"Everything is core" - What it actually meant, for perspective, and what that means for 5e

A common pro/con (depending on who you talk to) of 4e is "everything is core".  People go back and forth about it, why it was good or bad, but I've noticed some have a severe misunderstanding of what it actually meant, leading to disagreements and poor argumentation, from both sides.

So, what is "Everything is Core"?  A lot of people assume that because "everything is core" it means that everything, from the actual core books to supplements and splatbooks, is on the table and available in a campaign.

This is only partly true.

What it actually means is that everything is designed according to a universal standard, and that anything can be used by the DM without fear of upsetting the game experience (balance, mechanical structure, etc).  As many older players will attest, supplements weren't always held to a clear standard.  For good or for ill, many supplements didn't follow any specific design paradigms.  In 1e and especially 2e, most supplements added new rules and sub-systems, many of which made characters significantly more powerful than characters that didn't use these rules.  Certainly, these additional rules made the game significantly more complex.  A great number of DMs would ban or restrict these supplements, out of a variety of concerns.  This is not a condemnation of these early editions, just a statement of fact.  A lot of these new rules and whatnot were great fun.  Generally, you can think of them as high-risk, high reward.

In 3e, the core system was greatly simplified.  Roll high, good.  Roll low, bad.  D20+mods, and beat the DC.  Everything spread from that.  There were a great number of sub-systems, but they all came down to that core mechanical truth.  Supplements added new sub-systems and details, and they largely kept this truth.  As a result, less supplements were outright banned because of concerns over complexity.  However, not all supplements were created equal, and some supplements gave vastly more effective power than others, and as a result some DMs banned them out of concerns for character balance and table management.  In many cases, the obscene power boost offered by some supplements turned DMs off of all supplements, out of some sense of "preventative care".

4e sought to remove that fear.  If for no other reason, that fear impacted potential sales, because who would buy what they wouldn't ever use.

So, in 4e, every supplement is designed according to some core assumptions about the game.  Not only was 4e free of a huge number of sub-systems (again, for good or for ill, depending on who you ask), every supplement was designed under these strict paradigms.  It wasn't until very late in 4e's lifespan that design branched out from the core mechanics (Psionic Augmentation, Runes, Essentials in general), and even then, they didn't stretch very far.  In theory (if not always in practice), everything was designed around a clear concept of relative power level, and a DM could add any supplement to their game without upsetting the balance at the table, or vastly changing the experience of the game and its mechanics.

So it's not that "everything is automatically allowed, as if it was printed in the core rulebook", but "everything is designed according to the standards of the core rulebook, and thus can be added by the DM without needing to be carefully watched".

"Everything is Core" didn't mean you had to include Warforged in your campaign setting, so much as including Warforged (and other Living Constructs) wouldn't mess up your game if you didn't keep a close eye on them.

So what does this mean for 5e?  Well, we know that 5e is designed around a solid core, with alternate rules and sub-systems to be added in via modules that can be plugged in and out as needed or desired by the DM (and the group).

The big (rhetorical) question I have is whether those modules will be designed in the spirit of 4e, in that a DM would be able to add them without having to excessively worry about upsetting balance or the core play experience.  And the followup question, should DMs even worry about it at all, even if the modules did "upset balance"?
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
I don't buy into that Lokiare. Some money is better than no money and 3.5 was printed up to the end more or less, same thing with 2nd ed and 1st ed prinitng overlapped with 2nd ed.

 4th ed is the first ediiton to go oop 2 years befroe the next ediiton hits the shelves. I don't think that is a good sign no matter how you cut it. DDI is still up so I would assume thats still making money. I'm not disputing 4th ed sold well to start with but it seems clear it did not retain the people who tried it.

 I more or less expected PF to be a bit more successful than the other D&D clones but when they are supporting minis, a PC game is in the works and alot of 3pp has joined them thats not a great sign either.

 Put simply the "yay 4th ed failed part" is vastly outweighed by "doh I'm not getting a fixed 3.5 anytime soon" and the "doh D&DN in its current form is boring" followed by "doh I would prefer d20 2nd ed or maybe 4.5 over D&DN".

 Pathfinder won I suppose but its a own goal and a pyric victory IMHO.



Whether you buy into that doesn't matter. Its simply how businesses work. If they think they can make more money by doing something else, even if it is only a 5% increase they are required by corporate bylaws to pursue that new method. They are required to increase profit every quarter or lose their jobs. That is how corporations work. So when they saw pathfinder take the lead, they knew there was a way to make more money, so they scrapped 4E and chased after it...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.


Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.



Balance is impossible (and undesirable):

"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....

Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."

Legends & Lore RPG Design Philosophy





DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:

" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

Legends & Lore The five-minute Workday 





Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.



 I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.

 I think the hardcore 4th ed players got an ideal in their head about the perfect version of 4th ed (whatever that is) and anyhting that deviated from this ideal was bad and not 4th ed. Even if essentials was a blatant grab at the old school crowd (which I don't see as essentials is still 4th ed to me). Maybe it was the everything is core mentality that was pushed in 4th ed IDK. In 2nd ed and 3rd ed if you didn't like something you basically ignored it. Players Option books in 2nd ed I don't think were that popular or at least on the grognard sites they are not but you don't really see people claiming they are not second ad and they do not get blamed for TSR tanking and 2nd ed trundled on for another 4-5 years after them.

Thats probably why I am sceptical of the blame essentials mentality and to me they ither indicate 4th ed bloated to fast as there is really only so much you can do with XYZ damage and 20 odd status effects form a design point of view or 4th ed was in trouble in 2009 and essentials was a rush job to appeal to the 3.5 crowd which I doubt as the 3.5 crowd doesn't really like them either because its still 4th ed at the end of the day. I liked parts of essentials but I only dealt with it via DDI and I have never seen a dead tree format essentials book.

 Maybe it was the essentials length as a rubbish 3rd ed book was a stand alone product. THe next one might be better just wait and see.



Essentials was 4e, in the sense that it had 4e printed on the cover, so to speak.  In many ways, it diverted from "traditional" 4e design principles in such a way as to not appeal to many (but not all) 4e fans.

If what you liked about 4e wasn't evident in Essentials, then you probably didn't like Essentials, even though it "belonged" to your favorite edition.

Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
How exactly are you defining balance? Because "balanced" has a pretty concrete definition.



No it doesn't.  Just look at any one of the multi-hundred post threads on the subject.

Perfect balance means no deviation from the balanced state.  This is enforced balance, and it is bad.  It makes the game boring, and the devs have it exactly right in this regard.

Perfect balance is, indeed, impossible.  Thus, the idea that it might theoretically be 'bad' or 'boring' is irrelevant - no matter how hard you try for balance, it won't be /perfectly/ balanced.  At the imperfect levels of balance we have to work with, complex, better-balanced games give more viable/meaningful options than equally complex but poorly balanced ones, because they have fewer 'trap' options and no (or few & swiftly errata'd) overwhelmingly superior ones.

While the impossibility of perfect balance is fine, as far as it goes, what really matters is what you take from that truism.  Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible?  Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems?  The L&L articles that so much as acknowledge that balance might be a design consideration seem to come down on the side of dismissing it.  The game can't be perfectly balanced, so don't complain when it's not balanced, at all.

If that sounds cynical, BTW, that's because I'm self-admittedly very cynical.  ;(



Please stop repeating the fallacy that 'perfect balance is impossible'. Perfect balance IS possible, its simply not worth the trouble of pursuing. It can be accomplished, but it probably shouldn't as it would take 10 years and some very powerful software and hardware to run all possible combinations and then permute them into usable data, modify, and then repeat until they had a final product. Instead perfect balance is not worth pursuing...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.


Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.



Balance is impossible (and undesirable):

"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....

Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."

Legends & Lore RPG Design Philosophy





DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:

" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

Legends & Lore The five-minute Workday 





Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...



 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Balance does not seem to be a meaningful consideration, WotC commentary dismisses balance as impossible, and promises 'guidelines' for those who want to take a stab at it.


Well that's just flatly wrong, in all regards.



Balance is impossible (and undesirable):

"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....

Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."

Legends & Lore RPG Design Philosophy





DM's who want balance can have some guidelines:

" DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

Legends & Lore The five-minute Workday 





Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...



 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?




Not if its cursed or has dragon skin and claws. I have to be able to play it as a Wizard with all the traditional fluff that goes with it and not be tied into things like innate abilities and limited spell lists that are missing iconic Wizard spells. If they create a second arcane class called a "Mage" and it is a carbon copy of 4E's Wizard, I would be fine with that...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


 I think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won't create massive problems balance wise in a 4th ed game. Balance being a key goal of 4th ed I suppose.



Were Essentials characters fundamentally over or underpowered?  In most cases, no (coughcoughVampirecough).  What they did lack was equitable resources and freedom of choice compared to "old" 4e, all in the name of simplicity.

Was simplicity a wrong thing to pursue?  I won't say that unequivocally.  I personally didn't care for it, nor desired it, for a number of reasons, but I won't deny the appeal.

Part of the appeal of 4e to people like me was the near balance in effectiveness, yes, but it was also the equitable resources and general uniform structure to the design that made encounter and adventure planning easier, as well as made "sharing the spotlight" a little easier, since every character had a means to shine in their own way in each pillar.

Essentials lacked that in some respects.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Thing is, for many 4e fans, Essentials was not 4e.



 I just don't get this attitude at all. I can understand people not liking essentials. Theres alot of 3.5 splats I don't like but I do not claim that the minatures handbook, or the Complete Psion or the legacy weapon book is not 3.5.

 I think the hardcore 4th ed players got an ideal in their head about the perfect version of 4th ed (whatever that is) and anyhting that deviated from this ideal was bad and not 4th ed. Even if essentials was a blatant grab at the old school crowd (which I don't see as essentials is still 4th ed to me). Maybe it was the everything is core mentality that was pushed in 4th ed IDK. In 2nd ed and 3rd ed if you didn't like something you basically ignored it. Players Option books in 2nd ed I don't think were that popular or at least on the grognard sites they are not but you don't really see people claiming they are not second ad and they do not get blamed for TSR tanking and 2nd ed trundled on for another 4-5 years after them.

Thats probably why I am sceptical of the blame essentials mentality and to me they ither indicate 4th ed bloated to fast as there is really only so much you can do with XYZ damage and 20 odd status effects form a design point of view or 4th ed was in trouble in 2009 and essentials was a rush job to appeal to the 3.5 crowd which I doubt as the 3.5 crowd doesn't really like them either because its still 4th ed at the end of the day. I liked parts of essentials but I only dealt with it via DDI and I have never seen a dead tree format essentials book.

 Maybe it was the essentials length as a rubbish 3rd ed book was a stand alone product. THe next one might be better just wait and see.

Zardnaar, I am fine with folks differing on opinions of their favorite edition of the D&D game , however I would request as a Matter of respect that you refrain from using such edition warring names such as 4 venger, and grognard. These terms imply a judgement of others prefered playstyles and will only invoke flame and grate on peoples emotions. If you want to use either derogatory term to describe oneself then that is a self definition. I.E. I Brightmantle an old school Pre WOTC D&D fan am a grognard.  Not "I visit the Grognard sites and see _ ". You are inviting a flame war. I appriciate your opinions and insight but will report you if you continue this behavior. It is Baiting for an edition war.
  Nothing personal.
Brightmantle, 1st Knight of the Brave order of WTF. Representing the entire D&D fanbase and welcoming Multi Edition Input to make Next the Best D&D ever,
                                           "Edition wars kill players and that kills D&D"
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.

 Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.

Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.

 I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 as well as made "sharing the spotlight" a little easier, since every character had a means to shine in their own way in each pillar. 



That right there is something I see missing in 5e.
  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 think thats what I don't understand. not sure if they stated wht 4th eds design goals were or if people kind of projected there own thoughts onto it. Essnetials seems balanced if a little boring and from what I have heard essentials characters won't create massive problems balance wise in a 4th ed game. Balance being a key goal of 4th ed I suppose.



Were Essentials characters fundamentally over or underpowered?  In most cases, no (coughcoughVampirecough).  What they did lack was equitable resources and freedom of choice compared to "old" 4e, all in the name of simplicity.

Was simplicity a wrong thing to pursue?  I won't say that unequivocally.  I personally didn't care for it, nor desired it, for a number of reasons, but I won't deny the appeal.

Part of the appeal of 4e to people like me was the near balance in effectiveness, yes, but it was also the equitable resources and general uniform structure to the design that made encounter and adventure planning easier, as well as made "sharing the spotlight" a little easier, since every character had a means to shine in their own way in each pillar.

Essentials lacked that in some respects.



Exactly!

If they had create a new Fighter class feature that was the same as the slayers and simply added them repeats of the same encounter power whenever they leveled up and got a new power, and then made a kind of template character that had all those powers pre chosen, I don't think anyone would have had a problem with the new 'Slayer' Fighter. Instead they locked the new class into simple land with no choices...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


 Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.




This is, Essential was not just splatbooks. Many people call it 4.5. Just for you to have some idea: if you have the Essentials products, you don't even need the 3 core books, and every splatbook released for 4e after followed the design style of Essentials, not 4e Core.
In the 4e foruns, I remember people separating 4e into 4e Core (before Essentials) and 4e Essentials (Essentials and after).
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.

 Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.

Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.

 I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?



I absolutely expect the class on release, or something that would do the same thing like swappable casting systems or traditions that can turn any spell into an encounter spell or whatever, but yeah, it has to be in the first run of books. I'm not going to wait a long time just to get a playable class...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.

 Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.

Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.

 I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?



I absolutely expect the class on release, or something that would do the same thing like swappable casting systems or traditions that can turn any spell into an encounter spell or whatever, but yeah, it has to be in the first run of books. I'm not going to wait a long time just to get a playable class...



 Thats why I have been kind of big on getting some 4th ed material into the playtests and having a different class structure thats more modular than what they have. Screw the monk even I am more interested in a D&DN Warlord.

 Hands up if you are a monk fan vs warlord. Least popular class in 3rd ed probably, and a class that was in the PHB3 in 4th ed.

 Due to space restraints I don't think alot of class varients are going to be core. An AEDU mage would be a great idea in 3.5 for example but I would not have it replace the traditional wizard although I might do that in my home games (considering making the warmage and beguiler the default wizards).

 Its also probably why I may appear to be a bit obsessive with SWSE. A rekinned soldier/jedi could duplicate the 3.5 and 4th ed fighters- not 100% but in spirit anyway.


 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Lokiare do you expect the mage on release though? Class varients have usually been in splats.

 Foxface I understand people not liking essentials, I don't understand claims that its not 4th ed- see comments about 2nd ed 3rd ed having rubbish splats as well.

Brightmantle I'll try to change some of the wording. I am hard to offend on a personal level and it doesn't bother me if people call me a grognard or various other labels or 4 letter words.

 I can understand why people don't like XYZ edition of the game but a 2nd ed sourcebook is still a second ed sourcebook even if its rubbish sound better?

I don't have an issue with the opinion expressed thusly, "The Combat and tactics 2nd editon book was rubbish IMO because _". Rather, I have an Issue with "Second edition was rubbish and only grognards play it". Should someone say "D&D 4e was not D&D and only 4Vengers like it" I would also take issue. Feel free to voice your various and helpful opinions but keep the Flame blade in it's scabbard please. That is all I ask. ThanksSmile

   I have to, No, get to work with these people, lol.
 
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...



 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?




I won't.
I'm testing my new dice roller..Come on baby, daddy needs a new Heater core for the Chevelle,
 
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...



 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?




I won't.



 Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the warlock and sorcerer are no vancian everyone gets something they will like I suppose even if it isn't perfect. Non vancian wizards are usually in a splatbook in 2nd and 3rd ed. Don't like vancian don't play a wizard and play XYZ is alot better than making all spellcaster vancian or all non-vancian.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?




I won't be playing if there isn't a non-vancian wizard. Not because I want to play one, but because the people I play with do. The fighter and the wizard from packet one have effectively put an end to playtesting with my normal groups. I have had to playtest with people I have met on these forums and the forums for local meetup groups just to stay involved.

I really think you could give people 100% of what they want, but if the class name and fluff doesn't say wizard its going to get written off.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

Problem is when you try and cater to people who say  "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the most popular option.

 The wizard being non vancian by itself wouldn't kill D&DN for me by itelf but elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea regardless of how good the mechanical reasons are for that choice. Hence make the core wizad vancian and probably the cleric/druid and add some non vancian casters and the non vancian varients go into a splat book.

 Wouldn't bother me that much if a level 10 vancian wizards new ability was being able to make his staff glow depending on how the classes power level related to the other classes and monsters they would be expecting to face.

 Its not perfect but there you go.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Problem is when you try and cater to people who say  "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the most popular option.

 The wizard being non vancian by itself wouldn't kill D&DN for me by itelf but elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea regardless of how good the mechanical resasons are for that choice. Hence make the core wizad vancian and probably the cleric/druid and add some non vancian casters and the non vancian varients go into a splat book.

 Wouldn't bother me that much if a level 10 vancian wizards new ability was being able to make his staff glow deonding on how the classes power level related to the other classes and monsters they would be expecting to face.

 Its not perfect but there you go.



Considering the wizard class possibly inspires the most ire of all the classes, I hope they can find a few extra pages in the book to give everyone what they want. 

You might as well substitute the "page count" argument with the "Wookie Defense" if your using it to suggest that having a non-Vancian wizard means no pure Vancian or other derived type of Vancian wizard. Casters are already hogging the page count because of their spells. I think people could live with a few less redundant lesser, light, major, etc spells if they could get another build option to bring in more players.

I'm not understanding what your trying to say about the staff.

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

 I like vancian wizards but i'm not to worried about the power level they have so they can nerf them down from the heights of 3.5.

 They could put a non vancian wizard in core but I think they will make it a splat due to the "why can't they give me XYZ class varient etc etc etc". I could be wrong just wait and see I suppose.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I absolutely love 4E but I also love the different pace and feel that the Essential line brought. I had aLOT of fun with the Knight class and I believe my wife has thoroughly been enjoying he Shadar-kai Berserker.

i also think D&D:next NEEDS to be as variable and modular as possoble upon release to catch a good initial number of people and keep them entertained as the system grows.
 
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...



 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?




I won't.



 Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the warlock and sorcerer are no vancian everyone gets something they will like I suppose even if it isn't perfect. Non vancian wizards are usually in a splatbook in 2nd and 3rd ed. Don't like vancian don't play a wizard and play XYZ is alot better than making all spellcaster vancian or all non-vancian.



Not at all.

I'm expecting them to deliver on the modular casting system.

So I can have my Wizard and you can have yours.

Then everyone WILL be happy.

...

Well, barring a few true haters who really will only be happy if they get what they want and everyone else gets screwed.  But hopefully that's the one group that WotC DON'T put any effort into pleasing. 
 
Well if that's really how they feel, I might as well just give up on play testing this garbage. I only have two main deal breakers. An option to play a non-vancian Wizard, and a balanced game. If they can't do that, I'm gone...



 Would you settle for a non vancian spellcaster?




I won't.



 Thats on you. Not everyone is going to be happy and if the wizard is not vancian you are basically excluding all of the pre 4th ed fans who care about that sort of thing. If the warlock and sorcerer are no vancian everyone gets something they will like I suppose even if it isn't perfect. Non vancian wizards are usually in a splatbook in 2nd and 3rd ed. Don't like vancian don't play a wizard and play XYZ is alot better than making all spellcaster vancian or all non-vancian.



Wow, no where did anyone say they wanted to exclude vancian spell casters. We simply said we aren't going to be happy with only a vancian spell caster. If they have a vancian caster, and also have a non-vancian caster then we both get what we want...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Problem is when you try and cater to people who say  "I won't play unless..." its virtually impossable to play. Physical room in a book also excludes varients for every class. If lines get drawn in the sand fromWoTC PoV you may as well cater to the most popular option.

 The wizard being non vancian by itself wouldn't kill D&DN for me by itelf but elminating vancian altogather is probably a bad idea regardless of how good the mechanical reasons are for that choice. Hence make the core wizad vancian and probably the cleric/druid and add some non vancian casters and the non vancian varients go into a splat book.

 Wouldn't bother me that much if a level 10 vancian wizards new ability was being able to make his staff glow depending on how the classes power level related to the other classes and monsters they would be expecting to face.

 Its not perfect but there you go.



Actually they could easily have non-vancian options. I have written several posts with examples of a single paragraph for each swappable casting system as a suggestion. I'm sure if someone like me can do this, the developers can do better...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 I like vancian wizards but i'm not to worried about the power level they have so they can nerf them down from the heights of 3.5.

 They could put a non vancian wizard in core but I think they will make it a splat due to the "why can't they give me XYZ class varient etc etc etc". I could be wrong just wait and see I suppose.



And many people won't pick up 5E if that is the case. Just like many people passed up 4E for the fact that their favorite core class wasn't in the PHB1...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 The core lasses will be there but I don't realy see them doing 14 classes+ varients for each one and I don't see them making vairents for some and not others. That and varient classes tend to go in splats. The classes will be there, whether or not its your preferred type IDK.

 If they can't include core classe varients thats what I am meaning for some spellcasters can be vancian other do not have to be. If it is mixed I think these classes would be the best candidates for a 4th ed legacy.

Fighter
Rogue
Warlord
Warlock
Sorcerer

thats 5/14 and each edition could get kind of 25% of the classes and I was thinking 1st and 2nd are close enough for a 5/5/5 ratio. ATM the Monk and Cleric resemble the 3.5 classes atm, wizzie is pre 3rd ed and the current fighter and rogue seems influenced by 4th but they are kind of new.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.



They don't have to. They can have swappable casting systems. Here's how it would look in the book:

Vancian Wizard Spells Per Day
Wizard                        -Spell Slots per Spell Level-
Level     1     2     3     4    5    6    7    8    9
1           2
2           3
3           4     2
4           4     3
5           4     3    2
6           4     3    3
...etc...etc...

AEDU Wizard Spells Per Day
Wizard   Spells
Level     Per Day
1           2 at-will, 1 encounter, 1 daily
2           1 utility
3           1 encounter
4           -
5           1 daily
6           1 utility
...etc...etc...

They could literally put these charts next to each other on the same page instead of putting a picture next to it.

The other alternative is to format the spells so that anyone can choose how they want to memorize them, and invdividual DMs could ban the ones they don't want. Here is an example:

Blink
3rd-­level transmutation
You blink deep into the Ethereal plane coming back in time to take action.
Requirement: You must be on a plane other than the Ethereal Plane to cast this spell.
Effect: You vanish from your current plane of existence and appear deep in the Ethereal Plane. At the start of your next turn, you return in a space of your choice that is within 10 feet of the space where you vanished. Unless you have magic that can reach across planes, you can affect and be affected only by things on the Ethereal Plane while you are absent.
At-will: You return at the start of your next turn and the spell ends.
Encounter: As At-will except after the first round roll 1d20 and on a roll of 11 or higher the spell repeats, on a roll of 10 or less the spell ends.
Daily: As Encounter, except the spell repeats until 1 minute is up, on a roll of 10 or less the spell doesn't blink the caster.

I like this the best as it allows the most customizability. Sure an at-will Wizard will have many many choices, but remember each of these choices is about 75% as powerful as other classes attacks. So they will have variety, but be weak in their individual actions. An encounter Wizard would have equal attacks to a Fighter, but only be able to choose one per round so they would be equal to the Fighter because they would have to choose a different spell each round. Some kind of simple rule to prevent the same spell from being memorized multiple times as encounter powers might be needed, or not. If they memorized as daily, you would simply have a standard vancian Wizard. If you mixed them up you would get an AEDU caster with some dailies, some encounters, and some at-wills. The at-wills wouldn't have to scale either because you could memorize any level spell as an at-will...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
wouldn't eat up much space for that part. 4th ed wizard had 15 pages of powers though. TO get that page count down the wizard would be a shadow of the 4th ed one.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 The core lasses will be there but I don't realy see them doing 14 classes+ varients for each one and I don't see them making vairents for some and not others. That and varient classes tend to go in splats. The classes will be there, whether or not its your preferred type IDK.

 If they can't include core classe varients thats what I am meaning for some spellcasters can be vancian other do not have to be. If it is mixed I think these classes would be the best candidates for a 4th ed legacy.

Fighter
Rogue
Warlord
Warlock
Sorcerer

thats 5/14 and each edition could get kind of 25% of the classes and I was thinking 1st and 2nd are close enough for a 5/5/5 ratio. ATM the Monk and Cleric resemble the 3.5 classes atm, wizzie is pre 3rd ed and the current fighter and rogue seems influenced by 4th but they are kind of new.



Strangely they have almost done it with the Fighter and the Rogue. You can play a defender Fighter or a striker Fighter. You can play an assassin Rogue, a burglar Rogue, a thief Rogue, or a thug Rogue. So saying they can't do it is not true...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Well there you go its not all doom and gloom. THe main point is not everyone is going to  get exactly what they want. I like the D&DN cleric better than the 3.5 one even though it has domains only based on the 3.5 one. Monk recycles some 3.5 terms but its not a awful class in D&DN.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

wouldn't eat up much space for that part. 4th ed wizard had 15 pages of powers though. TO get that page count down the wizard would be a shadow of the 4th ed one.



That's why I suggest the last option. I'd rather they just let the casters and DMs pick how the spell is memorized. Since a Wizard can only cast one spell per round and a spell takes an action, there won't be anything overpowered and really they might feel more like a Wizard because they have a variety of choices, but are no more powerful from round to round...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
My bad its late here and I didn't catch the way you worded the spells.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.



They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,

Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.

Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.

There are no core classes.

Which is the evolution from "everything is core" which we are seeing in Next.

With only the very basic mechanics and systems in the core we get a similar effect, "nothing is core" being pretty similar to "everything is core" when you are sitting at the table.  What is played is up to the individual DM and their campaign.

I just hope that the careful monitoring and involvement of the design team in supplimentary material which made "everything is core" work so well is continued into Next.

My fear is that the "well, it's not core" attitude will result in another abomination. 
 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.



They won't have any Wizard in the Core Rules,

Not a Vancian Wizard and not a Non-Vancian Wizard.

Each and every single class is an optional module which you can include in or exclude from your game.

There are no core classes.

Which is the evolution from "everything is core" which we are seeing in Next.

With only the very basic mechanics and systems in the core we get a similar effect, "nothing is core" being pretty similar to "everything is core" when you are sitting at the table.  What is played is up to the individual DM and their campaign.

I just hope that the careful monitoring and involvement of the design team in supplimentary material which made "everything is core" work so well is continued into Next.

My fear is that the "well, it's not core" attitude will result in another abomination. 



 Semantics really. THe 1st 3 D&DN books will be considered the core books regardless of labels. Whatever classes or class varients are in them will be seen as core stuff as the game aparently is going to be modular. To me modular seems to be a marketing ploy for splatbook, others seem to think they will get what they want. We will have to wait and see in that regard. I don't think a module for skill based android PCs will be coming out anytime soon.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Do you acknowledge that perfect balance is impossible, and affirm that you should always strive for the best balance possible?  Or do you use the truism to CYA, and dismiss any balance problems?


What you quoted, is both actually:


"On the other hand, perfect balance is a complete myth. If people want to build broken characters, they are going to find ways to bend the system and options to completely outdo everyone else....


Building everything in perfect balance would lead to a boring game."

The CYA is the first two sentences.  But that last sentence, about it leading to a boring game, is indeed about striving for the best balance possible.

It's really not.  If perfect balance is impossible /and/ perfect balance is boring, then there's no danger of a game being boring because it's "too balanced," because it can't reach that perfectly-boring state.  It's an excuse to give up on delivering balance at all.  

Of course, there's no telling what an unachievable state might be like.  Perfect balance might make for an endlessly engrossing and enjoyable game or a boring one.  There's no perfectly balanced game to test.

Perfect balance isn't possible, it's true, but what that really means is that any game, no matter how well-done, might be improved upon.  Far be it from me to put a hopeful spin on anything, of course... ;)

 With "best" meaning something other than "perfect."

Sure.  Perfection is impossible, so you strive to do the best you can.  That doesn't mean you have to back off from improving things for fear that they'll be 'too good.'

 

 

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

 With "best" meaning something other than "perfect."

Sure.  Perfection is impossible, so you strive to do the best you can.  That doesn't mean you have to back off from improving things for fear that they'll be 'too good.'


No, you missed my point.  "Best" is not "closest to perfect."
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
 More or less agree I just dont think they will but 2 wizards in the core rules.



Yeah, I have to agree. I just don't see that happening.
Sign In to post comments