting at. If he compared the options of core 4e and what we have in 5e there's not a real difference in how cool the abilities are. It's not an excuse to not make cool content, you're right.
My two copper.

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?


This is more or less what I was getting at. If he compared the options of core 4e and what we have in 5e there's not a real difference in how cool the abilities are. It's not an excuse to not make cool content, you're right.


I don't know if I quite agree.  I mean, at the time, just the fact that the wizard had at-wills was new and exciting.  By contrast, in this, as in a lot of areas, the DDN team is playing it safe.  They're not taking a lot of risks with new stuff, even in the playtest(which would be a great place to publish some crazy moves and push the boundaries).

I mean, they just spent all that time designing for 4e, including a lot of those wizard at-wills in later splats.  5e may be its own beast, but if it is, it's not in a new Order, Family or Genus.  Seems like most of that experience should carry right over.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

The funny thing is how many people are equally convinced it's jut regurgitated 4e, or thinly vieled AD&D.  They're always the ones angry about it, too.  5e is trying very hard to capture the feel and the best bits of every edition, but its critics latch on to that resemblance to whichever ed they /hate/.  Doesn't bode well for the all-things-to-all-D&Ders idea, sadly.

 Ignore the forums, ts the casuals that will determine D&Ds fate.

I have yet to see the "silent majority" come through for any cause.  



The Playtest Surveys get much more response than the number of regular posters on these forums. The also get more attention from the designers than the forum posts (for this very reason). They've stated that the number of people playtesting (and responding to surveys) is increasing with each packet.
The Playtest Surveys get much more response than the number of regular posters on these forums. The also get more attention from the designers than the forum posts (for this very reason). They've stated that the number of people playtesting (and responding to surveys) is increasing with each packet.



And I would love to read what they said. For now, I just have to trust that what WotC tells me about this silent majority are accurate. 

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

They've stated that the number of people playtesting (and responding to surveys) is increasing with each packet.


Wow.  I... don't believe that one at all.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
They've stated that the number of people playtesting (and responding to surveys) is increasing with each packet.


Wow.  I... don't believe that one at all.



 Selection bias. The forums are not an accurate representation of the D&D gamers espicially here.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

They've stated that the number of people playtesting (and responding to surveys) is increasing with each packet.


Wow.  I... don't believe that one at all.



 Selection bias. The forums are not an accurate representation of the D&D gamers espicially here.


It's true. Just look at the weekly article comments. Sure, you will find a few familiar faces. But there are hundreds of people who post on those that don't even touch the forums.
My two copper.
That half the threads about DDN complain the wizard is now too powerful, and half complain the wizard is now too weak, makes me think they got it exactly right.



I'm actually quite fine with how the Wizard was shaping up in this packet. Though the improvements coming are welcome, it was a pretty good balance this time.


Power-level-wise?  Sure.  But actual ability-wise?  The Wizard feels like a mess in this packet, but really just because the Traditions feel like a mess at the moment.  Great idea, it just needs work.

But hey, that's what the playtest is for.



The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

5e wizard feels meh at best compared to that. 


Good news! At wills are going back to being able to choose them. As well, they will scale in the next packet. So, you might just like what you see




Hopefully wizs can learn more at wills by leveling up and scribing scrolls and prepare different ones on different days.
Of which only 1 of those spells came from core material, which is what I was comparing. Splat will be splat. You can't compare an edition in it's infancy to a fully developed edition with tons of splat. That's just a completely one-sided comparison.

That's like saying "I like Mists of Pandaria WoW more than Vanilla because there's much more to do." Of COURSE there is because it had 7 years to develop :P

If you are going to include splat, come back to me in 3-4 years when 5e has as much splat under its belt to make a fair comparison.



Shouldn't they learn from the previous edition though and take the most popular at will spells and include them, expansion or not?
Of which only 1 of those spells came from core material, which is what I was comparing. Splat will be splat. You can't compare an edition in it's infancy to a fully developed edition with tons of splat. That's just a completely one-sided comparison.

That's like saying "I like Mists of Pandaria WoW more than Vanilla because there's much more to do." Of COURSE there is because it had 7 years to develop :P

If you are going to include splat, come back to me in 3-4 years when 5e has as much splat under its belt to make a fair comparison.



Shouldn't they learn from the previous edition though and take the most popular at will spells and include them, expansion or not?


Not if they are tied to non-core concepts.

I don't know if that would be the case with the ones mentioned; just pointing out that you can't put everything in core, for good reasons. 
Yes, as it is presented, Next is essentially a massive re-balancing of 3E.  Is that such a bad thing, though?  I guess it is, if you didn't like 3E, or if you think they're balancing it incorrectly, but you say that is not the major cause of your disappointment.



Yes, it's 3E with a sanity check, kind of.
To be honest I'd be moderately ok with this if 4E didn't happen in between. Now I just can't go back to that style of play anymore.




Same to me. I saw 2nd edition as an improvement of 1st edition, 3rd edition being an improvement of 2nd edition and 4th edition being an improvement of 3rd edition.

As of this day I can't say that 5th edition is an improvement of 4th edition. It has many similarities to 3rd edition and keeps close to nothing from the 4th edition. All that because there are poeple who never made the transition to 4th edition and hate it. To me it is a huge step back. I adopted the 4th edition since its release. Since, I counldn't force myself to play any previous edition (I had the same feeling when all previous editions were realeased so it's not only due to 4th edition).

4th edition has its good aspects and its bad aspects but I generally very like it (obviously since I play it since 2008). I hope things evolve for the 5th edition because I really want to make the transition once again, but if it is to play a slightly modified 3rd edition, I'll be disappointed. I made feedbacks for the two first playtests and nothing I wrote was taken into account so I did not do the next playtests. Maybe I was in the minortiy as for what I asked to be developped, but nothing changed due to my feedbacks...why should I continue?

There are surely good points in the current version of the playtest but I have difficulty seeing which ones when I compare it to the 4th edition. The advantage/disadvantage rule was quite gamebreaking to me. I prefer that the possbility to reroll attack rolls (to keep the higher or lowest), saves, etc... to stay in the domain of luck/bad luck/glimpse of the future than a simple conditional rule.
The monsters are just jokes, being killed so fast that there is no point in putting conditions on them.
There is not control on the battefield, allowing any enemy to get to the rear ranks unchallenged and kill the spellcasters outright with impunity.
The spell slots for spellcasters is a huge step back and ressources will once again be horrible to manage. In 4th edition I could throw at a party 5 or 6 encounters of the PCs level in one game day. With the spellcasting rules of 5th editin, I will have difficilty doing this, unless the monster stay the paperdolls they are now of course. But without some kind of control on the battelfield, I'll kill the spellcaster all the time. That is not fun.

But I didn't check the most recent playtest material so things might have changed since.
They've stated that the number of people playtesting (and responding to surveys) is increasing with each packet.


Wow.  I... don't believe that one at all.


From Dear D&D Next Developers,

 We're not lying about how successful the playtest is going, so please people - just stop claiming that. When you do that you're spreading blatant misinformation. I'm sorry if you feel we're lying about the playtest numbers or how well it's doing, but we're not.



That was in response to Polaris accusing the Next team of lying about the ever-increasing numbers of playtest responses.
That was in response to Polaris accusing the Next team of lying about the ever-increasing numbers of playtest responses.



I just hope that the dev team knows to take everything guys like Polaris and lokiare say with a grain of salt.  I'm not saying good suggestions from them should be ignored, but I hope they take the time to separate the few kernels wheat from the overwhelming abundance of chaff.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

That was in response to Polaris accusing the Next team of lying about the ever-increasing numbers of playtest responses.



I just hope that the dev team knows to take everything guys like Polaris and lokiare say with a grain of salt.  I'm not saying good suggestions from them should be ignored, but I hope they take the time to separate the few kernels wheat from the overwhelming abundance of chaff.



+1

My mind is a deal-breaker.

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

And this is exactly why Next is such a challenge. I never felt the 4e wizard felt like a wizard, and one of the reasons is because I have no use for at-will powers on a wizard. Magic is the rare, powerful stuff, at-will magic makes it feel like swinging a sword. I'm still hoping that there will be a way to build a Next wizard with no at-wills at all, but I expect at this point it will be relegated to an optional rule at best.

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?

Independent of hoping to get a wizard without at-wills at all, I'm actually hoping every class has at least one "boring" at-will, by which I mean something that is simple straight damage that is big enough to be useful. One of the things I see as a problem in 4e (and which some people probably see as an advantage) is that too many at-wills where complex powers with side effects that have to be tracked. Those powers slow the game down, but so many classes don't have any useful straight damage that they end up being the best powers.

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

And this is exactly why Next is such a challenge. I never felt the 4e wizard felt like a wizard, and one of the reasons is because I have no use for at-will powers on a wizard. Magic is the rare, powerful stuff, at-will magic makes it feel like swinging a sword. I'm still hoping that there will be a way to build a Next wizard with no at-wills at all, but I expect at this point it will be relegated to an optional rule at best.

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?

Independent of hoping to get a wizard without at-wills at all, I'm actually hoping every class has at least one "boring" at-will, by which I mean something that is simple straight damage that is big enough to be useful. One of the things I see as a problem in 4e (and which some people probably see as an advantage) is that too many at-wills where complex powers with side effects that have to be tracked.



Duration mechanics should have been consistantly simple it got way to fiddly.


  • 1 round

  • save ends after 1 round

  • end of encounter.


That said I hate pure damage .. its having the other not damage at-wills that is an advantage
  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."

 

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

And this is exactly why Next is such a challenge. I never felt the 4e wizard felt like a wizard, and one of the reasons is because I have no use for at-will powers on a wizard. Magic is the rare, powerful stuff, at-will magic makes it feel like swinging a sword. I'm still hoping that there will be a way to build a Next wizard with no at-wills at all, but I expect at this point it will be relegated to an optional rule at best.

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?

Independent of hoping to get a wizard without at-wills at all, I'm actually hoping every class has at least one "boring" at-will, by which I mean something that is simple straight damage that is big enough to be useful. One of the things I see as a problem in 4e (and which some people probably see as an advantage) is that too many at-wills where complex powers with side effects that have to be tracked.



Duration mechanics should have been consistantly simple it got way to fiddly.


  • 1 round

  • save ends after 1 round

  • end of encounter.


That said I hate pure damage .. its having the other not damage at-wills that is an advantage



I agree that 4e went overboard with conditions.  It is my personal belief that at-will abilities should not have a duration effect, encounter abilities should only rarely have a 1 round effect, and daily abilities can have an encounter long effect. This would greatly speed up combat as tracking penalties, bonuses, and conditions would virtually disappear.

That being said, all the wizard at-wills I chose have no lasting effects (except for the two that make zones, but zones are far easier to track than condititions).  

As to the 4e wizard not feeling magical to you JayM, that is most likely due to indoctrination from low level wizards in previous editions of D&D.  In previous editions of D&D low level wizards only had a few spells so each had to be very powerful to compensate and thus, each one felt special. This however goes directly against all fantasy literature and media.  

You simply do not have fantasy wizards in literature and media who only cast 1 spell then are out of magic for the day.  No, you have wizards who are casting away, spell after spell, until they grow tired.  Then after a short rest they are back again ready to cast. Notice also, that growing tired from casting spells seems to take the same amount of time that a swordswinger grows fatigued from constantly battling foes.  

This is why I had a huge disconnect in pre-4e D&D with casters. They never represented a wizard from fantasy.  Hell they failed to represent wizards from Jack Vance's Sci-Fi novels.  So, while the 4e wizard may not have felt like a wizard to someone who grew up with the "D&D" wizard, it was the first time the wizard actually vaguely represented a true fantasy wizard.
As to the 4e wizard not feeling magical to you JayM, that is most likely due to indoctrination from low level wizards in previous editions of D&D.  In previous editions of D&D low level wizards only had a few spells so each had to be very powerful to compensate and thus, each one felt special. This however goes directly against all fantasy literature and media.

I'm sure it is partially just being used to older editions of D&D. However, it is also a generational thing in fantasy literature. You talk about literature where spell casters cast spell after spell, but that isn't what I grew up reading. The books I grew up reading the wizard/mages/sorcerers rarely cast spells at all and most where more likely to draw a sword/staff and swing that in a minor encounter. Except at the very highlight of the book, when they go for broke and throw everything they can no matter the risk, they carefully measure their spells and use them sparingly.

Gandalf casts only a handful of spells in the entire LotR*, Elric is essentially a ritual caster without combat spells at all, the wizards in the Belgarion don't use magic in the run of the mill fights. People who grew up reading Harry Potter and the Dresden Files have an entirely different sense of magic then what I grew up with.

* Yes, I'm aware that Gandalf could have cast more. The important thing here is that he didn't.

The books I grew up reading the wizard/mages/sorcerers rarely cast spells at all and most where more likely to draw a sword/staff and swing that in a minor encounter. Except at the very highlight of the book, when they go for broke and throw everything they can no matter the risk, they carefully measure their spells and use them sparingly.

I'll throw in the Tortall series, and even Discworld to that mix.  As they say, the sign of a good wizard is not using magic whenever possible.  Usually, the setting gives some reason for why using too much magic is bad, but the underlying theme of wizards who avoid casting spells is significant enough to consider.

Granted, the spell slots per day mechanic doesn't do a great job of enforcing that trope, but it still fits better than an all-magic all-the-time mechanic.

The metagame is not the game.

One problem which occurs is confusing a supporting cast (NPC) mentor with the primary hero.

Harry Potter primary hero, Dresden primary Hero... Gandalf, huhuh.
  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."

 

Duration mechanics should have been consistantly simple it got way to fiddly.


  • 1 round

  • save ends after 1 round

  • end of encounter.


That said I hate pure damage .. its having the other not damage at-wills that is an advantage

Yes, the inconsistent duration mechanics was part of the problem. However, the real core of the problem is simply lots of at-will powers that do something other then damage. I've run games with as many as 15 players at once, and with that many people just 1 round at-will powers can be a pain to track.

I'm not saying that characters should be limited to straight damage, only that every character should have a viable straight damage attack they can use when they don't need complex powers. Too many of the 4e characters can only take out minions with their straight at-will damage, so they focus on making control and side effect aspects as powerful and useful as possible.

I've run games with as many as 15 players at once, and with that many people just 1 round at-will powers can be a pain to track.


Gack..sorry no thanks. Assuming your scenario as a default would be a serious mismanagement of design
  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'm not saying that characters should be limited to straight damage, only that every character should have a viable straight damage attack they can use when they don't need complex powers. Too many of the 4e characters can only take out minions with their straight at-will damage, so they focus on making control and side effect aspects as powerful and useful as possible.



I think you have the order backwards... they concentrate on making control and side effects ...so straight at-wills are not damage dishing boom booms...
  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."

 

The only time I ever enjoyed the wizard was in 4e.  The reason might surprise you though.  It was mostly because the wizard at-wills were so much fun.  So fun in fact that I would have gladly traded away my daily spells for more at-wills. No class in 4e had the breadth of magical options as the wizard. Between at will cantrips and some of the most unique at will powers in the game the wizard finally felt magical.

And this is exactly why Next is such a challenge. I never felt the 4e wizard felt like a wizard, and one of the reasons is because I have no use for at-will powers on a wizard. Magic is the rare, powerful stuff, at-will magic makes it feel like swinging a sword. I'm still hoping that there will be a way to build a Next wizard with no at-wills at all, but I expect at this point it will be relegated to an optional rule at best.

That said, the 4e Wizard's "launch" at-wills were pretty intensely boring (except for that one whose name eludes me at the moment - the one with some actual area denial?) - other than the fact that they were at-will.  "Boring At-Wills" isn't something I would take any particular joy in seeing repeated, and should be pretty easy to avoid, right?

Independent of hoping to get a wizard without at-wills at all, I'm actually hoping every class has at least one "boring" at-will, by which I mean something that is simple straight damage that is big enough to be useful. One of the things I see as a problem in 4e (and which some people probably see as an advantage) is that too many at-wills where complex powers with side effects that have to be tracked. Those powers slow the game down, but so many classes don't have any useful straight damage that they end up being the best powers.




There have been several suggestions that players choose to memorize a spells as an at will, encounter, or daily version and be able to use any spell as a ritual.

If they did this then everyone would be happy. We could have all at will casters, all encounter casters, all daily casters, and any mix of them. However this idea was suggested about two packets ago, so its doubtful that it will be used.
What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.

Here we have someone who briefly "checked out" the latest playtest at a hobby store. Saw they didn't like some things they think they perceived, made sweeping assumptions, and dismissed it as if it were the final product.

As if things aren't in a state of flux and development. As if its a real RPG. As if somehow they just experienced 5e.

Honestly, it dumbfounds me sometimes.



The answer lies in the distance between what is being offered in the playtest and what one wants out of D&D, and that distance being so great that you can't see 5E getting there. Is just so wrong that it being in a state of flux doesn't matter.
...whatever
Sign In to post comments