|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 8:07PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Then where do we get the rest of the class features I mentioned?
Some of it would be part of this class or that. But something like a familiar I'd probably just make that a feat. If it really felt like it ought to be an independent thing then make it a feat. Maybe it comes in a specialization in some cases. In a few rare cases, because it's a mechanic it should go with one of the classes (maybe two).
It's not really all that hard to separate these things.
We've already explained why if its a part of the class that we will have problems with it, must we go over this again in every thread?
If the only thing that differentiates the caster classes is literally the casting style I can see it working, unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case...
I've explained Lokiare that things which are truly independent can have alternate mechanisms like feats. I just said that if it was mechanical that in some cases it might stay with the class.
What is intrinsic to the 3e wizard other than his spells? Metamagic feats? A familiar?
I'm just saying that the way a class casts it's spells is really what it's all about class wise. The rest of it is trimmings. Those things can be mostly feats.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 8:28PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I'm just saying that the way a class casts it's spells is really what it's all about class wise. The rest of it is trimmings. Those things can be mostly feats.
And with the 5th Ed chassis it's easy to drop in Binders, Incarnates, Psions, etc.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 8:35PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
By the same token, there is a way for the wizard to mem spells without having to resort to multiple slots dedicated to the same spell (for multiple castings). They are doing it for the Cleric, according to a post in this very thread. Why not have it done for all the casters. There is other mechanics that can be use to differentiate between the classes without using the forgetful caster.
The big thing that I think all agree about is that 4th edition did a good thing doing away with "save or die" (TM) situation. That was a big part of the Wizard, having the finger of doom suddenly end a combat to save a TPK. The tempered DM would never dream of using it against the players, but there were (and still are) DM's that would not give it a second thought. Half the fun is making a new character, right?
I doubt that "Save or Die" (TM) will make a return in 5th edition. This takes a lot out of the vancian wizard, at least in higher levels, and the result is an old mechanic that needs a walker. It isn't needed. The old books that it was based on are no longer being written in that way. (Not even the D&D/Pathfinder novels) Let is pass on. D&D needs to move forward.
Terms you should know... Spoiler:
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
Show
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 8:38PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I find it hard to take people seriously when they bash 4e for being too samey, then turn around and say they prefered an edition where all arcane classes use the exact same spell list, and pretty much every noncaster does nothing but spam Full Attack.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 8:53PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I find it hard to take people seriously when they bash 4e for being too samey, then turn around and say they prefered an edition where all arcane classes use the exact same spell list, and pretty much every noncaster does nothing but spam Full Attack.
There is only one Arcane class in certain versions of D&D, and Full Attack is a 3rd Edition of the game deal, which I do not care for.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 03, 2012 - 10:46PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Honestly, going on stuff that you heard is probably one of the biggest fallacies that someone can indulge in. Its also responsible for a lot of the hatred directed towards 4e, and the general hostility of the Edition Wars in general.
Total, when people bash a version of D&D, and you find out, not only have they never played or DMed it, but they have never even read it properly, instantly takes away any credibility or scrap of validation of their disapproval.
For what it's worth when I was uninformed and inexperienced about 4e, I was pro-4e. I jumped in recruited my group and played for a year. The game just collapsed for two reasons with my group. The game played too much the same for all classes. It was one size fits all pretty much. We also couldn't stop laughing at the game and not taking it seriously. This was the verisimilitude thing. Maintaining a serious campaign in this environment was impossible for me. So only after experiencing the game did I come to dislike it. There are entire threads concerning the reasons I disliked it. No need to launch into that here. Just making the point that not everyone who dislikes 4e didn't give it a fair try.
Your experience is similar to mine, after DMing 4th Ed for about 9 or 10 sessions I became disillusioned, and started perusing my pre-3rd Ed stuff.
4th Ed is a good game, but is too much of a departure from the D&D game, IMO.
Woohoo, I'm not alone... But, I'm a weird case. Well, from 2008 - 2010, I was part of "the hate plague" (I.E. edition bashing) that remains a blight in my past. Well, I moved past it when the essentials line came out. I said, "Ya know what? Enough silliness. It's time to give 4E a try!" So, I liked it quite a bit as a player for a while. But, my love only lasted a couple seasons of D&D Encounters and home games. Jumping from class to class in order to keep up a fresh character didn't last, as I didn't feel enough difference with each character. Roleplay wise, they were all different... but mechanically, I'm afraid I'm on the same boat as some others. When I tried to DM, things went well for a while, but in the end... things just didn't work out. I respect 4th edition as a different take on D&D, but in the end it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Most of what I enjoyed was from the generic D&D experience, regardless of mechanics. So yeah, I have criticized 4th edition, but I have played it quite activelly for around 2 years now. (Maybe more?) But, whatever... I'll still keep up 4th ed with my friends, even though I have other preferences in my game style.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 7:54AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Did anyone mention in this thread that wizards have at will spells and dailies? No encounters, but it's literally a compromise between 4e and earlier. From running quite a few playtest sessions, I can say it's pretty fun for our group's wizard.
I would prefer a big spell book list which classes and specializations focus in on. But, each class also interacts w/ them differently (aedu, spell points,etc.) and has different effects (such as a warlock turning a magic missile into a D10 eldritch blast or a sorc growing fire wings after he uses his burning hands encounter power).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
