Community

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:17PM, lokiare wrote:

The problem with this is that some people don't want to play a ranger or warblade, they want to play a fighter...

Classes are just a container for level-locked abilities.  The names of those class are essentially meaningless.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:14PM, Lawolf wrote:

Fighters have dailies in 5e so do rogues. In fact everyone has dailies. Why I will never know. There hasn't really been a crapstorm because the dailies are not 4e dailies. As for the actual topic I believe it is possible to have both systems but impossible to balance the two. From what we have seen a wizard may have 20 spells per day at 20th level. So how do you balance someone with 4 dailies and 4 encounter powers to 20 dailies? Well let us assume a 4 encounter work day at 5 rounds a combat. This means the wizard casts every spell he knows by the end of the day. So by that logic each encounter power for the AEDU character must be comparable to a Vancian daily. Think about that for a second. The wizard also has the option of going nova far better than AEDU, has more versatility because he has more total spells, has more versatility from more spells known, and benefits far more from shorter workdays/combats.

I wouldn't say impossible, but yes it would not be easy. However, isn't that a small concern compared to balancing rogues/fighters to vancian wizards? 3E has shown us the huge chasm between the two.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:17PM, lokiare wrote:

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:12PM, Horus_Sungod wrote:

Random thought:
Hmm, maybe the fighter could be the Melee Basic Attack guy, while another class like the Warblade or Ranger, could have encounter powers and special abilities.

On topic: We'd need both in core or else, AEDU classes would become like the extra base classes in D&D, a.k.a. not supported outside of the module the've been published in.

(Maybe Modules could rather define the tone of the game with crunch, i.e. having a really hardcore world with little healing, no item creations and perma death?)

The problem with this is that some people don't want to play a ranger or warblade, they want to play a fighter...

Well that's true, though a warblade is pretty close to a fighter, if you consider them as skilled weapon users (if you ignore the wuxia inspired 3E fluff for Tome of Battle).

(Apologies, my mistake with using the ranger as an exemple, has different fluff, even if its abilities are sometimes close to a figther.)

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:14PM, Lawolf wrote:

Fighters have dailies in 5e so do rogues. In fact everyone has dailies. Why I will never know. There hasn't really been a crapstorm because the dailies are not 4e dailies. As for the actual topic I believe it is possible to have both systems but impossible to balance the two. From what we have seen a wizard may have 20 spells per day at 20th level. So how do you balance someone with 4 dailies and 4 encounter powers to 20 dailies? Well let us assume a 4 encounter work day at 5 rounds a combat. This means the wizard casts every spell he knows by the end of the day. So by that logic each encounter power for the AEDU character must be comparable to a Vancian daily. Think about that for a second. The wizard also has the option of going nova far better than AEDU, has more versatility because he has more total spells, has more versatility from more spells known, and benefits far more from shorter workdays/combats.

I share this perspective on the problem. I do believe a system that applies a cost to each spell from a resource that is gained throughout combat can balance the systems, but as far as I know no such system has ever existed in D&D history and I doubt the designers are looking into that line of development. 

Of course for many people the workday problem is solved by DM intervention, but that isn't a system solution. Perhaps the designers will develop a novel solution, but my bet is they will simply seperate the systems by way of modules.

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:30PM, Lawolf wrote:

Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want. Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.

Hmm, interesting, but would such a system be more difficult to balance and design than one where power types are separated by class?

It could also take a lot of place in the books, creating a lot of bloat. I guess that if the same spells could be taken as an encounter ability at level X by Mages and could be taken as a vancian spell (daily) at level Y by Spellsligners, it could save a lot of space and keep it streamlined.

Could that be a good solution?

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:40PM, Horus_Sungod wrote:

Jul 1, 2012 -- 6:30PM, Lawolf wrote:

Truly the best solution would have been to have all classes simple at core. Warriors have at will stances, rogues have tricks, mages have cantrips, priests have prayers. All at will simple effects. Then themes give you what you really want. Want a bookish Mage with Vancian casting choose the wizard theme. Want a warrior that is so simple it can be played by a trained monkey, choose the fighter theme. Want a warrior with tons of interesting maneuvers and options choose the warblade theme. Want a priest with a melee focus choose the cleric theme. Want a priest that shoots lazers choose the Sun Domain theme. Various themes can come with certain power structures so players are free to choose what types of powers/spells/maneuvers/etc they want. This has the added benefit in that it allows you to play/ban anything you like/don't like. One player's warrior may have only daily abilities while someone else's may have only at will.

Hmm, interesting, but would such a system be more difficult to balance and design than one where power types are separated by class?

It could also take a lot of place in the books, creating a lot of bloat. I guess that if the same spells could be taken as an encounter ability at level X by Mages and could be taken as a vancian spell (daily) at level Y by Spellsligners, it could save a lot of space and keep it streamlined.

Could that be a good solution?

Sure, so could an effect line that says:

As Encounter: Deals 1d4+int mod damage, dex save for half.

Tack that onto the bottom of burning hands and you have an encounter spell. The same can be done for all spells. Some special cases might take 10 seconds worth of thought, or you can just keep those as dailies...

Dispel magic:
As Daily: Removes a magical effect from a target or area.
As Encounter: Effect does not remove enchantments, only surpresses them for 1d4 rounds.

Fireball:
As Daily: 6d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.
As Encounter: 3d6 + int mod damage, dex save for half.

StoneSkin:
As Daily: absorbs 10 points of physical damage, until 4 hours have passed or 75 points of damage have been absorbed.
As Encounter: Reaction, absorbs 5 points of physical damage, until 5 rounds have passed or until 25 points of damage have been absorbed.

See 5 minutes worth of work...