D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[The Human Target]

So what? When would you EVER as an eladrin wizard use a sword? The only time it MIGHT come up, in theory, would be if you happened to be in a position to do an OA and for some WEIRD reason you actually drew your sword during your turn. You would NEVER EVER attack with the thing, and your OA would be pathetic as well, given an Eladrin Wizard will be lucky to have a 12 STR (maybe 14 at epic, wow). You could totally waste a feat on Intelligent Blademaster, but you still don't have an effective attack that even matches Magic Missile for effectiveness, and you can burn a feat to avoid OAs from using that in melee, and there are a million ways to buff it.

No, in 4e (not that 3e is much better in this way mind you) it requires rather elaborate measures in order to be adequate with both a sword and spellcasting. At the very least you have to pick a fairly obscure class. In 4e Swordmage only appears in the FR player's supplement, Blade Singer is in HotFW, a very late release most people don't have, Hexblade is in HoS, which most people skipped and was also late era, and that about covers it. There WERE good gish options, they were just either very tricky builds requiring specific feats and gear, or very far from being part of the 'core' elements of the game (and still often not the simplest classes to build with).

4e is a great game, but in terms of straightforwardness of builds it is heavily overshadowed by 5e. Pretty much every classic sort of build you would likely see in most 4e games is a single simple choice in 5e, which 'sub-class' you pick at level 2/3 and possibly one or at most 2 feat picks to fully flesh out. Its not a perfect system in that they (IMHO) stupidly stuck 3e-style MCing in there which forced them to ditch the very cool 4e concept of "you are fully your class at level 1" to stop cherry-picking, but that's just a peculiarity of 5e, you could as easily build a system that did it all at level 1 and was still just as straightforward.

Mine did.

That +3 to hit, 1d8 damage gave me a decent OA without having to spend a single resource on it.

Also, it was cool.

Was gonna go Wizard of the Spiral Tower but never made it that high.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mine did.

That +3 to hit, 1d8 damage gave me a decent OA without having to spend a single resource on it.

Also, it was cool.

Was gonna go Wizard of the Spiral Tower but never made it that high.

Yeah, at level 1 maybe you have a marginally effective attack at say Maybe +5 vs AC 1d8+2 damage (assuming you have a 14 STR, which isn't completely out of the question, though a bit of an unusual choice for a build that is DEX secondary and WIS tertiary). Without the STR its a basic +3 vs AC 1d8. Magic Missile is an auto-hit for at least 6 damage (18 INT, 7 damage with a 20). Obviously you can't OA with it and you may not want to use it if you are stuck in someone's face, but there are always options to deal with that, and its hugely buffable. WotST is OK, but it doesn't really give you any significant ability to wield a sword either, its just a (rather obsolete nowadays) way to get longsword as an implement. You're better off just MCing into SwordMage at level 1 if that's all you want, though the actual PP itself isn't terrible and has some cool thematics.

You'll just find that the options available in 5e are quite a lot easier to dig into if you want to really seriously do something like this. You can simply make an EK (Eldritch Knight) if you want to be "fighter with a bit of magic", a bard for "serious spellcaster that is good with a sword", arcane trickster for "magical rogue ala Grey Mouser", or blade pact warlock if you want a more balanced mix of casting and swordplay and don't like the bard's thematics (not the very strongest choice mechanically, but it's still no worse than many of the 'not the best' 4e builds). You can also pick the wizard's apprentice background to get just a very minor bit of magic (though the fighter in our game took this and his firebolt is actually pretty nasty, he uses it quite often). None of these options requires more than just one basic choice at level 1, 2, or 3. This really is a HUGE strong point of 5e, I can't emphasize it enough, and frankly its making it kinda hard for me to pry the players in my group back into a 4e game. They just aren't that focused on complex build stuff, they'd MUCH rather select a class, a subclass, and maybe one feat or background and be done.

Now, there are a lot of 4e builds that aren't much more complicated than that, but you do always have to pay attention to what you're doing with the next feat, and which power synergizes really well with the build, which items to get, etc if you want to maintain your effectiveness over time. You CAN pick a silly feat or two now and then just for the heck of it or whatever, 4e doesn't generally force you to optimize, but 5e just makes it a non-concern. Whatever path you take the options are small in number but somehow manage to cover the 95% of builds that people actually want.

 

[The Human Target]

I mean, I was doing this at level 1 right when 4e came out.

No swordmage. Magic Missile had an attack roll. Many less options to tweak it out or use weird implements.

Also, it's still cool.

And I didn't have to do a thing other than being an eladrin. Which I would have done anyway.

I'm not arguing about the 4e/5e divide, just the particular assertion that an eladrin wizard with a sword was pointless.

I killed a good few minions with that thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean, I was doing this at level 1 right when 4e came out.

No swordmage. Magic Missile had an attack roll. Many less options to tweak it out or use weird implements.

Also, it's still cool.

And I didn't have to do a thing other than being an eladrin. Which I would have done anyway.

I'm not arguing about the 4e/5e divide, just the particular assertion that an eladrin wizard with a sword was pointless.

I killed a good few minions with that thing.

I just don't understand why you would bother to use it. The original MM would still be a superior option. In any case by level 5 your sword is going to start being a very distinctly worse option. You might, as I said, use it now and then to do an OA, although in all the time I've run 4e I have never actually seen a PC that is just a Wizard ever do an OA TBH. Its barely possible that 2 opponents or a combination of an enemy and terrain MIGHT once in a blue moon make it impossible to shift out of OA range. OTOH I'd think that these sorts of situations would be much better addressed by any of a wide range of other powers.

So, yes, its possible to "have a wizard that can swing a sword" in 4e, but the fact remains that you need to pick a less straightforward option to actually WANT to swing that sword, except in a couple corner cases that IME are very rare. In terms of RP, for the character to be able to say "I'm a skilled swordsman", yeah, that's cool, though truthfully that sort of thing doesn't truly require any substantive competency.

I mean even if you pick WotST you don't actually swing your sword, (also true of MC or Implement Proficiency or weaplement enchantments of various types) you just cast spells with it. And if you have none of those options going for you (which PHB1 lacks) you really are just carrying the thing for show. WotST doesn't kick in till level 11 and truthfully its debatable that it gives you a compelling reason to ACTUALLY use the sword as an implement, even then. The reason the PP fell out of favor was the rise of options that do give it some substantive advantages (like say wielding a Defensive Weapon or a Subtle Weapon) along with applying some weapon feats. Truthfully most of those feats have now been written out of working with Implement attacks anyway, so the whole idea is more for color than anything.

And that's a whole other thing with 4e and the complexity of the build options. Its a sort of ever-shifting landscape (well, not anymore). I love 4e, but that is one part of it I would leave behind.

 

[The Human Target]

I mean, in general I agree with you.

That said, I'm not sure 5e let's you be an elf wizard with a longsword much easier or with more effectiveness.

I don't think any edition does.

D&D is pretty rigid by default.

I think 4e provides the most tools to break out of the box. Though they are fairly convoluted.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That said, I'm not sure 5e let's you be an elf wizard with a longsword much easier or with more effectiveness.

It works pretty well until level 5 or so. Before fighters gain that extra attack, the wizard is only suffering for the lack of a fighting style, which might be as little as one point of AC.

Although it's more likely that your elf wizard will have decent Dexterity, given the racial bonus and lack of armor proficiency, so a short sword would probably be a better bet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean, in general I agree with you.

That said, I'm not sure 5e let's you be an elf wizard with a longsword much easier or with more effectiveness.

I don't think any edition does.

D&D is pretty rigid by default.

I think 4e provides the most tools to break out of the box. Though they are fairly convoluted.

Assuming what you really wanted was to be a spellcaster, of some degree, and use a sword, then 5e has several advantages. First of all the basic "I'm just a wizard with a sword" is quite a bit more useful in 5e than in 4e. You will STILL fight better with cantrips, but a 5e wizard has a smaller penalty to his attack rolls, in general, since 5e character's tend to have lower ability score bonuses (so his mediocre STR is less of a disadvantage), and there are a LOT less other ways high level guys get attack bonus. You clearly still won't have the attack bonus of a Fighter, probably, but you could be within say 3 points at level 10, plausibly. Rolled stats are more common too, and in that case, while the fighter probably outdoes you, its not so much of a given.

Beyond that you can instead utilize any of the 'gish sub-classes', EK, Blade Pact, AT, (even paladins can be rather 'gishy', as could certain clerics TBH). Or play as a Bard, which is a true gish, being very close to full wizard and having quite a good melee capability as well. These aren't that radically different from some 4e options, but are just simpler to implement, as an EK for instance simply picks "Eldritch Knight" as a class feature at level 2, I think, and then that's it, they get some spells, much like any other caster. Even at best the equivalent 4e procedure would be something like MC into swordmage, somehow get weapon proficiency with a sword, then take power swap feats, etc.

So, I just don't agree that 5e doesn't make it easier. Its WAY easier. I've played a lot of 4e and now a modest amount of 5e (we are now level 5 in our 5e campaign, we've been playing for maybe 6 months or so). In that time I've seen 8 or 10 different PCs and played with a few builds. Its a very simple system, but the devs clearly spent a LOT of time considering how to cover a large design space with a simple set of options. There are a number of other things about 5e that bug me, and 4e is still my favorite game, but 5e unequivocally delivers a lot more build space per option, it isn't even a contest. 4e wins out OVER ALL, and maybe in terms of very fine-grained build control it wins, but few players care about that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It works pretty well until level 5 or so. Before fighters gain that extra attack, the wizard is only suffering for the lack of a fighting style, which might be as little as one point of AC.

Although it's more likely that your elf wizard will have decent Dexterity, given the racial bonus and lack of armor proficiency, so a short sword would probably be a better bet.

Right, or a rapier. Its not at all unlikely that an elf wizard could have a DEX of 16. You might even plausibly buff that, assuming you're not bothering with (or using) feats much. I mean there's really no absolutely 'must have' feats in 5e. You probably want War Wizard or Spell Sniper, but they aren't really better options than more INT and DEX.

 

[pemerton]

in all the time I've run 4e I have never actually seen a PC that is just a Wizard ever do an OA TBH

Then your wizards haven't lived!

The invoker/wizard in my game does OAs with his Rod of Seven Parts (effectively a mace). When he was a straight wizard, he used to do OAs with his Tome of Replenishing Flame (improvised weapon). He once needed exactly 20 to hit and rolled it, getting the crit. When I queried whether his tome burst into flame on a melee hit, he answered "Absolutely!", and the bonus fire damage killed the gnoll in question.

I think he might have hit once or twice since then with an OA.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then your wizards haven't lived!

No, I think the key point is they DID live!