Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Yes, I would love to see the weapon training system and the skill training system organized in one system, too. But it requires a few math tricks with defenses or how to deal with stuff like Skill Focus.
D&D 5E What direction should 5th edition take?
- Thread starter invokethehojo
- Start date
I disagree. A Fighter already gets a lot of weapon feats and armor feats and shield feats and better hit points for free, in addition to a +1 to hit and some multiple times per round class features.
The Wizard, in return, gets some minor cantrips that are typically non-useful in combat, one Ritual feat also not typically usable in combat, the ability to add his Int mod to a cloth AC of 0 (i.e. the Fighter typically starts out 2 to 4 higher AC), and a single encounter class feature.
From a combat perspective, the Wizard has fewer options and is squishier. In return, he gets to attack at range and occasionally attack 2 or more foes. The Fighter too gets to often attack 2 or more foes a round with Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge, and the Fighter's individual attacks do slightly more damage.
Even the much touted Shield spell adds 4 to AC for 1 round+ whereas the Fighter has an AC advantage every single round.
So what can the Wizard actually do in 4E combat that the Fighter cannot?
Some slight ability to throw some conditions on foes, attacks at range, sometimes a slight edge in "to hit" since he can sometimes change which defense he attacks, but that is offset by the fact that he does less damage and the Fighter is also +1 to hit. And of course the broken Orb combos.
I personally think that the Fighter is a lot more effective in combat already.
The Wizard can improve his AC via feats for in combat, but then again, the Fighter can gain the Ritual feat for out of combat.
All in all, I do think that melee types are a lot more overall effective in combat with 4E than ranged spell casting types and having a way for spell casters to be more versatile at the cost of gold is not that unbalancing.
One could also remove the concept of daily powers for martial characters - just remove the concept of daily powers as "daily" entirely and instead say that the powers have recovery times measured in encounters. martial characters get powers that recover after every encounter but are only half as effective as the arcane powers that recover every two encounters (not defined as every 5 minutes). Of course, trying to keep this verisimilitude is another matter.(What's the game world significance of encounters?)
This is not a bad idea.
An increase in effectiveness offset by a decrease in frequency.
But for me, that is only half of the issue. The other half is that there are so few options (i.e. the same At Wills, the same Encounters, the same Dailies) for most encounters that all PCs feel stifled. It's not just the Wizards.
Afrodyte
Explorer
More like weapon groups are a particular group of instruments - comparing unarmed combat to voice, for example. Specific weapons are more like specific instruments.
I imagine you could treat armor like all other equipment such as implements, foci, and thieves' tools. Wearing armor gives an equipment bonus right off the bat (+1 to +5 from leather to plate). But training with using a certain kind of armor could also give a proficiency bonus. Might be a way to fold that into the skill training system as well. As it stands, you already need above-average Strength and Constitution to be proficient with heavy armor. Why not just fold those attributes into armor training somehow? Sort of like:
ARMOR TRAINING SKILLS
- Light Armor (Dex) - includes unarmored?
- Heavy Armor (Str? Con?)
- Melee Weapon Training (Axes, Flails, Hammers, Heavy Blades, Light Blades, Maces, Picks, Polearms, Spears, Staffs, Unarmed) - by group
- Ranged Weapon Training (Bows, Crossbows, Slings, Thrown) - by group
- Armor Training (heavy or light)
- Utility (need a better name) Skill Training (general list of non-combat skills)
- Weapon Specialization - specific weapon
- Armor Specialization - specific armor
- CLERIC: Religion. Choose 3 more trained skills from the following class list plus any 3 other skills: Arcana, Diplomacy, Endurance, Heal, Heavy Armor, History, Insight, Light Armor, Melee Weapon (any group), Ranged Weapon (any group), Religion
- FIGHTER: Athletics, Heavy Armor or Light Armor, Melee Weapon (any 2 groups). Choose 3 more trained skills from the following class list plus any 3 other skills: Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Heavy Armor, Intimidate, Light Armor, Melee Weapon (any group), Ranged Weapon (any group)
- ROGUE: Crossbow, Light Armor, Light Blades, Stealth or Thievery. Choose 2 more trained skills from the following class list plus any 4 other skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Dungeoneering, Insight, Intimidate, Melee Weapon (any group), Perception, Ranged Weapon (any group), Stealth, Streetwise, Thievery
- WIZARD: Arcana. Choose 2 more trained skills from the following class list plus any 3 other skills: Arcana, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, History, Insight, Light Armor, Melee Weapon (any group), Nature, Ranged Weapon (any group), Religion
Afrodyte
Explorer
Daily resource management is important for strategy or "operational play". You have to manage your resources over a time frame. That means you have to make decisions on whether you use these resources - is this encounter difficult enough to warrant the use of a limited resource? Or is this encounter maybe not difficult enough, but the current scenario just benefits considerably from using a particular limited resource?
(snip)
One could also remove the concept of daily powers for martial characters - just remove the concept of daily powers as "daily" entirely and instead say that the powers have recovery times measured in encounters. martial characters get powers that recover after every encounter but are only half as effective as the arcane powers that recover every two encounters (not defined as every 5 minutes). Of course, trying to keep this verisimilitude is another matter.
How about the recharge mechanics that monsters get?
Something that might be worth developing is the idea of encounter powers (especially martial exploits) as exploiting tactical openings. If the idea is to encourage more tactical and strategic movement, the powers should seize upon that by making it sort of a prerequisite, keying off of triggered actions, combat advantage, etc. For non-martial stuff, nothing springs to mind yet.
keterys
First Post
One class being better, or worse, than another, has very little to do with changes for an entire power source. Sorcerers and Swordmages don't necessarily need a boost because of problems with Wizards. Or Invokers, for that matter.
More and more, it feels like the core of your complaint is 'This one character of mine isn't what I want it to be, so the new edition should fix that' and... that's a little off.
You must be reading between the lines more than what I wrote.
Swordmages are Arcane power source, but they are not spell casters. Or spell slingers.
My point is mostly with regard to ranged spell casters, classes that throw magic at foes and use magic to solve problems, even outside of combat.
Spell casters are the bread and butter "magic users" in DND. For me. They are the ones that break the mundane laws of physics with regard to outside themselves. Sure, a few other classes get a few minor magical effects, but for the most part, the other classes are souped up versions of mundane swinging a sword. Many of their powers affect just themselves, or the group of foes directly surrounding them.
Sure, a Swordmage can teleport around a little and throw a short burst around him, and that is magical. But, my concern is that spell casters are no longer "magical". They are more elementalists (i.e. they do damage, who really cares what type?).
I'm not just talking Wizards, but Wizards and Clerics and Warlocks and even Invokers.
The definition of spell casters in 4E has become: 1) I do a hit point damaging attack at range, and 2) the attack has an effect that slows or dazes or somehow adds a disadvantage to the foe.
Sure, there are exceptions, but I really cannot Charm a foe. I cannot create an Illusion to trick him. I cannot Fear him. I might be able to buff the team for an encounter once per day, but that is few and far between.
Spells that used to short term incapacitate foes, even in 1E and 2E, now merely inconvenience them. As an example, Stinking Cloud.
Entangle is one of the few spells that actually does anything similar to what it used to. Restrained until save and then Slowed. Of course, it also does damage which is lame, but it is one of the better "magic feeling-like" spells. The fact that it jumped from a 1st level spell to a 9th level spell (in previous levels, that would be 5th level) is also lame, but ...
I have never seen Slow in 4E do much of anything. The NPC either has a ranged attack, or is already fighting in melee, or is within 4 squares of where he can charge a PC or 2 squares where he can attack normally. The effect is extremely minor. There are almost 20 powers in the PHB that Slow foes and for all intents and purposes, they have nearly zero utility the vast majority of the time. Their only real significant use is to prevent a foe from fleeing. A tricky player might be able to stop a move action with it by taking the disadvantage of Readying an action.
With the exception of Daze which does drop an opponent to an action per round and Stun which prevents actions, most of the conditions do very little or if they do more, are rarely encountered.
But because of limited durations and the fact that the conditions and other modifiers exist on the vast majority of attack powers, the DM and players are forced to do a lot of bookkeeping that was not done in previous editions to this extent.
One is not slowed for 1 round per level or most of the encounter, the target is slowed until a save. Which means that instead of keeping track of the fact that the target is slowed, the game system involves more keeping track of when the condition ends. There is a greater likelihood of someone forgetting to make a save or forgetting that the target was affected until the end of PC #4's turn, etc. There is actually more bookkeeping, just a different type. In our game, we are constantly adding and subtracting tokens from the miniatures to indicate various situations and conditions, nearly on every other creature's turn, some miniature is being affected.
This is one reason why longer durations are a good thing. Durations should either be: until the end of the encounter, or until a save is made.
The durations of: until the start of the target's turn, until the end of the target's turn, until the start of the attacker's turn, and until the end of the attacker's turn are inferior game mechanics. They force a lot of busy work.
The nerfing of durations has actually created more bookkeeping for the game system, not less. A buff that lasted one hour per level had very little bookkeeping involved.
keterys
First Post
There are powers that do those things - Cause Fear, Command, Visions of Avarice, Maze of Mirrors, Illusionary Wall, etc. And frankly powers like Mire the Mind and Far Realm Phantasm _do_ trick your enemy if you RP them correctly.
I'm pretty sure Stinking Cloud is actually pretty damn badass, maybe you want a better example?
Why is damage lame? It's the core principle of combat. If you don't deal damage, then the combat _doesn't end_ which there are threads everywhere with people complaining about.
I saw it "stun" someone who couldn't get into combat just last week, but I otherwise agree that I'd be fine with it having a real penalty attached, such as inability to shift.
I remember someone playing with two dozen sticky notes around their character for tracking their buffs, which was very useful for when the dispels happened. I remember tracking the entirety of a 12 minute smash and grab through a tower due to a need to track durations as players raced room to room to keep 1r/lvl and 1m/lvl buffs going as much as possible. I remember tracking all 20+ buffs _I_ had cast on people in my party so that I could tell the DM what they lost when he did dispels, or tell them how much Con & Dex they'd gained for the day, etc. I remember tracking the number of hits against my stoneskin that occured from adventure to adventure, and my contingencies, mirror images, and all the rest in 2e. You and I have some very different opinions on what was done in previous editions to what extent.
Agree completely. I've posted elsewhere about this, but I strongly wish that beneficial effects were all until end of target's turn or encounter, and detrimental effecs were all until end of target's turn, save, or encounter (since save are at end of turn, them being same is fine) _and_ that a save could end 'end of turn' effects so that save ends was always an upgrade on duration.
Yes and no. They both create different kinds of bookkeeping... the real question is why you'd need _either_. The system would have less bookkeeping if you didn't get buffed at all.
HP Dreadnought
First Post
Thus far I haven't seen anything in 4th that would compel me to upgrade. With each previous edition, the upgrade has always been a "is it worth it" issue. . . since I am usually selling/trading away a 3' pile of books by the end of it.
Sure there are a few things that could be better. . . but overall. . . there's nothing that would make me want to switch. We haven't even found anything so out of line that it requires a house rule. That has NEVER happened before in our group!
Sure there are a few things that could be better. . . but overall. . . there's nothing that would make me want to switch. We haven't even found anything so out of line that it requires a house rule. That has NEVER happened before in our group!
Wait...looking thru the new edition and not finding a need to house rule bad/irritating rules is being viewed as a bad thing?! Or you mean that about 3.x? If it's the latter, definitely not my view on things.
I'm a packrat, I have all my old books. I have friends who spent thousands of dollars (possibly even 10s of thousands) buying WotC books, as well as various d20 books that they could mix with their game. I sprnt a lot less than they did, but I still have at least a full bookshelf of d20 material. 4E took enough of the things I hated about 3.x and solved them that, for me, it was worth it. I know I will get a pittance for my old books tho, so sell off huge stacks of books for pocket change or just keep them, may as well keep them. I could always find some use down the line or mine material.
