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

[Garthanos]

I do think for a Bilbo Baggins version it would be Charisma Vs Will and have a higher range LOL

 

[Garthanos]

You could easily duplicate this, dunno why I never had Unconscious there to begin with although that said (IIRC) I think I left it out simply because I thought it was too powerful.

It might indeed be too powerful... hence the sub discussion Abul and I have been having about Sleep and how legacy SOD or SOS may not have been appropriate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It was made Str vs Will which I suppose is about the athleticism of leaving an opening that really isnt one... its about body position not glib tongue work.

Well, system-wise it was about STR being the prime req for fighters and thus the only allowable option for their powers to use. Its fine to color it that way, and I don't have a problem with that, but 4e still has an awkward time with these things. It doesn't handle a character with a wide variety of tactics very well in mechanical terms really.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, system-wise it was about STR being the prime req for fighters and thus the only allowable option for their powers to use. Its fine to color it that way, and I don't have a problem with that, but 4e still has an awkward time with these things. It doesn't handle a character with a wide variety of tactics very well in mechanical terms really.

Fighting involves deceptions and direct strong actions and insight and intimidation and several things which involve a wide variety of attributes.

The making of all actions to be ONE attribute is a simplification and generally we just deal with it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I do think for a Bilbo Baggins version it would be Charisma Vs Will and have a higher range LOL

Well, I interpret CHA as an ability to relate with other people, so it is both related to how well they relate to you, as well as how well you understand them. So fooling someone is IMHO a CHA type of thing, classically. WILL is the corresponding defense. You could even argue for using certain skills, like Bluff, or Insight.

I like to mostly group similar types of strategy together so that you can build characters that focus in that sort of way (IE fooling people is CHA based and often involves Bluff, so those are the two things you'd use to portray that type of character who does those things well).

In fact I've considered renaming skills as 'knacks' or something similar, since I think 4e's use of them is not really that close to the classic RPG concept of a skill (IE specialized knowledge and training on a specific subject).

This is another area where I'm not sure how U_K's condensed class approach would work. I mean, it appears that the two classes he has designed are 100% focused on a single Prime Req attack stat, but not all 4e classes work that way! For instance how would a Ranger be implemented as a 2-page class? It is almost effectively 2 overlapping classes in one.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, I interpret CHA as an ability to relate with other people, so it is both related to how well they relate to you, as well as how well you understand them. So fooling someone is IMHO a CHA type of thing, classically. WILL is the corresponding defense. You could even argue for using certain skills, like Bluff, or Insight.

Actions are simplified and only one roll and one attribute... the need to attack from a position of apparent susceptibility seems a fine justification for making CaGI typically a Str vs Will.

Bilbo was wanting to move large numbers longer distances and probably included marking like effect but didnt necessarily involve the striking back.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Actions are simplified and only one roll and one attribute... the need to attack from a position of apparent susceptibility seems a fine justification for making CaGI typically a Str vs Will.

Bilbo was wanting to move large numbers longer distances and probably included marking like effect but didnt necessarily involve the striking back.

I'm not arguing CaGI is 'wrong' as written, there's certainly room to have a few different interpretations of things. I just think that I've done some things to increase flexibility there, but this isn't the place to talk about that stuff anyway. Maybe in my Story Now 4e thread.

 

[Garthanos]

In fact I've considered renaming skills as 'knacks' or something similar, since I think 4e's use of them is not really that close to the classic RPG concept of a skill (IE specialized knowledge and training on a specific subject).

They are very broad. Some of the practices narrow it down.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not arguing CaGI is 'wrong' as written, there's certainly room to have a few different interpretations of things.

In an adjusted 4e we could tie the distance of the draw in based on Cha +1 or something ie encourage a specific secondary attribute and only deliver the damage if they end within weapon reach ... this could make them reach weapon users happy. And warlords mixing it up with fighter powers too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In an adjusted 4e we could tie the distance of the draw in based on Cha ie encourage a specific secondary attribute and only deliver the damage if they end within weapon reach ... this could make them reach weapon users happy. And warlords mixing it up with fighter powers too.

Sounds interesting.