Class Mechanics: When Flavor and Lore is just not enough to make your character feel unique.

Whenever I create a DnD character I'm very likely to have a concept for the character, it's likely going to fit in a character archtype because that's what I had in mind for it. Whether is the sneaky trickster, the wise mage, or a bloodlust barbarian, I want my character to have it's defining characteristics that set them apart from other characters in the story.


Now, like it or not DnD is a game and it's rules and mechanics are a huge part of it. If you wanted to just roleplay a story you wouldn't need a game system, you could just improvise whatever you felt kept the flow of the story going.

So, whenever you have a character, it's pretty important that his abilities differenciate from other characters by actually showing him to be better at his specialized tasks. But it's not only that, I believe that having the character play itself diferently is a very under appreciated thing.

If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.

For all the reasons stated above, I strongly believe that classes should have it's own unique mechanics that immediately differenciate them from their peers.

The Rogue skill tricks are great, and I cringe every time I read someone suggesting that every class should have skill tricks.

Martial Dice and Manuevers are a bit wonky but potentially awesome, but having all Martial classes have them takes away from their luster, I'd love to see them reworked as a Fighter only Mechanic.

There's people asking  for the wizard to switch to a spell points mechanic, god no...that would fit a sorcerer so much better, and it would provide a much more distinct experience between the two classes.

With that in mind I hope that classes not yet implemented have their own resources and mechanics:

 I'd love to play a Barbarian that fueled his rage everytime he dealt or recieved damage and used that rage to fuel devastating abilities.

 I'd love to see a warlock that got closer to corruption every time he used his dark magic and had to handle that, limiting the use of his powers in an interesting fashion.

I'd love to play a druid that isn't just a cleric with a different spell list and shapeshift or animal companion instead of channel divinity.


As long as you can find a decent balance between classes and the mechanics aren't too time consuming as to disrupt the flow of the game, I believe that each class having it's own unique Mechanics and Resource systems is something that will add a lot to the playing experience.

I agree... that was the strength of 4e.

I personally enjoyed going to cons which a new character concept, a cool looking mini that exemplified those traits and the in game skills that back it up.

2e was weak...every melee character had the same feats. 3e got better but you really needed to be higher level and have access to all of the splat books.

I like the adde dice concept...just not sure it's been placed properly.
I disagree with you in so many levels.
First, disagree with the statement about 4e, but that is another thing.
And actually, people have been very clear that they want the wizard to have the option of non-Vancian. This thing of "play another class if you like that system' apparently didn't worked.
I disagree with you in so many levels. First, disagree with the statement about 4e, but that is another thing. And actually, people have been very clear that they want the wizard to have the option of non-Vancian. This thing of "play another class if you like that system' apparently didn't worked.



Wizards and Sorcerers are a very specially case where they are almost the same class, Maybe now the people are crying out for a non-vancian Wizard option, maybe if there was a Spell Point fueled sorcerer, they wouldn't be so vocal about it.

"play another class if you like that system" is an absurd simplification of what I'm talking about, I'm advocating for each class to have it's own distinct and hopefully engaging mechanics and resource system. Whatever you do there are people that are not going to be happy with the classes, but if all classes play the same, then everyone who doesn't like it will be unhappy with every class in the game. If we have diversity then maybe someone won't like a class much, but will have a different one to choose and if he's dead set on being a particular class with different mechanics., he will have a lot of mechanics to adapt.


It's fine that you disagree with me, but it's essencially worthless if you don't point out why, I'd love to read your opinion.
Whenever I create a DnD character I'm very likely to have a concept for the character, it's likely going to fit in a character archtype because that's what I had in mind for it. Whether is the sneaky trickster, the wise mage, or a bloodlust barbarian, I want my character to have it's defining characteristics that set them apart from other characters in the story.


Now, like it or not DnD is a game and it's rules and mechanics are a huge part of it. If you wanted to just roleplay a story you wouldn't need a game system, you could just improvise whatever you felt kept the flow of the story going.

So, whenever you have a character, it's pretty important that his abilities differenciate from other characters by actually showing him to be better at his specialized tasks. But it's not only that, I believe that having the character play itself diferently is a very under appreciated thing.

If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.

For all the reasons stated above, I strongly believe that classes should have it's own unique mechanics that immediately differenciate them from their peers.

The Rogue skill tricks are great, and I cringe every time I read someone suggesting that every class should have skill tricks.

Martial Dice and Manuevers are a bit wonky but potentially awesome, but having all Martial classes have them takes away from their luster, I'd love to see them reworked as a Fighter only Mechanic.

There's people asking  for the wizard to switch to a spell points mechanic, god no...that would fit a sorcerer so much better, and it would provide a much more distinct experience between the two classes.

With that in mind I hope that classes not yet implemented have their own resources and mechanics:

 I'd love to play a Barbarian that fueled his rage everytime he dealt or recieved damage and used that rage to fuel devastating abilities.

 I'd love to see a warlock that got closer to corruption every time he used his dark magic and had to handle that, limiting the use of his powers in an interesting fashion.

I'd love to play a druid that isn't just a cleric with a different spell list and shapeshift or animal companion instead of channel divinity.


As long as you can find a decent balance between classes and the mechanics aren't too time consuming as to disrupt the flow of the game, I believe that each class having it's own unique Mechanics and Resource systems is something that will add a lot to the playing experience.




4e was the first game that had more than two classes (caster and non caster).  In previous editions casters could do basically everything, and all played exactly the same because they were all built using the almost the exact same spell progression. In previous editions melee combatants had no real options available to them other than full attack. In 4e the rogue played radically differently from the fighter which is something I never saw in all my years of 3e.

The 5e rogue, fighter, and monk all play way too similarly.  They are basically 90% identical when it comes to combat. On top of that, rogue skill tricks do not actually serve to make it play differently. They aren't even that unique when it comes down to most of them.

I agree that classes should have unique playstyles and mechanics, but so far 5e is coming off very bland. Nothing is that inspiring from a mechanics standpoint.

It is worse than 4e in that not only do all martial classes uses the same "power structure" with martial damage dice, but they also share the majority of their maneuvers and have no defining class features. In 4e even though classes shared the same power structure, the class mechanics and powers available were radically different.
Eh, I was going to pose but I don't feel it's worth it. The subject was nice, but since the OP mentioned 4e it's going to be nothing but 5 pages on why 4e was/wasn't bad.

Happy posting. 
My two copper.

Wizards and Sorcerers are a very specially case where they are almost the same class, Maybe now the people are crying out for a non-vancian Wizard option, maybe if there was a Spell Point fueled sorcerer, they wouldn't be so vocal about it.

"play another class if you like that system" is an absurd simplification of what I'm talking about, I'm advocating for each class to have it's own distinct and hopefully engaging mechanics and resource system. Whatever you do there are people that are not going to be happy with the classes, but if all classes play the same, then everyone who doesn't like it will be unhappy with every class in the game. If we have diversity then maybe someone won't like a class much, but will have a different one to choose and if he's dead set on being a particular class with different mechanics., he will have a lot of mechanics to adapt.

The sorcerer was spell point, in some package. People didn't like, they want a non-Vancian wizard. People felt that it was exactly like that: "Don't like Vancian? Play another class".
Eh, I was going to pose but I don't feel it's worth it. The subject was nice, but since the OP mentioned 4e it's going to be nothing but 5 pages on why 4e was/wasn't bad.

Happy posting. 




This right here is why I probably won't check this thread anymore either.
If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.

This is really the only part of that long post that I read and paid attention to - and I cannot take anything else you say seriously if you honestly think that. Sorry.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

A Fighter should always win in a fair fight.

A Rogue should not fight fair.



Warlocks, Witches, Wizards, Sorcerers -- all are synonyms for a Magician. So, just pick a flavor and stick to it. 

At this point, people expect Warlocks to have pacts and at-wills, Sorcerers to have innate power, and Wizards gaining power through education. 

Here's a though - use a powered-up version of incarnum for Sorcerers. I think it would work nicely to represent inner power.  If the sorcerer wants to fly, that would take away from the amount of damage their lightning bolts do, that sort of a mechanism, and just allow them to adjust on flight - you could use some sort of tokens to track the amount of power in active abilities. 



If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.

This is really the only part of that long post that I read and paid attention to - and I cannot take anything else you say seriously if you honestly think that. Sorry.



Yeah...this, unfortunately.  It's one thing to criticize something.  It's another thing entirely to jump on the bandwagon and parrot an argument that was wrong when it was first conceived and became even more wrong as 4e progressed.

You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how different the class mechanics were in 4e, which does no service to your credibility in discussing potential class mechanics in Next.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I agree... that was the strength of 4e.

I personally enjoyed going to cons which a new character concept, a cool looking mini that exemplified those traits and the in game skills that back it up.

2e was weak...every melee character had the same feats. 3e got better but you really needed to be higher level and have access to all of the splat books.

I like the adde dice concept...just not sure it's been placed properly.

Just so you are aware. Feats are a contrivance of 3e. They did not exsist in 2nd Edition, nor did everyone have the same ones. Have an nice day.

I used to agree with the first post. I also thought it was because of each class used ADEU. But, it couldn't be that, because there were multiple times I was able to create what I wanted, and those characters felt different despite each using AEDU. So why do I find 4e so tedious when I probably did 5x as much work making 3.5 characters work?

I got a pretty big hint when I read this on the forums. (not exact quote.)
"I want a craft skill so I can be a blacksmith."
"You don't need mechanics to say you're a blacksmith, just say you're a blacksmith."

I think this is it. 4e mechanics are designed to define your character's combat abilities while pretty much leaving out of combat stuff alone. (There are some things like skills, but they aren't very character defining. Themes are nice though.) It does this with the intention that you can just fluff that stuff. It most likely isn't going to break the game, why not simply give people freedom in that area?

Meanwhile in 3.5 I could be like, "I want to make a blind gunslinger," then come up with a lot of mechanics to make it work. I made it work by multiclassing and class dipping and all that crap. I abused the crap out of 3.5. It (usually) didn't result in me having a broken character though, because I (usually) did it to fulfill other character concepts than combat capabilities. (Like covering my rear because I'm blind.)


That's the catch I hit. 3.5 mechanics are designed to define your character's general capabilities. 4e is designed to define your character's COMBAT capabilities and leave that other stuff up to you. By doing this, it actually creates a lot of variance in people's combat abilities. Yes, it's hidden deep within AEDU so you can't quite tell by just looking at it, but it's there. Still, I prefer 3.5's way.


This is why I think we keep having this debate. The idea 3.5 is limiting in any way feels crazy to me, and yet, some people feel that the idea 4e is limiting is crazy. Neither are actually limiting in the right hands. 4e has a ton of combat variance and expects you to just fluff the rest. So you have a ton of options in one area and total freedom in another. 3.5 tries to touch on everything, and because it's so broken you can get your hands on all of it if you know what you're doing.

Despite the OP's mischaracterization, he did say something major.

RPGs are about players having Mechanically Reinforced Action. In D&D the greatest influence comes from Class, then Ability Scores, then Race.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


I used to agree with the first post. I also thought it was because of each class used ADEU. But, it couldn't be that, because there were multiple times I was able to create what I wanted, and those characters felt different despite each using AEDU. So why do I find 4e so tedious when I probably did 5x as much work making 3.5 characters work?

I got a pretty big hint when I read this on the forums. (not exact quote.)
"I want a craft skill so I can be a blacksmith."
"You don't need mechanics to say you're a blacksmith, just say you're a blacksmith."

I think this is it. 4e mechanics are designed to define your character's combat abilities while pretty much leaving out of combat stuff alone. (There are some things like skills, but they aren't very character defining. Themes are nice though.) It does this with the intention that you can just fluff that stuff. It most likely isn't going to break the game, why not simply give people freedom in that area?

Meanwhile in 3.5 I could be like, "I want to make a blind gunslinger," then come up with a lot of mechanics to make it work. I made it work by multiclassing and class dipping and all that crap. I abused the crap out of 3.5. It (usually) didn't result in me having a broken character though, because I (usually) did it to fulfill other character concepts than combat capabilities. (Like covering my rear because I'm blind.)


That's the catch I hit. 3.5 mechanics are designed to define your character's general capabilities. 4e is designed to define your character's COMBAT capabilities and leave that other stuff up to you. By doing this, it actually creates a lot of variance in people's combat abilities. Yes, it's hidden deep within AEDU so you can't quite tell by just looking at it, but it's there. Still, I prefer 3.5's way.


This is why I think we keep having this debate. The idea 3.5 is limiting in any way feels crazy to me, and yet, some people feel that the idea 4e is limiting is crazy. Neither are actually limiting in the right hands. 4e has a ton of combat variance and expects you to just fluff the rest. So you have a ton of options in one area and total freedom in another. 3.5 tries to touch on everything, and because it's so broken you can get your hands on all of it if you know what you're doing.




This is one of the concerns I have about having so much modularity in 5e. One, it gets add so late that you end up waiting years to fully create your character. Two, it gets buried in a splat book and you never know its there. In 4e mechanics for a blacksmith didn't get mechanically supported until they released it in a dragon article and subsequently added in martial powers 2. If not for the online tool I probably would not even know it existed at all.  I would have just assumed MP2 contained martial class related powers and feats.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
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
3.5 Classes looked different.  But there was only various combinations of 2 classes.

4e AEDU looked the same.  But there are 6 different types of fighters.



So it needs to look like 3.5, but act like 4e. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I've removed content from this thread. Forum disruption, specifically edition warring, is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

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

Please remember to keep your posts polite and on topic. 
4e could have done so many things right that it instead did wrong.

So could every edition.

4e could have given all classes 1 additional trained skill automatically (like how clerics get religion for free and wizards get arcana for free, fighters should get athletics for free).

I'd actually prefer not being forced into skills.  Just leave them as suggestions.

4e should have had a profession skill. That right there would have pleased a bunch of people.

Strongly Agree.

4e combat should have been more simple (no at-will powers with end of next turn bonuses/penalties, no powers that give +/- X to Y - stick with advantage/disadvantage, reduced number of powers in total, reduced frequency of ongoing and save ends effects, etc). That would have cut most combat time in half.

Very Strongly Disagree.

It made combat feel dynamic and chaotic.  Instead of...

1) Roll
2) Is it dead?
   no) Goto 1.

While it's ok as an option.  It should definatly not be the default.

4e should have had reduced numbers bloat. (reduce total scaling by 1/2 level in total. For monsters this means removing the 1/2 level bonus. For PCs it means removing the 1/2 level bonus or removing ability score increases, enhancement bonuses, expertise feats, and item bonuses. Either way a reduced scaling would keep monsters relevant longer.

Agree.  It would of made thigns smoother.  Though with minions and solo's the range was still covered.

4e probably should have stopped at level 20.

Mildly Disagree.

I liked the 3 tier approch.

Fight Normals
Fight Legends
Fight Gods

4e also could have gotten away with more flexibility in regards to the power structure.
For example, give the wizard no encounter powers but give him 2 Daily powers for each encounter slot. (level 1 has 3 dailies, level 3 has 5 dailies, level 5 has 6 dailies, level 7 has 8 dailies, etc)
Another example would be martial characters not having stamina instead of encounter powers. Spend 1 stamina to use any encounter power you know.

Agree.  More flexibility would of been nice.

Personally i would of had attack powers the same as utilty powers.  Some are daily, some are enounter, a few are at-will.

But 4e was rushed, put out hastily, and did not fix/incorporate many of the changes people wanted before it was released.

True, but it also did alot of what people wanted..

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.
[...]
There's people asking  for the wizard to switch to a spell points mechanic, god no...that would fit a sorcerer so much better, and it would provide a much more distinct experience between the two classes.

I'm going to disagree with this. 

For a long time, the only spellcasting was Vancian, but a cleric still played differently than a wizard.  The wizard had mechanics to hurt large groups of people - which nobody else could do; while the cleric had mechanics to heal people - which nobody else could do.  Complaining that they're the same thing because they're both Vancian, or because they're both AEDU, or whatever is like complaining that every check involves rolling a d20.  You might as well complain that every class is the same because they all gain feats.

Whether all classes use AEDU, or all spellcasters use spell points, it's what you do with those powers which are the different mechanics.

The metagame is not the game.

At this point, people expect Warlocks to have pacts and at-wills, Sorcerers to have innate power, and Wizards gaining power through education.

I expect Warlocks to have innate power and Binders to have Pacts.  Sorcerers having innate power is a common but odd misconception.  The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.
The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.

Because they hit things with big swords.  Not that people didn't complain about a dragon caster who uses big swords.

But people expect "sorcerer" to hit things with fire, ice, and lightning.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

At this point, people expect Warlocks to have pacts and at-wills, Sorcerers to have innate power, and Wizards gaining power through education.

I expect Warlocks to have innate power and Binders to have Pacts.  Sorcerers having innate power is a common but odd misconception.  The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.

 Warlocks and Sorcerers were introduced in 3e. Warlock's thing was all at-will powers there, with fluff speaking of infernal pacts, or inherited ones. 
Pacts also make an appereance in 4e. That's all I've seen of warlocks.

Sorcerers have innate power in 3e - they're not necessarily smart, it's just that when they start growing hair in strange places, they also start throwing around magic.  I'm not sure how it was handled in 4e. 

Where are you getting this "warlocks have innate power" thing?  
The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.

Because they hit things with big swords.  Not that people didn't complain about a dragon caster who uses big swords.

But people expect "sorcerer" to hit things with fire, ice, and lightning.

Actually the October L&L in question specifically states they are likely removing the Twin Soul option from Sorcerers and giving it to a new as of yet unnamed class.  It is specifically the dragon caster that is difficult to convert, as it doesn't exist in 4E and only exists in 3E with the use of Feats and Prestige Classes.
I disagree with you in so many levels. First, disagree with the statement about 4e, but that is another thing. And actually, people have been very clear that they want the wizard to have the option of non-Vancian. This thing of "play another class if you like that system' apparently didn't worked.



Wizards and Sorcerers are a very specially case where they are almost the same class, Maybe now the people are crying out for a non-vancian Wizard option, maybe if there was a Spell Point fueled sorcerer, they wouldn't be so vocal about it.


Maybe you missed it, but there is a spell point sorcerer.  It was in one of the earler packets.  And no, it doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't be forced to use something that you hate just to play the class you want to play.  Casters need their spells per day mechanic to be modular, or else someone is going to be stuck with the choice of playing a class with a mechanic they hate or just playing another class.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

At this point, people expect Warlocks to have pacts and at-wills, Sorcerers to have innate power, and Wizards gaining power through education.

I expect Warlocks to have innate power and Binders to have Pacts.  Sorcerers having innate power is a common but odd misconception.  The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.

 Warlocks and Sorcerers were introduced in 3e. Warlock's thing was all at-will powers there, with fluff speaking of infernal pacts, or inherited ones.

Sorcerers have innate power in 3e - they're not necessarily smart, it's just that when they start growing hair in strange places, they also start throwing around magic.  I'm not sure how it was handled in 4e. 

Where are you getting this "warlocks have innate power" thing?  

Pacts are introduced in 3E in the Binder class.  Sorcerers in 3E are only rumored to have innate power in their fluff, while mechanically they only get that ability through Dragon Blooded Feats and Prestige Classes.  Warlocks in 3E have pacts in their fluff, with no mechanical representation.  Their power is repeatedly mentioned to be infused within their soul, making them the only truly innate spellcasters in 3E.  As there is no mechanical method for Warlocks to gain Pacts in 3E, their power clearly does not come from said Pacts.
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 12:38PM, Senevri wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 12:07PM, Chakravant wrote:

Jan 11, 2013 -- 9:36AM, Senevri wrote:

At this point, people expect Warlocks to have pacts and at-wills, Sorcerers to have innate power, and Wizards gaining power through education.


I expect Warlocks to have innate power and Binders to have Pacts.  Sorcerers having innate power is a common but odd misconception.  The DDN designers already admitted that the DDN Sorcerer was too different from the 3E and 4E versions, which is why they removed it for heavy alteration.


 Warlocks and Sorcerers were introduced in 3e. Warlock's thing was all at-will powers there, with fluff speaking of infernal pacts, or inherited ones.

Sorcerers have innate power in 3e - they're not necessarily smart, it's just that when they start growing hair in strange places, they also start throwing around magic.  I'm not sure how it was handled in 4e. 

Where are you getting this "warlocks have innate power" thing?  


Pacts are introduced in 3E in the Binder class.  Sorcerers in 3E are only rumored to have innate power in their fluff, while mechanically they only get that ability through Dragon Blooded Feats and Prestige Classes.  Warlocks in 3E have pacts in their fluff, with no mechanical representation.  Their power is repeatedly mentioned to be infused within their soul, making them the only truly innate spellcasters in 3E.  As there is no mechanical method for Warlocks to gain Pacts in 3E, their power clearly does not come from said Pacts.


In 4e, the warlock gained power from pacts, while the sorcerer have innate power.
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.


While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:

Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else.  A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing.  10 or better means you kill the target. 

Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter?  Are you really prepared to say anyone dissatisfied with not feeling unique has "problems" ?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.


While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:

Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else.  A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing.  10 or better means you kill the target. 

Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter?



Rogue: "I do two somersaults up to the monster, then deftly stick it between the ribs."
Fighter: "I march up to it and smash it over the head with my hammer."

So, yes.
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.


While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:

Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else.  A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing.  10 or better means you kill the target. 

Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter?



Rogue: "I do two somersaults up to the monster, then deftly stick it between the ribs."
Fighter: "I march up to it and smash it over the head with my hammer."

So, yes.


Could easily also be

Fighter: "I do two somersaults up to the monster, then deftly stick it between the ribs."
Rogue: "I march up to it and smash it over the head with my hammer."

With Mand's system, so...no.
My two copper.
If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.

So, yes.

Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort.  It needs to feel like your character.
If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.

So, yes.

Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort.  It needs to feel like your character.


And it won't, if anyone else who isn't playing 'your' character can do the exact things you can do.  You cannot be unique if everyone is the same as you are.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
That is fine and dandy in another game but in D&D my ability scores, class features, and race are the major factors in determining how my character feels.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The developers mentioned in the latest hangout video that they pay close attention to making sure that classes feel different from each other. They want rogues to feel like a seperate class than fighter narritively and mechanically.

I have the feeling that some people are forgeting that D&D is a class based game :P
My two copper.
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."

While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So players narrative has to be restricted ... to feel like their characters?
  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."

 

If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.

So, yes.

Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort.  It needs to feel like your character.


And it won't, if anyone else who isn't playing 'your' character can do the exact things you can do.  You cannot be unique if everyone is the same as you are.



Not really, no, because how you do what you do matters, and what you will choose to do matters as well ("A spider?  Uh ... you handle the spider.  They creep me out.").  Unified mechanics do not create identical characters.

The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
how you do what you do matters.


I agree completely.  But in what I describe, how you do what you do is always the same.  And yet, somehow, you think it isn't.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."

While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.



That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades.  Guess I'm doing it wrong.  And I was having so much fun, too ...
how you do what you do matters.


I agree completely.  But in what I describe, how you do what you do is always the same.  And yet, somehow, you think it isn't.



In the mechanical sense, yes.
In the narrative/roleplay sense, no.

Yeah...this, unfortunately.  It's one thing to criticize something.  It's another thing entirely to jump on the bandwagon and parrot an argument that was wrong when it was first conceived and became even more wrong as 4e progressed.

You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how different the class mechanics were in 4e, which does no service to your credibility in discussing potential class mechanics in Next.



Yeah...they just streamlined the progression and the procedure to build characters and the rate they get new abilities...but the classes are alot more diferent from each other than they were in past editions in my opinion...and more than on the current playtests too.  Even when 2 classes had powers that were very similar, their class features and class feats made them use them in a very diferent ways and situations...Even 2 characters of the same class end up playing very diferent from each other