D&D 4E Revised 4E Wizard Class with Freeform Spellcasting System

pemerton · Jun 12, 2018

Garthanos said:
It certainly makes the over all thing more reliable

Tony Vargas said:
Rolling the attacks still marks them, so the fighter's still doing his thing, even if the pull doesn't work (and it might not work for other reasons, like not having a square to pull them into).

At least as it has played at our table, the pull is most of the point of it - that's how you achieve lockdown.

So having the autopull become an attack vs Will is doubly bad: (1) it undermines the function of the power (at least as I've experienced it); (2) it is a concession to the view that martial PCs can never have auto-success abilities while casters can.

Garthanos · Jun 12, 2018

pemerton said:
(2) it is a concession to the view that martial PCs can never have auto-success abilities while casters can.

Philosophically sucking at any level I agree... and Personally I would allow either implementation at my table...

Garthanos · Jun 12, 2018

Lest we forget...this essentials sweat heart. With at will, level 1....

But come and get it at level 7 was just toooooo much.

And for the enchanter its 5 squares...

Garthanos · Jun 12, 2018

Heck to me that alone would justify my idea of making come and get it have a larger burst area and pull distance modified by charisma.

Or that other idea... you know the kick essentials out the door because MM is a creep

Tony Vargas · Jun 12, 2018

Garthanos said:
Lest we forget...this essentials sweat heart. With at will, level 1....

View attachment 98368

But come and get it at level 7 was just toooooo much.

And for the enchanter its 5 squares...

I played a superior-Orb-wielding Enchanter in Phantom Legion, and prettymuch dominated the entire season, mainly with that cantrip. There's broken, there's broken, and there's wizards in D&D.

pemerton said:
(2) it is a concession to the view that martial PCs can never have auto-success abilities while casters can.

The more damaging concession is in giving anyone auto-success attacks, in the first place. Though, really, we're just debating which enormities were more enormous.

Garthanos said:
Isn't that middle essentials capitulation...

Start of essentials, I guess. Though some of the post-essentials errata hit before essentials, so, similarly, debating the order in which the disaster unfolded...

AbdulAlhazred · Jun 12, 2018

MwaO said:
Yeah, I think a bunch of large issues show up in the whole 2 pages. I'm just identifying crazy breakage from a 4e system standpoint, but I don't think the 2 pages generally model 4e well. 4e's very much about medium-low to medium-high complexity forced choice where this system is about high complexity or spamming.

If you can spam an option repeatedly, every option either needs to have a high level of balance or things break/don't get used. Basically, this system simply can't represent great powers that 4e is known for having, because if it could, a PC could use them 4* an encounter instead of once and things break...

Right, the counter argument here being "well, you have to make up reasons why each option is good sometimes." That's a wonderful theory, but it is much harder to make work in practice than it sounds. Sure, you can use resistance/immunity/special stuff to reward or punish some damage types in one scenario or another, but all that REALLY does is punish specialists and make them suck part of the time. Chances are it doesn't fairly balance what they gained anyway (in one direction or the other). Its also pathetically easy to add a damage type to a power using an item, which would then require banning all such items to fix, yet another loss to the game!

This is one place where I think MM was correct. The catastrophic dragons do make a good compromise, but its not one that you can simply pull out with every monster, not unless you want to make a lot of complicated monsters!

AbdulAlhazred · Jun 12, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
I played a superior-Orb-wielding Enchanter in Phantom Legion, and prettymuch dominated the entire season, mainly with that cantrip. There's broken, there's broken, and there's wizards in ...

Essentials! There, FTFY

Garthanos · Jun 13, 2018

Tony Vargas said:
I played a superior-Orb-wielding Enchanter in Phantom Legion, and prettymuch dominated the entire season, mainly with that cantrip. There's broken, there's broken, and there's wizards in D&D.

It's traditional!!!

Garthanos · Jun 13, 2018

I thought the wizards can do any skill except "with magic" cantrips were another horrible bit of that mangling of 4e I wish there wasnt anything actually fun and reasonable in post essentials but I would definitely miss some of it. Sure most of it was in a few books.

Garthanos · Jun 13, 2018

Garthanos said:
Lest we forget...this essentials sweat heart. With at will, level 1....

But come and get it at level 7 was just toooooo much.

And for the enchanter its 5 squares...

Quite honestly the direct parallel between those actually pisses me off a little.

D&D 4E Revised 4E Wizard Class with Freeform Spellcasting System

pemerton

Legend

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Tony Vargas

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Similar Threads