Community

Nov 25, 2012 -- 4:17PM, tabicat wrote:

First of all, let me say that I generally like the improvements in 5E vs. 4E.  Granted, most of the changes are just are just reverting back to 2E or 3E, but I always thought that 4E overcomplicated things.  Changes in 5E that I like:

1) Getting rid of Action Points and Bloodied status
2) Restoring all alignment options (that was a real pet peeve for me)
3) Using Ability checks instead of Skill checks for ... well, skill checks.

Like others in this thread, I don't like the spell slot system for Wizards.  First, I think it's kinda cheesy to force wizards to memorize spells at the beginning of the day, because that discourages variety.  You can't know what spells you need, so you're much more likely to take combat-oriented spells since you might really need those.  I would prefer a system that encouraged casting of more esoteric spells, to make things more interesting.

But what concerns me the most is the limitation of spell slots.  Basically, level 0 spells are like 4E At-Wills, and every other spells are like 4E Dailies.  This means that not only do I need to choose which spells to memorize, but now I need to guess how many encounters I will have that day, and hope that I save my powerful spells when I need them.  I'm afraid that Wizards will frequently have only level-0 spells left over during the last encounter of the day, because the level-1-and-higher spells have all already been cast.

I'm okay with making Wizards harder to play than other classes, but I want a system that encourages casting of less popular spells.

On this last point first - why? 

Why does the system need to encourage that? This is one of the things that I never understood as a complaint with 4E: the system encouraged being a tactics-only game, the system encouraged this, the system encouraged that. 

Where did the system prevent you from doing what you wanted to do?

When looking at the tactics half of a D&D game, assuming your DM writes winnable encounters that offer a real challenge based on tactics more than die roll (but then who can know for certain), individual fights are about resource consumption. This has been true for a while, but it was easiest to exploit as a DM in 4E, in my opinion, and the resource system was generally universal in 4E: every character had dailies I had to consume and healing surges I had to consume. Their hit points in a given fight meant next to nothing, except that by dropping someone, I might force their allies to spend more red or black cards. 

For the players, it was about building a a synergizing system of damage output and mitigation within their character and then within their party so that they could try to beat whatever my system was. I found that the best way to challenge them was to eat all their powers and then they start being creative. Do that a few games, and you teach them that they can be creative early on. Based on rules alone, they could do some pretty great stuff, and as a DM that liked that stuff, I encouraged it. 

The system didn't prevent any of it. It also didn't encourage it. It just existed. 

This is not a competitive arena such as an MMO or any kind of online computer game where your fatty deeps have to match the fatty deeps of your fellow party members in order to be useful. There's no guarantee that, as a wizard, any of your spells will have any purpose whatsoever, because there's always a.) missing with an attack spell and b.) crap damage rolls on generic spells and c.) monster resistances. You prepare fireball shocking grasp or whatever and then run into Energy Elementals that have resist 10 fire, resist 10 lightning, well crappers. 

The fighter makes the same gambit simply by existing. There's always the chance that he rounds the corner and there's the Metallic Golem that has resist 10 slashing, and he's only got the one sword, so....oops. Now it literally doesn't matter that the fighter knows no defensive maneuvers. His entire build is rendered pointless by one enemy with resistances.

That's not the system's fault. That's an @$$hole DM. 

Your DM shouldn't be putting you in some scenario where if you don't do ALL THEM DAMAGES ALL THEM TIMES, you're dead weight. If you like that and he is, then why are you lamenting the loss of utility since you want to do all that damage? Also, why play Next? That hyper combat focus is one the things I hear people complain about with 4E. 

If I'm honest, I don't get it because I've never liked wizards. On any edition. Just not my cup of tea. The wizards I've played with so far have been intrigued by the revisions each time, but almost never disappointed. There was some grumbling about the various changes to Magic Missile, but suddenly they have At-Will and Signature beast-mode Battle Mages, and they're pretty happy with it.

But I do find this discussion really interesting, whic is to say, this other kind of response. I do not envy the job of the designers who have to account for the 40 million+ different versions of D&D we all play within the same edition. I don't disagree with many of the changes as far as spell levels go, but I don't think the slots is such a big deal because I know, ultimately, as a DM, my job is to consume Hit Points for the whole party and Spell Use for the casters (be that via slot or Ki focus or whatever). That's the resource I'm playing against. 

Now, whether I like that or not is another thing entirely. I think it's kinda crap that, well, let's call 'em "martial," characters essentially have 1 resource I have to play against, since they're maneuvering all the  time.