D&D General The best representations of the power fantasies D&D has had

[Neonchameleon]

very similar.
but in 4E you could take wizard, fighter, rogue or druid powers on same character and not really break anything.

The way the Divine Soul Sorcerer does in 5e?

 

[Remathilis]

The 4e restriction were for Hand Crossbow, Shortbow, or weapons of the Light Blade and Sling group. You could pick up mace and club with the Ruthless Ruffian Rogue Tactics.

Where does everyone get shortbow from? It wasn't in the PHB. They didn't start with it as a proficiency. In fact, most rogue powers had a caveat: "Requirement: wielding crossbow, light blade, or sling". No shortbow. I distinctly remember this as I was a wood elf rogue who got shortbow as a racial proficiency but could not use it with any of my rogue powers. Unless that got retconned in the copious amount of errata that came between 2008 and 2010, it was absolutely a stupid oversight to take an iconic weapon from the rogue.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just starting and I am thinking Moon to make wildshape into animals my melee combat thing.

I mostly expect wildshape to be part of druid and maxxing out at CR 1 forms at 8th level seems a lot like a minor ability at best. Mostly trading minor wildshape for unique subclass powers is fine, it is just less iconic D&D druid for me.

Default wildshape does allow wolves at 2nd level and black bears at 4th, and that is decent druid flavor, I just don't see them as being really decent combat options.

Honestly from levels 2-4 the moon druid is the single most OP combat subclass in 5e. They fall back after that - but they are basically indestructible the way 5e rules work before the level 5 power spike.

 

[Undrave]

4E was essentially a class-less system that was bluffing that it had classes,

with everyone getting same number of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers at the same given level, you could throw classes to the trash and just have all powers of certain level in the same pool to pick from.

I disagree it wouldn't change anything.

That still doesn't justify the restriction's existence. There were a couple bafflingly 3e aesthetic and RP restrictions that survived in 4 that shouldn't have like this.

I dunno but swinging a giant halberd is not what I would envision as a 'sneak attack'...

Where does everyone get shortbow from? It wasn't in the PHB. They didn't start with it as a proficiency. In fact, most rogue powers had a caveat: "Requirement: wielding crossbow, light blade, or sling". No shortbow. I distinctly remember this as I was a wood elf rogue who got shortbow as a racial proficiency but could not use it with any of my rogue powers. Unless that got retconned in the copious amount of errata that came between 2008 and 2010, it was absolutely a stupid oversight to take an iconic weapon from the rogue.

Might have been an errata yeah. Maybe in Essentials.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I dunno but swinging a giant halberd is not what I would envision as a 'sneak attack'...

If it comes through a lung unexpectedly, it's a sneak attack.

It doesn't matter if that's what anyone envisions. There's no balance reason to prevent it, only enforcing aesthetics. People keep talking about this game of imagination from the point of view that only some imaginations count.

 

[Vaalingrade]

4E was essentially a class-less system that was bluffing that it had classes,

with everyone getting same number of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers at the same given level, you could throw classes to the trash and just have all powers of certain level in the same pool to pick from.

Half-elf, Wizard and the terrible Essentials half-edition say 'hi'.

 

[Ancalagon]

To me the one that has not been done right yet is the artificer/alchemist.

It's because I feel it should be a "consumable" class - a class who's power comes from using consumable items (potions, bombs, whathaveyous). The problem is that this is extremely difficult to balance properly vs the more typical power management (at will, short rest/encounter, long rest). I've seen a few suggestions, but they all have serious flaws.

 

[Undrave]

If it comes through a lung unexpectedly, it's a sneak attack.

It doesn't matter if that's what anyone envisions. There's no balance reason to prevent it, only enforcing aesthetics. People keep talking about this game of imagination from the point of view that only some imaginations count.

I thought the idea of a sneak attack was to do the same damage as a BIG weapon but with small weapons in exchange of specific condition.

To me the one that has not been done right yet is the artificer/alchemist.

It's because I feel it should be a "consumable" class - a class who's power comes from using consumable items (potions, bombs, whathaveyous). The problem is that this is extremely difficult to balance properly vs the more typical power management (at will, short rest/encounter, long rest). I've seen a few suggestions, but they all have serious flaws.

I think it’s because it would need putting SERIOUS thought into the wealth-per-level system of the game as well as properly developing the idea of harvesting plants or monster components to serve as ingredients.

It means accepting that gold is just an alternate form of XP and the Alchemist would need to use it as their main source of power.

4e had alchemical recipe but they were pretty expensive to pull off and they had no real class feature based on them. I feel like taking such a concept, giving the alchemist a rebate on making alchemical items and giving them some bonus action item interaction like the Thief Rogue would go a long way towards making a decent Alchemist in 5e. Alchemist Fire, Alchemist Acid, Tanglefoot Bag… you don’t need THAT many recipe to cover what you really need.

 

[Voadam]

I thought the idea of a sneak attack was to do the same damage as a BIG weapon but with small weapons in exchange of specific condition.

I thought a striker role was to do more damage than other roles so a 4e striker rogue with a dagger should generally speaking be doing more damage than a fighter defender with a battle axe.

In B/X a thief can wield any weapon and backstab with it.

The sneak attack description in 3e is "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."

3e rogues only gain proficiency in certain weapons from their class but they can use any weapon to sneak attack.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I thought the idea of a sneak attack was to do the same damage as a BIG weapon but with small weapons in exchange of specific condition.

The damage difference on average from even a d4 dagger vs a 2d6 greatsword is ~4 points.

By the time you're rolling two SA die, you've blown the doors off of the greatsword. That's why fighters have to attack a billion times to eek out the damage differential. Weapons make very little difference in terms of damage output in any edition unless we start talking crit ranges (where the rogue wins again with a rapier) and 4e keywords like brutal.