4e did not have 50 uses of anything unless you were running 50 encounters per day which I seriously doubt. Cantrips don't need to expand with levels and you do get a spell per level.
No it wasn't. I was exaggerating a little.
If they gave us enough daily spells that we wouldn't run out if we used 2-5 of them per encounter then it wouldn't be so bad. The problem is they don't do that. According to the play test you top out getting 1 lower level spell per encounter (assuming 4 encounters) and maybe 1 other spell every other encounter. As you level if the progression holds, you will get 1 spell per spell level per encounter, but most will be weak, you'll end up spamming weak and ineffective spells until you come upon the boss battle then unload the top 3 spells in your arsenal. In other words the same as boring at-will spamming at lower levels...
Even of you removed encounter powers from 4e I would still prefer the system over Next (and I don't even like daily powers). Why? Because the at-will powers are all very different, each with a very specialized use. Look at the 4e wizard at-wills. The variety there is just amazing. I really wish that at-will abilities had been emphasized more in 4e with players having 4-5 different ones known.
I would like to see something that combines Daily, Encounter and At-Will all in the same power.
For example. You have Daily Powers. Once they are used, they become Encounter Powers (of a lesser degree of power of course, but with the same theme as the Daily they once started out as, perhaps the caster can tailor some aspects of what type of Encounter Power they become, but it should be limited, with perhaps feats increasing it). These Encounters Powers would then stay with you the rest of that "day". When you take an Extended Rest or reach the Milestone or whatever trigger you use for "sleeping and recovery of all" that Encounter then repowers into the Daily Once again.
This Daily should be a single power but allow some minor tweaking, so each one who takes the power may have a slightly different version of it.
Next, the Ecounter Power this Daily Becomes once used, as well as all other Pure Encounter Powers (those that are never a Daily to begin with) during an Encounter, then becomes a new At-Will power for the rest of that Encounter. Again some tweaking is allowed to what this At-Will looks like when it shows up, but this will be chosen ahead of time, to avoid slowing down the game.
After a short rest, these At-Will Powers return to being the Encounter Power again.
This type of thing allows you never to run out of varied options, either within a "day" thanks to Dailies not disappearing but transforming into a new Encounter Power for your continued use for the rest of the "day", or within the Encounter, as Encounter Powers become new At-Wills for your use for the rest of that Encounter. Opens up more options, rather than a single used at-will spam all the time.
This could allow the total number of powers you get be smaller overall. Say you get 1 At-Will, 2 Encounters (Pure), and 3 Daily powers eventually. A total of 6 powers, that is all (obviously this can be changed but this is just an example). As you use those Daily powers your list of Encounters grows during the Day, as you use Encounters your list of At-Will options grows during the Encounter. But the total number of powers you have at any one time is much lower.
The customizing part of tweaking these powers might be open at the start, and expanded by feats or class advancement. The tweaking should be minor to perhaps more significant as you get more advanced, things like: -change the damage type (fire, cold, acid, slashing, force, etc) -change the casting type (Melee, Ranged, Area, Close, but balanced so that Melee does the most damage, Ranged is next, Close is next but significantly less due to multiple target power and Area is least say) -change the Primary ability score used -change the Secondary ability score -change the casting time (Standard, Move, Minor, Free, obviously with each having a step down in effect to balance it, if you want a Free spell, it will do very little, but you have that option) -change the enemy only vs. all creature type -change one effect keyword (slow, immobilized, stunned, etc) for another with appropriate reduction in damage or limit as to what new keyword is allowed. -change the defense attacked (AC, Reflex, or whatever is used), with appropriate reduction in power if the defense is a lower one and easier to hit
These are some of the things that would limit the number of Powers, since 1 power could then fill many roles. Perhaps the above is too over the top, but something like this yet more balanced would be neat I think. You would be able to build your spell (make the choices above for each stage of the Power, if a Daily you choose the Daily effect, the Encounter effect it will have once used, and the At-Will effect it will have once used as an Encounter). To change these would be like re-training. Perhaps the DM could allow 1 change each short rest, another each Milestone, or restrict it to being only during level up, etc.
To be fair, I do understand that at playtest -- and even at launch -- we won't be getting the same sort of at-will variety that 4E currently has. However, given that 4E had a much wider variety of spells at launch, and considering the quality of spells that we have, either we're going to take awhile before 4E-acceptable spell quality is achieved, or we're going to end up alienating the group that did not want casters to "own the show" so to speak.
[ Yes you had groups where the non-casters shined in particular fights, but usually it's primarily because the casters wanted to (and often had to) hold back, because most of those fights were technically irrelevant to the story and were primarily resource-wasters... and casters WERE the best resource the party could ever have. ]
It is primarily in 4E that the DM does not have to tie down the caster, it is primarily in 4E that the non-casters lost the need to be even partially spell-like to be able to contribute at all levels -- actually Tome of Battle introduced it, and is arguably a better version of what 4E should have had at launch, but of course we have to thank Mike Mearls for the complaints on monotony 4E had because it was not 3.5E enough -- and it's primarily in 4E that the casters didn't have to wait before they could actually be casters more than inferior infantry.
I believe that what 4E fans want out of the 5E Wizard is not the resource management, but the feel of the character being retained. I believe that 4E fans want casters to be magical and non-casters to be awesome off the bat. Magical, as in being able to inflict status effects and change the course of battle with the right spells (and not just 1/day at level 1 and all the time at level X). Awesome, as in being able to be completely badass normal, in spite of the presence of casters.
If the idea of the developers is that they 1. Focus on daily resource management instead of encounter resource management 2. Emphasize on how people, regardless of class, should be able to have their moment in the spotlight in each encounter 3. Design the system so that an average encounter is approximately 4 combat encounters per day
Then they should keep that consistent from levels 1 - 20, 1 - 30, or 1 - 99, whatever their arbitrary level limit is. And that means either everybody gets something to keep up with the pure casters, or the pure casters have to be cut down and placed on equal standing. And I'd rather that they do the both: * each level should grant something new and different, not more of the same, unless explicitly desired by the player. Regardless if it's an active benefit or passive (see: D&D Next's Darkvision, and the ability to use new or more spells as you see fit), levels have to be meaningful and relevant * spells should never be able to do things better than other classes' abilities. D&D Next shows some semblance of promise; so long as Knock is not auto-success, and Tenser's Transformation does not come back, summons don't give summoners special treatment, and certain player-accessible spells do not render either hit points or saving throws useless, then there may be a chance that it'll work for the 4E player base.
They have done some of their homework, but it's still not enough. Wizards can be magical in other ways, but not by being able to reduce allies to "those guys who do the hard work before/after the light show".
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
And that's fine. I was responding to the particular comments of some other posters. I feel that we are seeing that balance so far to a very large degree. If you disagree I'd like to know where in particular you feel that the parity has failed.
There's not a hint of 'parity' in the 5e playtest. The fighter is an optionless brute, the Moradin Cleric basically in his league as combatant while also getting spells, and the wizard's progression implies the usual Vancian excesses.
But, it's none of it that extreme at very low level. D&D class balance has always held together reasonably well at very low level, and 5e, in harkening strongly to D&D tradition is no exception. There's nothing to indicate it'll be an exception to D&D's tendency to fall apart at higher levels.
Resource parity, as in 4e, is a solid solution that 5e has unequivocally abandonned. It should re-think that strategy. The advancement scheme doesn't have to be AEDU, but it needs to be consistent accross classes if there's to be any hint of balance in 5e.
The fighter is an optionless brute, the Moradin Cleric basically in his league as combatant while also getting spells,
We didn't find that to be the case at all, and the Cleric of Moradin is not as accurate and does less damage (by a decent margin, considering), we found it to be the weakest class, but maybe it was just how that session turned out.
The fighter is an optionless brute, the Moradin Cleric basically in his league as combatant while also getting spells,
We didn't find that to be the case at all, and the Cleric of Moradin is not as accurate and does less damage (by a decent margin, considering), we found it to be the weakest class, but maybe it was just how that session turned out.
The fighter's options are hidden in his ability scores and require a cooperative and encouraging DM who is absolutely willing to accommodate improvisation. New players may have to be prodded by said DM to do so.
New DMs with new players? If the group makes the connections between the books, maybe it would work. But considering how messy the presentation is? Good luck with that.
And while the Cleric of Moradin is not as good a damage-dealer, note the use of the term combatant, and not damage-dealer, which means while the Cleric of Moradin isn't as hard-hitting, he is still an effective combatant because he balances offense with defense (making him very hard to hit and damage) and couples that with the actual ability to protect his allies.
The Fighter seems less "skilled at fighting" and more "effective barbaric kill specialist".
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
