D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Maxperson]

As an aside, back in the 2e days, we tried an experiment. Clerics didn't choose their spells. They just had the slots per day and could cast whatever spells were on the cleric list as needed.

Funny thing was, 99% of the time, the cleric was casting pretty much exactly the same things - lots of heals and cure X spells, the odd buff, that sort of thing. But, I did get to see Snakes to Sticks (the reverse of Sticks to Snakes) cast which was the first and only time I had ever seen that spell used. No one in their right mind would memorize that. IME, it was a great success.

Then again, this was back in the days when clerics had virtually no directly offensive spells. So, it did make a lot of sense.

We tried that too. It was abandoned not because it was too powerful, but rather because some of the players got decision paralysis and it slowed the game down too much.

 

[GrimCo]

All I can say is that I disagree, I hated AEDU for every class after a while. It's fine that you have your opinion of course but can we not bait the edition wars with statements like "This edition was the best EVAR!!!"? We all have our preferences.

Not edition warring or baiting. When i say best designed, i mean precisely what i wrote. They had clear vision around game play style and designed system fit to that particular style. 4e was designed for tactical, teamwork-focused, encounter-based play, mimicking MMORPGs like WoW which were popular at the time, and it did that style very well. In contrast, 5e was designed as a toolkit for many styles, letting each group emphasize the parts of D&D they enjoy most, but it came at the cost of not doing any style particularly well in terms of mechanical support.

While i like AEDU as a concept, of all the editions i played, 4ed is my least favorite (even behind 2ed).

 

[AlViking]

Not edition warring or baiting. When i say best designed, i mean precisely what i wrote. They had clear vision around game play style and designed system fit to that particular style. 4e was designed for tactical, teamwork-focused, encounter-based play, mimicking MMORPGs like WoW which were popular at the time, and it did that style very well. In contrast, 5e was designed as a toolkit for many styles, letting each group emphasize the parts of D&D they enjoy most, but it came at the cost of not doing any style particularly well in terms of mechanical support.

While i like AEDU as a concept, of all the editions i played, 4ed is my least favorite (even behind 2ed).

You just doubled down by saying it was "best designed". I, and the vast majority of people I played 3e and then 5e disagree (there's always that 1 guy in 20). Having a clear vision if it's not what people wanted does not make it a better product. Beyond that I'm not going into detail because I don't want to get into edition wars.

 

[Weiley31]

I have started to wonder if the "D&D General" tag on this thread has become a giant game of chicken, where everyone is challenging each other to see just how much the rules can be messed with until someone breaks and says "Yeah, but then it wouldn't be D&D."

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've played in and run a mana pool (i.e. spell points) system for ages and found that while it works great at low levels it gets rather badly broken as the levels increase.

I've only had limited exposure to a pool system, when I played a 3.5e psion (campaign was for levels 8-12) but we didn't get very far (handful of sessions) due to a slacker DM. I loved the class and the freedom of the psionic powers but I wasn't sitting on the other side of the DM screen.
What I did notice is that I blew through those points pretty quickly....

 

[AnotherGuy]

As an aside, back in the 2e days, we tried an experiment. Clerics didn't choose their spells. They just had the slots per day and could cast whatever spells were on the cleric list as needed.

That is how I envision a divine spellcaster to be thematically. Prayers in the heat of the moment.

 

[Remathilis]

You just doubled down by saying it was "best designed". I, and the vast majority of people I played 3e and then 5e disagree (there's always that 1 guy in 20). Having a clear vision if it's not what people wanted does not make it a better product. Beyond that I'm not going into detail because I don't want to get into edition wars.

Perhaps "best" here should mean "most clearly focuses on it's intended play style." 4e was divisive because it did only one thing (tactical skirmish combat) and it did it well, to the detriment of all other things. And while that's not what I want out of D&D, I don't think that saying 4e handled that style of play better than other editions (at least it did once they figured out the math) is edition warring. I mean, if I say 3e had the best system for unique monster creation, I am not saying 3e is superior to all other forms of D&D, just that when it comes to unique enemies 3e has so many more options available than "make something up and hope it doesn't tpk your party."

This coming from someone who also doesn't like 4e. Praise isn't a zero sum gain.

 

[James Gasik]

All I can say is that I disagree, I hated AEDU for every class after a while. It's fine that you have your opinion of course but can we not bait the edition wars with statements like "This edition was the best EVAR!!!"? We all have our preferences.

They did say "arguably" the best edition. That they didn't have to wait long for said argument to present itself doesn't make that statement untrue.

 

[AlViking]

They did say "arguably" the best edition. That they didn't have to wait long for said argument to present itself doesn't make that statement untrue.

Best what? Best selling? That goes to 5e. Most groundbreaking? OD&D. Most supplements? At a guess, 2e. I can't think of a single category I'd put 4e as "best", even "best at achieving a specific vision" is misleading because it values the vision they had. About the only thing I can think it achieved was the most radical change in the nature of the game ... but even that is my opinion.

Was it the best version for some people? Certainly. Arguably the best? Sorry, I don't buy the objectivity of that label.

 

[Horwath]

I would much rather see every spell be given the ability to be ritually cast, but then cost 100gp per spell level of ritual supplies to do so. If the caster wants to spend 400gp and 10 minutes, he can ritually cast Fire Shield. For 200gp and 10 minutes, he can ritually cast Flaming Sphere.

the cost is really unneeded, unless you really want a gold dump for the setting.