D&D 4E Revised 4E Wizard Class with Freeform Spellcasting System

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
You know thinking about this reminds me of something ... I really think encounter powers make a lot of sense, some tricks really should only work once, after its been revealed not so much.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.

The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.

The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.

the damage is tertiary, with marking and pulling more important. ;)

I think that in adjusted form worrying over if they can't reach the fighter they don't try? is giving someone suckered into action way too much control.
 

MwaO

Adventurer
Honestly, I think it would be interesting to hear someone like [MENTION=12749]MwaO[/MENTION] who's got a really good handle on powers and tactics and the subtle trade-offs between different things. There's a LOT MORE GOING ON with 4e powers, particularly wizard ones in PHB1, than you seem to believe.

Yeah, I think a bunch of large issues show up in the whole 2 pages. I'm just identifying crazy breakage from a 4e system standpoint, but I don't think the 2 pages generally model 4e well. 4e's very much about medium-low to medium-high complexity forced choice where this system is about high complexity or spamming.

If you can spam an option repeatedly, every option either needs to have a high level of balance or things break/don't get used. Basically, this system simply can't represent great powers that 4e is known for having, because if it could, a PC could use them 4* an encounter instead of once and things break...
 

MwaO

Adventurer
The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.

The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.

Honestly, most people in CharOp thought it ended up stronger.

The worst manifestation of post-Essentials was allowing Expertise/Defense feats in, instead of just handwaving and saying, "Hey, everyone gets +1/2/3 feat/item to attack/defenses at 5/15/25" - because the feats were so crazy good, most PCs would need to have 2-3 of them by 11th. When you only have 7-8 feats, that's a lot of design space eaten up. So more boring builds...
 



Tony Vargas

Legend
The errata to CaGI, which replaced auto-pull followed by an attack with an attack vs Will to pull and damage, was (in my view) the worst manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation to critics of 4e.

The point of CaGI is to allow the fighter to do his/her thing and pull in his/her foes. The damage is secondary.
Rolling the attacks still marks them, so the fighter's still doing his thing, even if the pull doesn't work (and it might not work for other reasons, like not having a square to pull them into).

The /worst/ manifestation of post-Essentials capitulation was the class designs.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Fighters with +3 proficiency weapons who have CA are really high accuracy against NADs…

It certainly makes the over all thing more reliable

About all that was lost was a bit of damage. (.. the part which scaled by attribute though)
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Top