D&D 4E Let's Talk About 4E On Its Own Terms [+]

[Mannahnin]

The other point I'd make here is that an "Enchanter" or an "Evoker" is a far more evocative concept than a "Staff wizard" or an "Orb wizard". I consider the traditional spell schools a bit like I do alignment; there's a useful idea there but when you force everything to fit it becomes a Problem.

I tend to agree, although you can add a minimal amount of dressing to the implements to give them more flavor. Make them different Orders or something, similar to the schools.

 

[Staffan]

The other point I'd make here is that an "Enchanter" or an "Evoker" is a far more evocative concept than a "Staff wizard" or an "Orb wizard". I consider the traditional spell schools a bit like I do alignment; there's a useful idea there but when you force everything to fit it becomes a Problem.

You make a good point about the problem with wizard variants (and D&D in general): there is a strong desire on the part of the designers to make everything have its place in The System. That's how you get the Great Wheel cosmology and that's how you get traditional wizard schools. I much prefer when things are a bit rougher around the edges, and where there are multiple competing and incomplete ways of categorizing things. So you might have an elemental wizard paradigm focused around the four elements, but there'd still be some spells that don't fit in an elemental school that might fit better in some other way of splitting them up. So it would be neat if you had core rules with e.g. an Enchanter, an Air mage, and a Wand mage.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I tend to agree, although you can add a minimal amount of dressing to the implements to give them more flavor. Make them different Orders or something, similar to the schools.

If they'd gone for different Orders, each with a bit of fluff and a different favoured implement then I'd have a lot less of a problem.

• Path of the Artist - Artist mages believe that magic is art and appreciate the process of making magic. As the most precise implement artist wizards favour wands
• Path of the undying - Undying mages think that life is for the living and intend to have a lot of it. Undying mages who go adventuring favour staves because you can use a staff as a weapon - or at least a long stick trying to get between you and your enemy
• Path of Power - for some mages it's about power and how much you can warp reality. The orb, as a sphere, can hold more magic than any other shape
• Path of Knowledge - some wizards are insatiably curious and seek to know and record everything. These wizards write everything down in their Tomes.

And then give a couple of wizard names associate with the implements. But calling yourself an Artist Mage or an Undying Mage would have the same mechanical effect as a wand or a staff wizard with far more emotional resonance.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So you might have an elemental wizard paradigm focused around the four elements, but there'd still be some spells that don't fit in an elemental school that might fit better in some other way of splitting them up. So it would be neat if you had core rules with e.g. an Enchanter, an Air mage, and a Wand mage.

Ironically this is just about what we had by the end of 4e - we had the wand/orb/tome paradigm, we had the illusionists/evokers/pyromancers, and we had wu jen for the elementalists, and witches.

And I want the schools of pyromancy and nethermancy back in 5e.

 

[niklinna]

Agreed. I played a couple of the Heroes of classes in campaigns; I thought the Essentials classes were nice supplementary options for those who wanted something a bit simpler than the main classes.

I also thought the Rules Compendium was a nice compilation and update, a handy reference volume.

Hm. I didn't see much simpler in those classes when I looked, just some arbitrary rejiggering, and a worse page layout, and titles that didn't indicate what was inside (which book had the fighter? Was it Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms, or Heroes of the Forgotten Lands?).

I really didn't understand at the time why they bothered.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hm. I didn't see much simpler in those classes when I looked, just some aritrary rejiggering, and a worse page layout, and titles that didn't indicate what was inside (which book had the fighter? Was it Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms, or Heroes of the Forgotten Lands?).

I really didn't understand at the time why they bothered.

Decision points. A PHB class might when they want to attack it have to make one big decision between two at wills, three encounters, and two dailies. All of which are partly understood - and this can lead to analysis paralysis. And that's in addition to choosing who to hit.

Meanwhile an Essentials martial has a binary decision as to whether to keep or change their stance (a simple binary choice), decide who to hit, and then decide whether to boost. Instead of one complex decision it's a lot of simple ones - and some people find this easier.

 

[Kannik]

Agreed. I played a couple of the Heroes of classes in campaigns; I thought the Essentials classes were nice supplementary options for those who wanted something a bit simpler than the main classes.

I too never found the Essentials classes necessarily 'bad' or a 'wrong headed' direction to take classes. A variety of the AEDU structure could allow for some interesting classes. Take the Skald: two daily powers at LVL 1, but you can only use 1, and they operate as a kind of encounter-long buff to a class feature. That's potentially neat! And I very much loved playing my lightning Elementalist -- as a concept there is a particularly limited set of features or abilities that such a class might have. (Not that the class as delivered was complete in all of those, or didn't have it's oddities that "forced" one to dip outside the narrow concept.)

That said, I did find a quality difference in a good number of the Essentials classes, both in terms of being half-baked (not enough time allowed to playtest and develop, I would guess) and the classes that seemed explicitly designed to be "this existing thing, but 'simpler"' felt underwhelming. (Would have IMHO been better to design from 'cool concept and also simpler, much like the Elementalists felt.) So, on the whole, I found the E-classes more of a mixed bag with sometimes confusing organization but not a disaster of an idea/direction.

I also thought the Rules Compendium was a nice compilation and update, a handy reference volume.

I said it before upthread already, but I will never pass up a chance to sing the praises of the Rules Compendium! It rocks so hard!

 

[Undrave]

Anybody got suggestions for a good 4e Adventure? I might try to get a group together for me to DM but I really can't think of a campaign at the moment.

The other point I'd make here is that an "Enchanter" or an "Evoker" is a far more evocative concept than a "Staff wizard" or an "Orb wizard". I consider the traditional spell schools a bit like I do alignment; there's a useful idea there but when you force everything to fit it becomes a Problem.

Maybe to someone with D&D experience, but 'Enchanter' is just a fancy word for a Wizard for a lot of people. And with an Invoker in the game I don't think 'Evoker' is the best name. At best, outsiders would know what a Necromancer is and I think a 4e Necromancer would be better served by being a class of its own (I'd make it a Leader myself where they use minion to supplement their allies' tactical positioning in battle in addition to healing and debuffs) instead of trying to stuff WAY too much into the Wizard.

My complaint about the magic schools was more so the adding of additional keywords for what felt like needless mechanical details. The implements were a much more interesting gameplay mechanic because they spoke to how a player approaches playing the character and not some vaguely defined topology that may or may not even exist in universe? Adding elemental keyword for Earth and Wind would have been ultimately more useful IMO.

The Magic Schools just felt like an appeal to grognard.

Decision points. A PHB class might when they want to attack it have to make one big decision between two at wills, three encounters, and two dailies. All of which are partly understood - and this can lead to analysis paralysis. And that's in addition to choosing who to hit.

Meanwhile an Essentials martial has a binary decision as to whether to keep or change their stance (a simple binary choice), decide who to hit, and then decide whether to boost. Instead of one complex decision it's a lot of simple ones - and some people find this easier.

I really don't get how applying a stance to a basic melee attack is that different from picking between two at-wills, especially considering Basic Melee Attack is already an at-will power. It seems like a disingenuous nitpick from people who oppose the concept of 'Powers' to begin with.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I really don't get how applying a stance to a basic melee attack is that different from picking between two at-wills, especially considering Basic Melee Attack is already an at-will power. It seems like a disingenuous nitpick from people who oppose the concept of 'Powers' to begin with.

It's the difference between something pre-compiled and done at run time.

 

[Kannik]

Anybody got suggestions for a good 4e Adventure? I might try to get a group together for me to DM but I really can't think of a campaign at the moment.

Hmmm, a single one-shot adventure, full module, or a full campaign? Do you want it to be focused on showing off 4e's differences/strengths, or something that's more of a 'full rounded' adventure?