You've never seen a well played bard then. Or one abusing the Glibness spell for another way into Social God Mode. (Seriously, that thing makes it too easy). As for the paladin, that's a playstyle issue.
Exactly my point. While the paladin's code is written into the rules, its game-breaking power us a playstyle issue.
It's in my experience only players of historic versions of D&D that find the multiclassing rules and the AEDU box to be restrictive.
And what do they know?
On the other hand the "casting is vancian only" box is something I've noticed beginners can find hideously restrictive. And even experienced players don't like much (the sorceror player I mentioned above started playing D&D in the late 1970s). "I can cast one spell per day, then get to be utterly mundane until the next morning". That's not what a beginner signed up to when they wanted to play a wizard.
...
Vancian Casting is extremely narrow. So is the van Helsing based Cleric being almost essential for a party, and long bedrest.
Totally agreed. I hate Vancian magic. It's D&D though.
FWIW, 3.X, more than any other edition, has other option: the spontaneous casters, warlocks/dragonfire adepts, and a variety of supplemental and variant magic systems (spell points, spell recharge, incarnum, ToM), as well as a bevy of 3rd party completely non-Vancian magic systems (Elements of Magic...). Not that these are all good, but at least you've got choices.
Instead they want something more like AEDU with cantrips.
Gah! No! They want something
without daily restrictions. Most likely, they just want to be able to cast a spell and move on without the resource management. They either expect unlimited casting, one centralized mana pool, or for spellcasters to become physically and mentally drained by the experience. Depends on their background. I don't think AEDU is any better in this regard than old-style D&D Vancian magic is.
On the other hand the AEDU structure is fairly close to a decent narrative structure (normal, scene, episode), and unlike classic D&D the casters behave like something approaching casters in non-D&D fiction
...
4e may not be as much of a match for classic D&D as othe editions of D&D. But it's a much better match for almost any non-D&D heroic fiction than any other edition of D&D is.
I can't think of a lot of heroic fiction where the heroes worry about whether using their daily powers on an enemy because it might or might not be "worth it". Resource management is not a factor in most fiction, and if it is, the resource is something tangible like fatigue or health, or even something intangible like faith or luck, but never the "mojo" that is implied by the metagame nature of the AEDU restrictions.
And the fighter not getting much cool stuff rather than being one of the more focal characters.
Kind of agreed. Again, there are a variety of variants that create maneuvers/stunts/etc. that give you more options. I think the 5e combat superiority thing could address this pretty well.
***
The key to modeling fiction, however, and to empowering fighters, would be to have more descriptive mechanics. Heroic warriors behead people in a single swing, stagger around with bleeding wounds and fight on, or use strategy to psych out their opponents. In D&D, you can't kill someone without draining their reserve of hit points, there are no injuries or wounds, and strategic options are limited. No version of D&D addresses these things particularly well; 4e is no help in that regard and even took some steps backwards with hp inflation and healing surges.
Not at all. Perfect balance is almost impossible. The question is how unbalanced it is. 4e is in about the 8 or 9 ring. 2e is in about the 4 or 5 ring, as is E6. Full court 3.X SRD is lucky to hit the paper at all - and with all splatbooks it misses the wall.
At least we finally have units for balance. Not that I particularly agree with the conclusions.
