Just finished our first playtest...

... and it'll be our last. I honestly don't understand what happened here. We were all big 3/3.5 players, and we all were really into 4th as well. This came along and it's like they rolled back all of the things that made 4th edition good. 

I've heard that 4th wasn't terribly popular, but I'm here to tell you that it fixed a ton of annoying things.

1. Fort/Ref/Will defenses: I don't know why we need to backslide into saving throws again. What is gained by making a Dexterity save against a fireball that couldn't have been handled by a Reflex defense? Why did we undo that step forward?

2. Spell slots: Why oh why do people love their spell slots so much? I get the flexibility. I wish 4th had a much wider range of spells and abilities to choose from, but that's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in those producing it. Why do you want to track tables of spell slots by level and have a daily allotment of spells? I hated it in 3.5 and I hate it now.

3. Components: Also known as bookkeeping. It adds nothing fun to the game. "Oh darn it guys, I forgot to buy luminescent moss for my spell." Why did we decide that accounting is a fun thing for people to do in a game?

4. Combat: I know what you're thinking, so let me stop you right there. What 4th did for combat is to give every class a really unique feel. In 3/3.5 and again in this new edition, combat is the same for everyone, but with minute differences. Fighter: "I'll swing at this guy." Rogue: "I'll swing at this guy, but from behind." Ranger: "I'll swing at this guy, but with a bow from over here." Cleric: "I'll swing at this guy, but he's undead so I'm better at it." Yes, there were some differences, and non-combat differences, but in combat everyone was mostly the same. Make an attack roll, make a damage roll, pass your turn. 

When they came up with powers in 4th, they gave each class new life. Rogues now have nimble, dodgy, tumbling attacks that allow them to spring out of cover, or do various cool things. Fighters shield bash to move enemies around while cleaving them apart. Paladins smite with holy vengeance, and shed radiant protection on their allies. Every class feels different and special, with different play styles and strengths. 

Not everything is bad about this edition. There were some interesting changes made that might find a home in our 4th edition group. I kind of liked Hit Dice instead of healing surges. Same basic idea, but a little different. I liked the skill system, so I might take that as well. The idea of advantage and disadvantage is pretty clever, so that might see some use as well.

Of course I don't expect my group to change the world, so we'll just pass on this edition. It's a shame, because we were looking forward to seeing what the next big thing was, but this was way too much backpedaling. If I wanted to play AD&D or 3/3.5, I'd buy those books.

Just our two cents.  
I feel a lot of this. Saves as a kind of Armor Class really cleaned up a lot of the weirdness of who was supposed to roll and when: the attacker always rolls. Granted this led to stupid situations where fire would "attack" character's stats, but I think the mechanic was sound--you just needed to have PCs sometimes roll Athletics or Acrobatics to avoid damage (like you would if they were jumping a chasm) rather than have the cliff attack their Reflexes. That said, 5e has done good simplifying saves by just tying them to your ability rather than having a save that's just a synonym for your ability that's derived from your ability and a bonus that you get from your class for no good reason--just to make leveling up feel more meaningful? I hated save increases, they felt like getting socks for Christmas.

As far as spell slots as they currently exist, I'm not sure why they are how they are. They don't feel like 3e spell prep, which gave you too few spells, but at least was authentically D&D flavored and nicely explained in the flavor text so it made real world sense (basically all spells are rituals, but if you cast most of the ritual back at camp and leave off just the final words, gestures and components you can do those in the thick of battle and the spell goes off as if you'd done the whole 10 minute ritual right then). I think largely it was because powers were awful and while they worked a little better for wizards than other classes (though not by much, it was still pretty lousy) they needed a new system framework that at least gave a nod to older systems. Granted the way spells currently work seems like the worst of both worlds--it's as cumbersome as earlier editions while not keeping with either the nostalgia or lore reasons for the old system.

Combat in 5e is a bit boring. There really needs to be something like combat dice for everyone. Combat dice were fun and added a nice tool to either add tactics into the mix or just some mechanical structure to flesh out a dramatic action. It would be great if much like the gnome's abilities to add a d6 for lore rolls involving technology or magic items, that rogues could add a d6 to combat rolls that involve stealth and subterfuge. Each class could add their dice in whenever what they're doing fits their class' favored way of fighting, expanded upon by things like Background (thugs get the d6 for scare tactic attacks) or race (dwarves use their d6 for attacks based on traditional by the book military tactics).

The part that made powers suck was that if you weren't a roll to hit/roll to damage kind of player--if you liked to do cool feats of daring do and wild improvisation you ended up running into a whole book full of things you couldn't do because you didn't have the right power or feat or whatever. All the rules meant to give people more choices and freedom just ended up getting in the way (and a lot of them were pretty lame flavor-wise to boot). I'd love it if fighters had the special ability: push people around by bashing them with their shield and cutting them to peices. Unfortunately they didn't--they got a whole spell list full of special moves, some of which didn't make much sense, that they could do only periodically for reasons that didn't make much sense.
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
I feel a lot of this. Saves as a kind of Armor Class really cleaned up a lot of the weirdness of who was supposed to roll and when: the attacker always rolls. Granted this led to stupid situations where fire would "attack" character's stats, but I think the mechanic was sound--you just needed to have PCs sometimes roll Athletics or Acrobatics to avoid damage (like you would if they were jumping a chasm) rather than have the cliff attack their Reflexes.



Yeah, I thought the saves-as-defenses was a significant improvement.

That said, 5e has done good simplifying saves by just tying them to your ability



To me, this is an improvement on 3/3.5, but not an improvement in general. Saves were gone and should have stayed gone. They don't add anything interesting to the game.

As far as spell slots as they currently exist, I'm not sure why they are how they are. They don't feel like 3e spell prep, which gave you too few spells, but at least was authentically D&D flavored and nicely explained in the flavor text so it made real world sense (basically all spells are rituals, but if you cast most of the ritual back at camp and leave off just the final words, gestures and components you can do those in the thick of battle and the spell goes off as if you'd done the whole 10 minute ritual right then).



I don't get that portion of the "flavor". When I think of magic, I think of it as all-or-nothing; you can't start a spell and save the ending for right when you need it. Preparing spells for me was practicing the incantations, or preparing your mind and body to harness the energies, or something. In any case, I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. I much preferred spell points or recharge magic, and I prefer 4th over all of those.

I think largely it was because powers were awful



Why do you say this? I completely, whole-heartedly disagree. We made every class feel unique and special, gave them lots of cool, easy-to-parse abilities, and made mages WAY simpler to manage. No longer is the Wizard a one-encounter cannon at early levels, then just sidelined until he rests. No longer is the fighter "feat, feat, feat, feat, feat".

The part that made powers suck was that if you weren't a roll to hit/roll to damage kind of player--if you liked to do cool feats of daring do and wild improvisation you ended up running into a whole book full of things you couldn't do because you didn't have the right power or feat or whatever.



Why couldn't you? You still have movement, skills (jumping, tumbling, etc), and basic attacks. If you want to run up a wall, swing across a chandalier and make a flying stab you can. You move, make a couple of skill checks, then make a basic attack - just like you would in 3/3.5. Nothing changed, they just pre-made some of those abilities for you in a simple and concise manner. You want to shield bash? We'll give you a power that explains how it works. Want to make a tumbling sneak attack? Here you go, this is how you do it.

All the rules meant to give people more choices and freedom just ended up getting in the way (and a lot of them were pretty lame flavor-wise to boot). I'd love it if fighters had the special ability: push people around by bashing them with their shield and cutting them to peices. Unfortunately they didn't--they got a whole spell list full of special moves, some of which didn't make much sense, that they could do only periodically for reasons that didn't make much sense.



I hear this argument a lot: 4e took away all the roleplaying. 4e is just a skirmish game. 4e is a video game with dice. It's completely inaccurate. Just because there isn't a skill roll for blacksmithing doesn't mean you can't blacksmith. It means you don't have to play accountant and track points, rolls, percentages, and other useless data for something meant to be fun. Yes, the bulk of the rules cover combat - for a reason. Combat is complex with a lot of different situations and options.

Fighters have the special ability "push people around by bashing with their shield"; it's called "Tide of Iron". And "Cleave". The number of ways I've seen "encounter" and "daily" powers justified for martial characters is huge. Maybe they can only do that power once per fight because after that, everyone's already seen it and expects it. Or maybe his daily is something he's been trying to use all day, and finally, once, he finds that brief opening in a moment of clarity where he can actually land it. There are a million ways to justify how and why they work, and only martial classes even need a justification.

I personally love the power system. It made the classes balanced, interesting, different, and fun. Mages don't just run out of magic. Fighters don't just "normal attack, normal attack, normal attack". Rogues aren't a slightly different style of fighter.
I think it sounds like the design goals of this edition aren't necessarily for your playstyle and you should stick to 4e.

Vampire Class/Feat in 2013!

I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."

"Fort/Ref/Will defenses" - hate to tell you, its the same thing as saves, just a different name.


 "Spell slots" - I for one never understood 4e's deal with only having a few powers per character. To me, it was ridiculous having a high level wizard only being able to cast a few spells.


"Components" - Might I recommend something? just have an inventory slot with "componoents" in it. So unless the PC is casting something with very odd components (like trap the soul), the wizard can cast it. We also made it very clear that wizards filled up common components in towns.

"Combat" - I just dont get what you're saying here. IMHO in 4e everyone was a wizard....just with stronger or weaker "spells".

I say stick to 4e if you get something out of it. As for me, Ill dance on its grave.

PP
 
Hoo-boy. I guess I'm a little leery of this starting into edition war turf (which is really weird because I'm usually on the pro 4e side of those...it's sorta' strange finding myself on this side of the sandbags.)

While 4e is near and dear to my heart, the powers (much like the feats from 3e) have never been something I've ever particularly cared for. Here's my reasoning: I prefer a game where the rules emmanate from the setting and the actions of the players. I've never been interested in the game handing me a naked game mechanic and then requiring me to justify it's existance. Rules are to roleplaying games what special effects are to movies. They should exist to move the story along and make things feel deep and immersive. The moment the story starts to have to get bent around the neat special effects, something has gone off track for me.

The poster boy for bad powers was the 1st level rogue daily Blinding Barrage. You rapid fire a bunch of projectiles from a sling, light crossbow or thrown weapon--none of which can do that. It does 2W+dex to up to 9 guys in a 3x3 grid and they are blinded from having to "clear the blood from their eyes" presumably because all of them took a crossbow bolt (or whatever) to the face? The problems with this are numerous. How did I shoot a 3x3 blast of bolts from my otherwise single shot crossbow? How come I can't do it every round? Why are so many of these shots blinding face shots? Why aren't people who took bolts to the face sufficient that they're bleeding into their eyes...like crazy levels of dead? All these questions get dumped on me, and maybe if I was so disposed I could go one by one and answer every one of them. "Uh...you went and bought a special shotgun crossbow before the game, see...but it only does that once or, um it'll break...yeah!" Those kinds of ad hoc explanations are pretty weak sauce though, and you have to do that for a half dozen different powers (most not as aggregious as this on, granted). I don't want to have to justify dumb, badly written powers that get dumped on me though! I don't want to have to make my character pick a wacky power off a list. I want the freedom to do what I want and have the rules fill in the details of how it works as powefully and elegantly as possible. If my fighter gets the drop on an orc guard and sneaks behind him and tries to necksnap him--I don't want rules telling me I can't do that. I want rules telling me what happens when I do.

This brings me to how powers (and feats) try to give people more options but actually give them less. Say we're playing 5e with the narrative rules module. I can do a standard attack, or I can take a penalty and do extra damage or inflict a condition. No feats or powers required I charge a badguy, roll to hit with a (I think) +2 to his AC and plant a leg behind his knee and crack him in the breastplate with my sword. If I hit he rolls a Str save to keep his feet or goes prone. Easy peasy.

In other editions you end up having to take a step back. Some people have taken the Improved Trip feat, so if you just go around letting people trip people you risk screwing somebody out of a hard earned feat--so we have to make it tougher for anyone without the feat to do it or just say no. Chances are the conseqences of trying this fun dramatic little flourish are going to be so eye-bleedingly punishing that I'll learn my lesson and just roll my attack dice like everyone else.

In 4e this gets yet more complicated because if someone wants to ad lib some fun action you have to vet it against an entire chapter full of different powers had by every character class--across not just all the PHBs but all the suppliment books too to make sure my little trip thingie doesn't step on anyone's toes. Then you adjudicate it according to page 42 of the DMG to cludge together a reasonable mechanic, making sure it doesn't do a better job (or happen more often, since fighters only get to trip people once a fight after all).

I for one wish there wasn't anything BUT pg. 42! If someone wants to break up the monotany of boring back and forth rolling 1) kiss the guy for being awesome 2) figure out as slick and fair a way to represent that and let'er rip! Things like powers gunk that up and so I love seeing them go under the bus.

That said, would it be nice if every class got to use their narrative combat action without a penalty if they used it in a way that went along with the flavor of their class? That would be great! Rogues get their bonus if they use it to make an attack using stealth or subterfuge. Fighters get their bonus for making special attacks that are overpowering of tactical. Something broad enough that players don't get hemmed in by specific powers but focused enough that there's a reward for feeling like a member of your class--giving every class (or race or whatever) their own unique style. I could get behind that!
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
That said, I do think it would be fantastic to add 10 to each of the 5e saves and use them as defenses (though really it could be easier to just use the full ability score for the defense value, so if you want to hit a Con of 13, roll a 13 or better. Heck you could get rid of AC and just have all attacks target one defense or another. Armor could give bonuses to Con saves and penalties to dex saves. the advantage being you always know who was rolling dice (the attacker) and things are always resolved in a single roll which was a big strength in 4e.
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
The poster boy for bad powers was the 1st level rogue daily Blinding Barrage. You rapid fire a bunch of projectiles from a sling, light crossbow or thrown weapon--none of which can do that. It does 2W+dex to up to 9 guys in a 3x3 grid and they are blinded from having to "clear the blood from their eyes" presumably because all of them took a crossbow bolt (or whatever) to the face?

The problems with this are numerous.
How did I shoot a 3x3 blast of bolts from my otherwise single shot crossbow?
How come I can't do it every round?
Why are so many of these shots blinding face shots?
Why aren't people who took bolts to the face sufficient that they're bleeding into their eyes...like crazy levels of dead?



Easy answers to all those questions.

Your fast, you use a lot of energy, something that takes focus and effort that you are unable to do all the time, just once.

They are not all necesarrily face shots, perhaps you hit the guy next to someone in the ark, so blood splashed on his face, that many bolts hitting people, blood is gonna be flying.

They are not all face shots.

Because they were not all face shots.


I look at powers in 4e a little different than it appears most people do though.  I really just use the numbers and let the players decide the flavor.  For instance, there is an Invoker in my group that worships Kord and has a Staff of Storms.  He is very Thunder/Lightning based.  One of his At-Wills is Hand of Radiance.  We simply renamed in Hand of Lightning.  When he casts it, instead of tendrils of radiance streaking from his hadn, as the flavor text of the spell suggests, lightning streaks out from his hands at targets.  Seeing as the lightning comes from Kord, and he is a Divine Class, it stuill deals Radiant damage though.

Visions of Blood we kinda do the same thing with, instead of visions of blood, it is visions of a storm so violent it's drowning people, or thiunder and lightning is killing people, whatever the player chooses.

In short, the powers in 4e are only as limiting as you make them.  Use them for the math, make up the flavor yourself.  For those newer to the game, or do not have a clear vision yet, you can use the flavor of the spells as provided if you want though.

Yeah, but really I mostly just choose to make them go away and let my players choose their own actions rather than wonky prefabricated ones, and then I use the rules to make them happen in fun dynamic ways. I needed a list of powers to tell me and my players what we could do every round not in the slightest and if there was a way to instead pg 42 style use all the different effect bit from the powers lists to flesh out what my players and I are wanting to do and cut out the middleman--awesome.

For us that's what the narrative combat module was. Yeah it was a little clunky, but all of a sudden the rules were there to make what we wanted to do more awesome--rather than fight against us and try and convince us to do something else. I never needed that.
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
I fondly remember things like using a rapier to pin a zombie to an upended table (mechanically immobilizing it, save ends) in one fight. Another time I took a prison guard I had grappled and used him as a human shield, granting me a 1d6 resist and an equal damage to him until he broke free or died. In the playtest Saturday I had a feral wild dwarf druid. I remember a vrock used it's shriek ability and I rolled like a 19 to resist. I responded that on my action I roar back--and two handed lunge my spear into the demon's neck! I remember at the time mentioning that it would have been a fun time to add a bonus to damage just from sheer rawrgh!

It's stuff like this I love, flashy things I or my players come up with and do that use the rules in clever and exciting ways. But to do that I need rules that riff off of what we're doing, not a list of things that I'm supposed to do. I guess that's my thing...
Now with 100% more Vorthos!
I feel a lot of this. Saves as a kind of Armor Class really cleaned up a lot of the weirdness of who was supposed to roll and when: the attacker always rolls. Granted this led to stupid situations where fire would "attack" character's stats, but I think the mechanic was sound--you just needed to have PCs sometimes roll Athletics or Acrobatics to avoid damage (like you would if they were jumping a chasm) rather than have the cliff attack their Reflexes.



Yeah, I thought the saves-as-defenses was a significant improvement.

That said, 5e has done good simplifying saves by just tying them to your ability



To me, this is an improvement on 3/3.5, but not an improvement in general. Saves were gone and should have stayed gone. They don't add anything interesting to the game.

As far as spell slots as they currently exist, I'm not sure why they are how they are. They don't feel like 3e spell prep, which gave you too few spells, but at least was authentically D&D flavored and nicely explained in the flavor text so it made real world sense (basically all spells are rituals, but if you cast most of the ritual back at camp and leave off just the final words, gestures and components you can do those in the thick of battle and the spell goes off as if you'd done the whole 10 minute ritual right then).



I don't get that portion of the "flavor". When I think of magic, I think of it as all-or-nothing; you can't start a spell and save the ending for right when you need it. Preparing spells for me was practicing the incantations, or preparing your mind and body to harness the energies, or something. In any case, I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. I much preferred spell points or recharge magic, and I prefer 4th over all of those.

I think largely it was because powers were awful



Why do you say this? I completely, whole-heartedly disagree. We made every class feel unique and special, gave them lots of cool, easy-to-parse abilities, and made mages WAY simpler to manage. No longer is the Wizard a one-encounter cannon at early levels, then just sidelined until he rests. No longer is the fighter "feat, feat, feat, feat, feat".

The part that made powers suck was that if you weren't a roll to hit/roll to damage kind of player--if you liked to do cool feats of daring do and wild improvisation you ended up running into a whole book full of things you couldn't do because you didn't have the right power or feat or whatever.



Why couldn't you? You still have movement, skills (jumping, tumbling, etc), and basic attacks. If you want to run up a wall, swing across a chandalier and make a flying stab you can. You move, make a couple of skill checks, then make a basic attack - just like you would in 3/3.5. Nothing changed, they just pre-made some of those abilities for you in a simple and concise manner. You want to shield bash? We'll give you a power that explains how it works. Want to make a tumbling sneak attack? Here you go, this is how you do it.

All the rules meant to give people more choices and freedom just ended up getting in the way (and a lot of them were pretty lame flavor-wise to boot). I'd love it if fighters had the special ability: push people around by bashing them with their shield and cutting them to peices. Unfortunately they didn't--they got a whole spell list full of special moves, some of which didn't make much sense, that they could do only periodically for reasons that didn't make much sense.



I hear this argument a lot: 4e took away all the roleplaying. 4e is just a skirmish game. 4e is a video game with dice. It's completely inaccurate. Just because there isn't a skill roll for blacksmithing doesn't mean you can't blacksmith. It means you don't have to play accountant and track points, rolls, percentages, and other useless data for something meant to be fun. Yes, the bulk of the rules cover combat - for a reason. Combat is complex with a lot of different situations and options.

Fighters have the special ability "push people around by bashing with their shield"; it's called "Tide of Iron". And "Cleave". The number of ways I've seen "encounter" and "daily" powers justified for martial characters is huge. Maybe they can only do that power once per fight because after that, everyone's already seen it and expects it. Or maybe his daily is something he's been trying to use all day, and finally, once, he finds that brief opening in a moment of clarity where he can actually land it. There are a million ways to justify how and why they work, and only martial classes even need a justification.

I personally love the power system. It made the classes balanced, interesting, different, and fun. Mages don't just run out of magic. Fighters don't just "normal attack, normal attack, normal attack". Rogues aren't a slightly different style of fighter.



I agree with all the points here. I am going to miss 4e, as I see it as the best edition of D&D yet. I've playtested 5e and like the feel, it feels to me like 2e when I DM or play in a game. IMHO, I don't think 4e had a fair chance. All the statements listed above, I've heard them a lot also, about  how 4e took this or that away seemed unfair to me. 4e took nothing away. In my custom or LFR games, everyone was encouarged to roleplay. All the extra die rolling wasn't required to keep the fun going at the table. I can't understand where these ideas came from. I do remember sitting in quite a few games of 4e, custom and LFR, where the DM actively discouraged roleplaying maintaining "4e WAS NOT a role playing game!" I'm still psycked about 5e and will continue to playtest it as often as I can. I just hope that 5e doesn't return to the desparity of previous editions where the melee characters are nothing more than "meat-shields" for the spellcasters with no real purpose in the game.

I fondly remember things like using a rapier to pin a zombie to an upended table (mechanically immobilizing it, save ends) in one fight. Another time I took a prison guard I had grappled and used him as a human shield, granting me a 1d6 resist and an equal damage to him until he broke free or died. In the playtest Saturday I had a feral wild dwarf druid. I remember a vrock used it's shriek ability and I rolled like a 19 to resist. I responded that on my action I roar back--and two handed lunge my spear into the demon's neck! I remember at the time mentioning that it would have been a fun time to add a bonus to damage just from sheer rawrgh! It's stuff like this I love, flashy things I or my players come up with and do that use the rules in clever and exciting ways. But to do that I need rules that riff off of what we're doing, not a list of things that I'm supposed to do. I guess that's my thing...



All of these things are possible with very very slight modifications of the rules.

Pin a zombie to a table?  I would say to treat that like a Bull Rush, but instead of pushing him back a square, on sucess you pin him to the table, on a fail, you get your rapier stuck in the table anyway, but not with the zombie attached.

There are rules for grabbing in 4e, you know that right?  With a slight modification to the rules you could still use him as a meat shield, I would potentially allow that in my games.  I mean, it would be kinda hard, unless it is smaller than you, to not only hold on to a struggling victim, but to place him in between you and attacks?  That's gonna be highly unlikely, though if something attacks you and misses by more than 5 I'd say it hits him instead.  If you really wanted, I may even let you make a Str or Dex check each turn against his Fort or Ref, to see if you are strong/fast enough to move a struggling peron mid-combat.

I don't really agree with bonus damage just from sheer rawr though, that's good RP, maybe some bonus XP, but extra damage?  You could use an encounter power that deals more damage than a regular attack and rawr as you use it, but that's up to the player to use his Encounter and Daily powers that way if he so chooses.

So yeah, if you just sit back and use the list like a list and don't describe actions, then yeah, it's a little more boring.  However, if you have a DM who can tweak the rules a bit, but still maintain balance, and you use flavor, it works out well in the end.  I have people in my group always trying to do crazy things and I usually allow it, with some sort of skill or ability check to see if it works, at the cost of an action of some sort as well.

I guess I just DM a little differently than most.  I've never posted on the forums here until recently, though have DMed and played in a handful of games over the last decade or so.  The other games I played, I too did not like the way they were DMed.  It wasn't the rules I didn't like, it was the DMs.  When I would try to do something like that, they would say, "Sorry, not in the rules, you can't".  I look at the rules differently though.  I look at them as loose guidelines, and that's all.  They are malleable, meant to be bent.  I follow the "Yes, and...." line of thinking.  Whatever a player wants to try to do the answer is always, "Yes, and.....something"  or, "Ok make a check.  Ok, such-and-such happens."  You only play by a list if you choose to.
I think it sounds like the design goals of this edition aren't necessarily for your playstyle and you should stick to 4e.



Thank you for the astute observation. That really helped the discussion along.

"Fort/Ref/Will defenses" - hate to tell you, its the same thing as saves, just a different name.



And I hate to tell you, it's not. It means sometimes the attacker rolls, sometimes the defender rolls. Also, sometimes the defender rolls high, sometimes low. It's not reliable or consistent.

I prefer consistency.


"Spell slots" - I for one never understood 4e's deal with only having a few powers per character. To me, it was ridiculous having a high level wizard only being able to cast a few spells.



High level wizards have dozens of powers, plus dozens of rituals. Plus their spellbook, which gives even more powers.

"Components" - Might I recommend something? just have an inventory slot with "componoents" in it. So unless the PC is casting something with very odd components (like trap the soul), the wizard can cast it. We also made it very clear that wizards filled up common components in towns.



Sure, assuming the DM is fine with that. My question is: why? Why would you add a system when players are just circumventing it anyway?

"Combat" - I just dont get what you're saying here. IMHO in 4e everyone was a wizard....just with stronger or weaker "spells".



That's a huge stretch. I don't know how one sees "Sly Flourish" or "Reaping Strike" as a spell. Yes, it's written up like wizard powers, but nothing about the powers, the effects, or how they are used feels "magic". It just means a player can easily jump from a fighter to a wizard without having to learn an entirely new system of mechanics and rules. It opens all classes to all players.

In short, the powers in 4e are only as limiting as you make them.  Use them for the math, make up the flavor yourself.  For those newer to the game, or do not have a clear vision yet, you can use the flavor of the spells as provided if you want though.



This completely. Just because the power has a flavor text with it doesn't mean you have to use that same flavor text. Describe it how you want.
Lots of people seem to have a problem with the fighter simply attacking every turn. I don't really see the problem in that. I've watched enough fantasy movies (the stuff these games emulate) to realize that a lot of fights is just two people swining their swords at each other. The exciting part is when something different happens, which is handled excelently by the advantage disadvantage system. You're attacking every round, but if you can think of something innovative to do with that attack you gain an advantage and attack better. Or sometimes you use your cleave and carve through two enemies. Are you swinging your sword every turn? Yes, but you're a fighter, that is literally what you have been trained to do since you were five.

As for the defenses, I like saving throws for some spells but for others it just feels weird. I recently played a cleric and I used sacred flame a lot because I only had a few spell slots. It bothered me considerably that I never got to roll to hit and that my save was so high (16 for a first level caster) that enemies with low or even average dexterity didn't have a chance of avoiding me. I understand the problems with saving throws, but I think a bonus of "you get +1 to all your saves every 5 levels" would help the saves level with the casters' incerasing saving throws. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Sign In to post comments