D&D 4E Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E

[MoutonRustique]

A few thoughts from other friends:

1) is there a way to reward the cleric mechanically for "acting in accordance with their faith" that wouldn't reward a fire priest for doing things a fire wizard does?
2) is there a way to have them bless/buff allies without it feeling just like utility spells or stepping on the bard's toes?

Don't know about the rest, but I do know the solution to these situations (but it's not an easy answer to implement.)

Subtraction.
The only way a game effect can feel distinctive on it's own is that it be unique*.

So yeah, if you want [bard] buffs and [cleric] buffs to feel different in 4e, you need to make it so that there is no overlap between what kinds of buffs they can give. (In some other editions, the rules minutia is so intense that you can get a different feel from those - but 4e doesn't really have that.)

Same with [fire cleric] vs [wizard]...

[rant]
Honestly, most (if not all!) of these issues come from the "D&D wizard". It's a horrible class - it does everything! It eats up so much space that it always strangles everything else.

IMO, the best way to have casters in the game is to have them be much more niche or tied to a very significant "shtick" :
[shaman] - spirit ally
[sorceror] - blood lines
[swordmage] - way too awesome
[warlock] - curse and boon (+ built-in fluff!)

When you don't have those very present elements you get (still fun to play, and cool!) classes like the [radiant wizard = invoker]... So when you're trying to build something cool and distinctive, if the [wizard] is there, you've pretty much stabbed your foot before a marathon...

This cow is sacred among'st all cows - but the [wizard] needs to meet the bbq...
[/rant]

Addendum: if you don't want a power (ability, whatever) to feel like "just another power" upon reading it, the only way I can really see this happening is with a more "natural language approach" to description of powers and abilities - 5e is a good example of this.

Unfortunately, for many of it's powers and abilities, 4e isn't the best at evocative presentation... But 4e does offer tools to make the powers and abilities play differently!

Again, if you want something to be different, it has to be... well, different! So go heavy with the subtraction bat and remove those overlaps! Or you can find a new way to use those powers.
- Something as simple as: spend a minor action after you hit an enemy to apply buff. That you require hitting an enemy to apply a buff will give a certain feel if juxtaposed to something else. Such as...
- You must use a power with [keyword] associated with your god to get access to [buff X]
- you must be in bright light to give buff
- target must be in dim light to receive buff
- something else that's more clever than what I wrote

 

[Igwilly]

[rant]
Honestly, most (if not all!) of these issues come from the "D&D wizard". It's a horrible class - it does everything! It eats up so much space that it always strangles everything else.

IMO, the best way to have casters in the game is to have them be much more niche or tied to a very significant "shtick" :
[shaman] - spirit ally
[sorceror] - blood lines
[swordmage] - way too awesome
[warlock] - curse and boon (+ built-in fluff!)

When you don't have those very present elements you get (still fun to play, and cool!) classes like the [radiant wizard = invoker]... So when you're trying to build something cool and distinctive, if the [wizard] is there, you've pretty much stabbed your foot before a marathon...

This cow is sacred among'st all cows - but the [wizard] needs to meet the bbq...
[/rant]

Honestly, I'm not against limiting the Wizard. In fact I think it's necessary, up to a certain point.

However, one idea I Really don't like is eliminating the concept behind the Wizard: a scholarly magician, whose knowledge about the Arcane Mystery, in the sense of what one can know about something mysterious and occult, is his/her power.
Again, having more limited means of accessing magic is fun in certain genres or settings, but in a High Fantasy setting/game, or a game simply D&D-style generic, it's basically mandatory for me.
I don't care if wizards have 10% of their normal spell list, I don't want my Wizard to have to make a pact with the Devil, or have dragonblood, or be a priest, etc.

 

[Garthanos]

so what about the assertions that a defender is just a close range controller?

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I don't care if wizards have 10% of their normal spell list, I don't want my Wizard to have to make a pact with the Devil, or have dragonblood, or be a priest, etc.

I can accept that, but is it acceptable to you if all that's kept is the fluff? Say a new arcane striker, with that same fluff? I'm not one that gets hung up on number of classes though so maybe others would have a problem with too many arcane strikers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, but the concern is making the Cleric, regardless if they're a healing priest, a smiting Invoker, or Angel Summoner (tm) that they have a unique playstyle over a leading abjurer, a pyromaniac evoker, or a demon summoner. It's tough because Turn Undead/Channel Divinity is their unique mechanic, but it doesn't speak to a playstyle.

You could always customize the heck out of Channel Divinity - that's what I did with Granted Powers back in 2e.

1) is there a way to reward the cleric mechanically for "acting in accordance with their faith" that wouldn't reward a fire priest for doing things a fire wizard does?

Mechanical rewards for RP? Not a fan. You could come up with something like 5e Inspiration or 13A Icon-relationship (to the deity).

2) is there a way to have them bless/buff allies without it feeling just like utility spells or stepping on the bard's toes?

A Cleric blesses you, a bard sings, a warlord give his St.Crispin's-Day speech, the artificer juices you up on magic potions - they should all /feel/ different, just because they're doing quite different things, even if the effect (you get a pile of Temp hps, say), are the same.

Or, am I concerning myself too much? The flavor of the wizard and Cleric is so different that they should feel different. I just don't want an Arcana Cleric feeling the same as a Theurge Wizard.

Shouldn't an Arcana Cleric and a Theurge Wizard feel a little bit the same?

However, one idea I Really don't like is eliminating the concept behind the Wizard: a scholarly magician, whose knowledge about the Arcane Mystery, in the sense of what one can know about something mysterious and occult, is his/her power.

Totally do-able. Heck, character like that doesn't even need to be able to do much of anything magical, itself, it's ability to ID and determine how to counter all the magical threats out there makes it invaluable. A solid arcane leader concept, right there.

so what about the assertions that a defender is just a close range controller?

There are some major differences. For one thing, the defender is a straightforward, honest role, not an excuse to grandfather in an overpowered sacred cow abomination of a class. ..er no offense...

Seriously, though, the defender draws enemies and attacks to himself, the controller degrades enemy offense, instead. A 3.x battlefield-control fighter, for instance, is more controller than defender, because he's 'prickly,' approaching & attacking him is discouraged, even stopped dead, better to get to his allies if you can.

 

[Xeviat]

so what about the assertions that a defender is just a close range controller?

The defender is one specific kind of control. The wild shape controller Druid wasn't quite a defender. The higher defenses and the drawing attacks to themselves is different than other controller effects.

BUT, this does point towards my earlier thoughts of removing the controller as a role and just separating it into strikers (melee) vs artillery (range). The only thing that makes me not like that is that the Illusionist and Enchanter may be characters built not around Damage, but disruption. Such a character may feel weird if they were in the "artillery" role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

You could always customize the heck out of Channel Divinity - that's what I did with Granted Powers back in 2e.

Mechanical rewards for RP? Not a fan. You could come up with something like 5e Inspiration or 13A Icon-relationship (to the deity).

A Cleric blesses you, a bard sings, a warlord give his St.Crispin's-Day speech, the artificer juices you up on magic potions - they should all /feel/ different, just because they're doing quite different things, even if the effect (you get a pile of Temp hps, say), are the same.

Shouldn't an Arcana Cleric and a Theurge Wizard feel a little bit the same?

I don't mean mechanical rewards for RP. I mean like how a Warlock has a power that triggers when targets of their curse die. Mechanical rewards for certain mechanical actions. But, such behaviors would likely be different for each domain and just really reward them for doing what they want to (curse influences the Warlock because I'm imagining curse as an effect that is placed when you attack someone, and you can have multiple curses, so Warlocks will want to spread out their attacks to curse as many as they can; like DoTs vs direct damage).

And the Arcana Cleric and Theurge Wizard should feel similar, but they need to play differently.

I'm thinking a Cleric's schtic needs to be about their allies. Priests always have followers. My trouble may be coming from having the Invoker as a kind of cleric rather than a kind of sorcerer (favored soul?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Igwilly]

I can accept that, but is it acceptable to you if all that's kept is the fluff? Say a new arcane striker, with that same fluff? I'm not one that gets hung up on number of classes though so maybe others would have a problem with too many arcane strikers.

Contrary to popular believe, mechanics have an important impact on fluff. The new, limited wizard should feel like a wizard, even if its spell list is reduced to a single role or two. Therefore, the stuff the new wizard do must be classical things of wizards.
If we can have only one type of wizard with one role available, I suppose area damage could go to the spontaneous, innate, on-the-fly sorcerer. However, you could actually have more than one class with the wizard’s fluff. You can separate the classic wizard in a number of classes, with very different powers, and say they just study separate fields of magic. Nothing stops that from being possible.

Totally do-able. Heck, character like that doesn't even need to be able to do much of anything magical, itself, it's ability to ID and determine how to counter all the magical threats out there makes it invaluable. A solid arcane leader concept, right there.

I’ve already seen such a concept in electronic RPGs. Most of the times, they eventually get some magical abilities of their own, even if it’s low level; but having precise scan abilities to monsters, spell, magic items, and such other magical is very potent indeed. Especially if this class is the only one capable of doing that, for example. There are many possibilities here.

Shouldn't an Arcana Cleric and a Theurge Wizard feel a little bit the same?

They are certainly close and both mix arcane and divine magic. They probably will have similarities, sure.

About the Controller role…

Honestly, controller and defender are similar only in the broadest terms possible: both try to reduce damage done to the party. The skills, attributes, and overall playstyle of each role is very different, to the point there’s no real comparison.

…

I know it’s some sort of heresy to bring ideas from video-game-land, but…
If there’s an activity in many RPGs there which screams “controller!” is the Crowd Control. No matter if it’s included in an pre-existing role or become another one, I think this is a concept which D&D should fully embrace and develop: I can’t stun the dragon, but all the little guys are no more trouble for you, guys ^^
Experience tells me MMORPG crowd control effects are very different from the classic Save or Suck of previous editions. 4e was a step into the right direction, but 5e probably didn’t follow this (I’m speculating here, it’s been an time since I don’t read 5e).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Experience tells me MMORPG crowd control effects are very different from the classic Save or Suck of previous editions. 4e was a step into the right direction, but 5e probably didn’t follow this (I’m speculating here, it’s been an time since I don’t read 5e).

5e took very few steps in the same direction at 4e, your assumption's pretty safe, though, having no experience with MMOs, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at...

 

[Garthanos]

There are some major differences. For one thing, the defender is a straightforward, honest role, not an excuse to grandfather in an overpowered sacred cow abomination of a class. ..er no offense...

Seriously, though, the defender draws enemies and attacks to himself, the controller degrades enemy offense, instead.ry A 3.x battlefield-control fighter, for instance, is more controller than defender, because he's 'prickly,' approaching & attacking him is discouraged, even stopped dead, better to get to his allies if you can.

Sure but it really seems to me one major difference seems to be the Defender is usually limited to affecting smaller numbers of enemies which is probably one of the reasons "Come and get it" is such a wow....

But yes you need to be able to push enemies around in more dynamic ways and impeded them in more variety of ways... which is one of the reasons I like our martial controller discussions.

Bowling at leasure - you hurl an enemy back into their allies cause them to all fall down.

You rush passed many enemies doing a hamstring on each as you pass.

A terrifying shout and display of splattering blood forces a single enemy to cower before you and the targets allies must make a save or you can move them 4 squares (either driven by fear, concern for the ally nearest you or over confidence because you presented your back)

I definitely think martial needs more control.