D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Manbearcat]

It isn't an absolute, but the 4e concept of class design is a big step towards "sameness". It's not at the point where everyone has the same mechanics and you just describe them differently, but it's closer to that by far than any other version of D&D, and that's jarring. The merits of that step are what we're discussing.

I don't agree with the other portions of the post (the applicability of each of those various mediums to the dynamics of TTRPGing) but I doubt we would make much headway debating that. However, this bit here, is pretty demonstrably just wrong, and glaringly so. In fact, I would say you have the situation inverted and I think you're lack of experience with the ruleset is showing.

AD&D Fighters wanted to be defenders but really didn't have much in the way of class tools to do so (get in melee and force enemies to either use withdraw or eat an attack; which was very punitive). Shoot with a bow at range, charge and get a flurry or stand and duke it out. There was no intra-class resources or tools to deploy that could control a melee or dictate target acquisition or skirmish. 3.x was pretty much the same with a few odd builds that provided control (trip/reach builds). They were damage machines but they pretty much played the same.

AD&D Thieves wanted to get a backstab off (if you were lucky) and avoid making yourself a target if at all possible. They had no real abilities to play an intra-combat skirmisher or stealthy lurker that could reliably refresh their big payload ability. 3.x turned them into dual wielding ginsu machines that just wanted to flank with folks or create builds that would nova ridiculously (and give a stray, on-demand FF opponent).

AD&D Clerics and Wizards were not terribly far from what they today, save for the fact that being in melee in 3.x and 4e isn't in the same stratosphere of punitive for Wizards and they have a thousand and one tools to stay out of it.

In 4e Fighters are damage machines but they have tons of passive and active melee control abilities. They can be built as mobile skirmishers or berserkers or brawlers or indestructible sword and board myrmidons. They can be stance-driven, burst/multi-attack driven, charge-driven, mobility driven, immediate action-driven or single target damage-driven. Regardless of that secondary build focus, they will all be enormously stout, have huge melee control and target acquisition abilities, and big time damage. The default of 4e Fighters has huge differences from the default of other 4e Defenders (Paladin, Swordmage, Warden), let alone the different styles of play between Fighter builds. More than that, a Fighter does even come close to looking like or playing anything like a Rogue, a Cleric or a Wizard. They are further from each other, in play, in 4e than they have ever been in the history of D&D.

In 4e Rogues can be built as swashbuckling duelists with ridiculous mobility and status effect induction, lurkers who move from shadow to shadow while delivering huge damage payload, or thugs who slug it out in melee. This class plays enormously different from a Defender, a Controller, a Leader and it has huge variance in playstyle with respect to other Strikers (Avenger, Barbarian, etc). You can build a skirmisher Rogue who is similar in some respects to skirmisher Ranger builds but there is so much variance within the builds of both of those classes that its not an issue.

Clerics? Hugely different than Warlords. Forget about the rest of the roles.

Wizards? Hugely different than Druids. Forget about the rest of the roles.

With Feats, Rituals, Martial Practices, various features/feats/powers with Skills as prereqs, Themes; the out of combat functionality disparity has plenty of variance as well.

A Mariner themed, Aerialist/Artful Dodger/Duelist Rogue with Ritual training is a world away from an Explorer themed, Shadow Rogue with Martial Practice training. And the latter is a world away still from a Ranger.

People look at AEDU and that resource scheme veneer creates the potential for an extraordinary misconception about how the game plays. A misconception that only actual experience can correct; if you're not willing to take the word of the people who play the ruleset that is.

 

[Ahnehnois]

AD&D Fighters wanted to be defenders but really didn't have much in the way of class tools to do so

Where does that come from? I don't think they wanted to be anything other than what they were.

People look at AEDU and that resource scheme veneer creates the potential for an extraordinary misconception about how the game plays. A misconception that only actual experience can correct; if you're not willing to take the word of the people who play the ruleset that is.

I know how resource management works, and how daily-limited abilities affect a game. 4e didn't invent those things. Nor did I invent the "sameness" meme. Like "grind", it's a term commonly used even among the 4e fanbase. Even someone who does have that 4e experience agreed with me on that above. If your point is that you can play two different characters in 4e and have wildly different experiences, that's fine. You could do that in literally any roleplaying situation. But there was a clear push towards standardizing the numbers that go on a character sheet.

 

[triqui]

Re: LotR, I'd argue Gandalf isn't a PC (or else is at a much higher level), and the commoners (presumably, you mean the hobbits?) would just start at a lower level than everyone else. The wizards are more powerful because they've more power (read:higher level), not because they're wizards. :/

That's true. Glorfindel, Finarfin and other high level elven warriors were able to defeat Balrogs just fine. Comparing Gandalf to Aragorn is not a good way to measure warriors vs wizards in LOTR, as Gandalf is a very high level wizard (being almost an angel), and Aragorn is just lvl 5-6 or so, just enough to face a baby cave troll.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm probably being unimaginative here, so what other effective martial status effects or special attacks are lacking from the current playtest rules? What could a badass fighter or rogue do narratively that isn't handled by the current system? Because getting rid of hp is probably a no-go, but finding ways to add cool maneuvers and skill tricks is another story.

Almost the entire list of Pathfinder critical hit feats.

 

[Manbearcat]

Where does that come from? I don't think they wanted to be anything other than what they were.

I'm not sure what you mean by "anything other than what they were" because apparently you're disputing the Fighter as the standard bearer class whose time-honored job is to:

1) interpose yourself between the bad guys and and your allies.
2) hold bottlenecks.
3) absorb punishment like no other.
4) don't let a caster kill your allies.

eg; be a Defender

5) deal out a heaping helping of damage.
6) occasionally smash open a door or a chest and maybe wench and drink grog for a little color.

If that differs from your understanding of the default, vanilla D&D fighter (and the greater cultures' expectation and usage of it) then we probably don't even need to engage on the subject as that fundamental premise is as non-controversial a thing I can think of in D&D history.

I know how resource management works, and how daily-limited abilities affect a game. 4e didn't invent those things. Nor did I invent the "sameness" meme. Like "grind", it's a term commonly used even among the 4e fanbase. Even someone who does have that 4e experience agreed with me on that above. If your point is that you can play two different characters in 4e and have wildly different experiences, that's fine. You could do that in literally any roleplaying situation. But there was a clear push towards standardizing the numbers that go on a character sheet.

I'm not sure what this is meant to address. I was engaging this bit here:

Originally Posted by Ahnehnois
It isn't an absolute, but the 4e concept of class design is a big step towards "sameness". It's not at the point where everyone has the same mechanics and you just describe them differently, but it's closer to that by far than any other version of D&D, and that's jarring. The merits of that step are what we're discussing.

My last paragraph wasn't speaking to who invented what meme or what other issues that people may have with the ruleset. It was focused specifically on the "It's not at the point where everyone has the same mechanics and you just describe them differently, but it's closer to that by far than any other version of D&D" part. I was using the veneer of the AEDU resource scheme (its appearance, not the way it plays) as the culprit for people depicting the classes as "the same" or "fighters casting spells" or pick your cultural meme. Playing the classes and experiencing the extreme variance of the resources within the scheme and how they synergize with class features when deployed will quickly diffuse the notion of "It's not at the point where everyone has the same mechanics and you just describe them differently, but it's closer to that by far than any other version of D&D". I was citing AEDU as the general culprit for that position; again, something I don't see as particularly controversial as people decry the "sameness of the classes" due to the unified mechanics of the AEDU resource scheme all the time. For the same reason, people will praise Essentials.

Beyond the cacophony on the various boards, I've witnessed it first hand. Long term players (and thoughtful, smart friends) decrying "the sameness of the classes" after an initial perusal through the books only to be incredulous at themselves with a few months of play under their belts.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've witnessed it first hand. Long term players (and thoughtful, smart friends) decrying "the sameness of the classes" after an initial perusal through the books only to be incredulous at themselves with a few months of play under their belts.

Two things.

First, there are a significant number of people who played 4e and found the characters to be homogenous even after doing so. And they either left the game, or dealt with that issue in some way. There is plenty of discussion on that on these boards. So when you suggest that I listen to people who've played 4e, I do, and that helps form my opinions on it. There are a small number of highly combative posters that I generally don't listen to, because it's clear that they are more interested in picking fights that having a substantive discussion. But I used to read the 4e forum when there was one, and many people are willing to talk about 4e using perfectly reasonable terms. They aren't edition warring. They aren't claiming that 4e is a "balanced game" and that all others are "unbalanced". They don't claim that 4e is the One True Way. They're willing to criticize the game even though they like it (just as the rest of us are willing to criticize our games of choice in reasonable terms).

And a significant number complain about things like draggy combats, unbalanced skill challenges, and, you guessed it "sameness". Significant revisions were made to the game to address those concerns (as clearly Essentials is a large-scale response to the sameness issue), which to some extent may have addressed them successfully. But it's a legitimate issue. A reasonable 4e fan will generally acknowledge those kinds of issues and explain why the benefits of the mechanics are worth it (to them) or how they dealt with them. Certainly, I have no trouble doing the equivalent.

Second, I've witnessed first hand many players who think that playing a wizard means playing a god or that they can do anything they want. And then they find out that they're wrong (often, but not necessarily with me as the DM). I've witnessed it first hand. Clearly, anyone who believes differently has a misconception, right?

 

[Manbearcat]

Second, I've witnessed first hand many players who think that playing a wizard means playing a god or that they can do anything they want. And then they find out that they're wrong (often, but not necessarily with me as the DM). I've witnessed it first hand. Clearly, anyone who believes differently has a misconception, right?

Maybe you could engage with the core of my argument (the analysis of the classes) rather than throwing out a grab-bag of unrelated 4e critiques and having a mocking go at the paltry anecdotal evidence that was in no way meant to support my argument...just to give you a frame of reference for the mental framework of my personal position?

You're bringing in all manner of things that are tangential or entirely unrelated to the point I'm addressing. I'm not talking about grindy combats. I'm not talking about restrictive multiclassing. I'm not talking about poor initial Solo design. I'm not talking about horrible presentation and editorial incoherency within the DMG1 and PHB1. I'm not talking about flawed monster/threat/DC math that needed revision. I'm not talking about lacking or incoherent DM advice. None of those things have anything to do with the point at hand so I don't know why you're reaching for a grab-bag of 4e critiques (all legitimate and you may have read me criticize the edition for them) to add onto this issue as if it has anything to do with the rest and then talking about "reasonable 4e fan" acknowledging these issues. They are all separate issues with their own nuance, unrelated to the charge of "sameness of the classes in play", specifically with respect to the claim that its moreso than any preceding edition.

I've written a generic run-through on their differences and how they play out in game. If you'd like, I can go a step further and throw out a 3rd level build of the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric and analyze the feature/power synergy and how it actualizes in play. Say the word and I'll do so. I'm not sure you'd care for that though (nor do I think it would be as convincing as actually playing the ruleset rather than just reading and extrapolating) so I don't know what else to do at this point other than to give you that vanilla run-through comparing the classes in editions past (and the 4e classes/roles with each other) and speak to hollow anecdotal evidence of the power of the veneer of the AEDU resource scheme framework to render assumptions askew from reality. You can make all of the charges that you'd like against the edition (I'm certainly on board with the above) but "sameness in play" is extraordinarily off.

 

[Sunseeker]

A factor of four actually (he's talking about a 2 hour repair and an 8 hour estimate; beginning of Star Trek V).

Alright, but still, his biggest asset is that he lies...he's darn good...but a liar.

That's all well and good for me, but that's not enough for everyone, I daresay. Also, why are we mixing generations, and when did Riker start dual wielding phasers?

Because I didn't want to use someone like Kirk who has plot immunity and doesn't play by the rules, or Picard who is more of a general than an in-world player.

Whoever wrote 4e did. Sort of. That is, in essence what the standard modifier is. A character of level X has X/2 bonus in everything, and only incremental modifiers to that based on individual choices. It's a big shift from the way numbers work in other editions.

I don't quite agree. The usage of the "standard modifier" is used to represent that there is a basic level of improvment to the character as a whole when they level up. Certain aspects get better faster, others slower, but there is a minimum level of improvment. This was one of the biggest boons to casters in earlier editions. DCs got harder, but saves didn't get better. A 20th level fighter has only barely better saves than a 10th, while a 20th level Wizard can cast a spell with a DC of 30+. At least in 3.5, while the fighter would be sitting at maybe a 25 maximum save.

Again, that's fine. As long as you're willing to accept that some weeks, one character will be more useful than the other.

Certainly, I don't have a problem with that, but in a situation where everyone could contribute, everyone should be able to get that chance. We shouldn't all just be twiddling our thumbs until Wizard-man does and wins the game.

Well yeah, but what did Troi ever do?

Well...I could answer that...but I think the vast majority of my response would be replaced with 's.

Indeed, and that's why I've argued that fighters are screwed by the hit point system, as well as D&D's relative lack of active defense mechanics, and limited granularity of defensive statistics (i.e. only 3 saves and no medium saves, in 3e) among other things. Again, rather than give fighters new powers, rewrite the combat chapter to let them block blows, maim people, and that sort of thing, and then write whatever class abilities derive from those new possibilities.

Those are things, that to an extent, 4e allowed fighters to do. Immediate inturrupts with a shield can block/reduce/redirect attacks, various powers allow them to dump conditions(from weakened to bleeding/ongoing damage, dazed, etc...) on enemies. Sure, the "martial maneuvers" are very "spell-like" in their fluff and sometimes in their presentation, but a good majority of them are still just slightly more fantastical feats of swordsmanship.

I've yet to see that happen.

The first reason I chalk this up is because your experience is not representative of the playerbase as a whole.
The second is that after a while, people stopped doing this because people stopped playing with people who did. Sure it was a great table treatment for the problem...but not a cure for the underlying system imbalance.

Indeed, and again if you go upthread you'll find my posts about how I think it would be great to attach new limits and costs to the really good magical abilities, rather than neutering them or trying to give the fighter enough "plot coupons" to match.

Sure, the inherent trick is though, these existed in earlier editions, and were removed as splat grew over the ages. A core-only Wizard can be powerful...but not so much as one who can use any 3.X book ever made. I think DDN is trying to put limits on the upper-end power of casters, and I think it's doing fairly well at it. What I fear is that much like previous editions, the endless generation of splat will undo these limits.

Indeed. But quarterbacks are clearly more important to whether a team loses than other players are. And yet, all the players matter.

Actually, that depends heavily on the team. Quarterbacks get a lot of attention, but they'd be useless without good defensive lineman and strong runningbacks and skilled wide-recievers. The Broncos for example rely heavily on their quarterback, but have traditionally had very strong runningbacks. Because hey, who cares if you can throw a ball if you can't get it down the field right? Other teams rely heavier on offensive-lineman to push back their opponents and keep them from doing their jobs. They often rely on quick, short-yardage moves that take 2-3 downs to get the minium of 10 yards. While throwing-centric teams rely on less-often, but powerful long-field runs and tosses.

I think that's rather exaggerated, but I don't fundamentally disagree.

Somewhat perhaps, but magic can perform two fundamental tasks: control and damage. Both with difficult saves and long durations, enemies can effectively be stopped in their tracks while they're slowly killed by an acid fog or something. The fighter doesn't even need to hit them and the cleric never needs to heal...or buff...or whatever.

Actually they both wear red. Uniform colors changed between series.

My bad, I am admittedly a bitter TNG fan than a TOS fan.

I don't really agree with that. For example, if you replaced all class abilities with feats and all saves/BAB/etc. with skills, everyone would be on the same mechanics. And yet, you could still have a diversity of classes that don't exist in 4e. You could make one class with more skills than the other, but less feats. You could make one with a lot of skills and feats but low hit points. And when you actually built that character, he could have any feat he qualified for and any skill he chose.

As you state, it's all in what you want out of character creation. Do you want defined classes with thematic concepts to give players a cornerstone to base their tactical and RP play out of? Or do you want a big puddle of proto-matter which could be shaped into Batman, Superman, James Bond or Drizzt? Or even SuperJames DrizztMan who can shoot lasers from his eyes, has great stealth checks, lots of nifty gadgets and is deeply misunderstood?

Personally, I'm not against options, trading out this for that, gaining that other thing, but I like D&D having cornerstone classes, even if there's repeated mechanics.

That's very different than requiring everyone to advance all their skills (standard modifier) or to pick powers of a fairly focused scope at exactly the same rate (AEDU).

Sure, they all get cookies at the same rate, but these are fudge-brownie, macadamia, snickerdoodle, chocolate-chip, pecan and all sorts of other flavors of cookies. Okay...they're all cookies. But unless you are some America-hating pinko-commie, you can't argue that all these cookies taste the same just because they have the same shape and size. That'd be like saying the taste of soup is dependent upon the size of the cup it's in, not the actual ingredients of the soup...which I think is actually a fairly common argument against 4e(everyone gets soup in a blue cup, therefore all the soup is the same!)

Is it worthwhile? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you want out of character creation.

Sure, like I said, I like themes expounded into classes.

But both the SuperJames DrizztMan and the tropey Paladin could be made with the same system, indeed I think part of DDN is striving for this. Basic and Standard will give you Tropey PaladinMan while Basic will stick him in LG shoes but Standard will let him wear a CG or LE cape. Advanced will let you build SuperJames DrizztMan.

And, as long as the underlying mechanics remain constant(ie: some mathematical formula that determines how many of X you get and how often you can use Y based on the inherent power values of X and Y), I don't have a problem with that.

So basically, what you're saying is that classes are self-justifying, that we blow out the mechanics entirely to justify the notion of classes. You're not wrong about that. I'd be fine with increasing their flexibility and making them more generic (like a 3e fighter) or simply losing them altogether.

Yep, pretty much, and again I don't have an issue with the ability to take the "fighting-man" and give him sneak attack at the cost of heavy armor profeciency and a bonus to stealth in exchange for being limited to smaller weapons. Just as long as the underlying mathematics of such a system ensure that this character doesn't gain Ultimate Power in exchange for his infected left pinky-toenail.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The first reason I chalk this up is because your experience is not representative of the playerbase as a whole.

No one's is. But if PF's success is any indication, I'm not some freak outlier either.

The second is that after a while, people stopped doing this because people stopped playing with people who did. Sure it was a great table treatment for the problem...but not a cure for the underlying system imbalance.

Maybe.

Sure, the inherent trick is though, these existed in earlier editions, and were removed as splat grew over the ages. A core-only Wizard can be powerful...but not so much as one who can use any 3.X book ever made. I think DDN is trying to put limits on the upper-end power of casters, and I think it's doing fairly well at it. What I fear is that much like previous editions, the endless generation of splat will undo these limits.

A legitimate issue.

My bad, I am admittedly a bitter TNG fan than a TOS fan.

Why so bitter?

As you state, it's all in what you want out of character creation.

I don't want much out of classes. I'd be cool with just having a customizable caster and a noncaster.

Sure, they all get cookies at the same rate, but these are fudge-brownie, macadamia, snickerdoodle, chocolate-chip, pecan and all sorts of other flavors of cookies. Okay...they're all cookies. But unless you are some America-hating pinko-commie, you can't argue that all these cookies taste the same just because they have the same shape and size. That'd be like saying the taste of soup is dependent upon the size of the cup it's in, not the actual ingredients of the soup...which I think is actually a fairly common argument against 4e(everyone gets soup in a blue cup, therefore all the soup is the same!)

Again, my point was that it's a step in a certain direction. Not that it gets there. I'm aware that different powers are different.

Yep, pretty much, and again I don't have an issue with the ability to take the "fighting-man" and give him sneak attack at the cost of heavy armor profeciency and a bonus to stealth in exchange for being limited to smaller weapons. Just as long as the underlying mathematics of such a system ensure that this character doesn't gain Ultimate Power in exchange for his infected left pinky-toenail.

Well hear's to that.

***

To expand on the principles of "balance" and "sameness", here's my example of a magic system: The GR Psychic's Handbook. Okay, not magic per se, but bear with me.

It's a feat and skill system. You create effects by using skills. The psychic skills are defined to a similar level of detail as regular skills are, making them clear enough to be playable, but leaving some room for interpretation. Thematic feats are required to take the skills (the telepathy feat is needed before you can take any skills that let you read or control minds), and more feats enable the skills to do more things, or provide permanent benefits. Anyone could take the feats and then take the skills, but if you take the psychic class, you get a head start on that (much how like some 4e classes get the Ritual feat for free). You could have a variety of psychic classes that grant specific feats and skills, in any combination with other types of class abilities.

You pay for your effects using "strain", which is defined initially as nonlethal/subdual damage. However, the DM chapter provides a variety of options. You could, it suggests create a separate reserve of what are essentially power points. You could make the skills cause more serious damage. You could have ways to avoid the strain. You could ignore strain altogether. Additionally, because the feats are thematic, it suggests selective use. You want don't want telepathy in your game? Ban that one feat and the associated skills.

Is this balanced? Yes! It's a toolset for balance. You want to make psychics more powerful, reduce the strain. You want to reign them in, increase it or ban problematic abilities. You can set a cost and recharge rate that makes sense for the pace of your game. This system also gives you trememdous flexibility in creating a character. You could have a 19th level rogue who hits 20 and suddenly discovers he can see a moment into the future every now and then (Combat Sense +4 or somesuch), or you can have an entire retinue of psychic classes with gonzo abilities (I do). If you're a 20th level 4e, you can't have +4 in anything (correct me if I'm wrong), and you're tied to a power source unless you multiclass via feats. There's only one schematic for the recharge rate of abilities. You don't have the same kind of options as a player or a DM.

To be fair, there's nothing in core 3e this good either. It's also worth noting that the actual skills in that book are frequently unbalanced and scale either way too fast or way too slow, and need some fixing up. But there's no reason we couldn't see this approach in the future.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why so bitter?

Jameway is actually my favorite captain, though Voyager gets a little too soapy for me(and don't even get me started on DS9, ARRRRGGGG!!!!), I enjoy the slightly more technical side that TNG employs over the Captain Kirk's Adventures in SPAAAAAACCEEEEE!!! feel that TOS has. Anyway....

Again, my point was that it's a step in a certain direction. Not that it gets there. I'm aware that different powers are different.

Sure, it was just a bit of an aside. It's an argument I see far too often that because they all use the same system, they must therefore be the same.

To expand on the principles of "balance" and "sameness", here's my example of a magic system: The GR Psychic's Handbook. Okay, not magic per se, but bear with me.

It's a feat and skill system. You create effects by using skills. The psychic skills are defined to a similar level of detail as regular skills are, making them clear enough to be playable, but leaving some room for interpretation. Thematic feats are required to take the skills (the telepathy feat is needed before you can take any skills that let you read or control minds), and more feats enable the skills to do more things, or provide permanent benefits. Anyone could take the feats and then take the skills, but if you take the psychic class, you get a head start on that (much how like some 4e classes get the Ritual feat for free). You could have a variety of psychic classes that grant specific feats and skills, in any combination with other types of class abilities.

You pay for your effects using "strain", which is defined initially as nonlethal/subdual damage. However, the DM chapter provides a variety of options. You could, it suggests create a separate reserve of what are essentially power points. You could make the skills cause more serious damage. You could have ways to avoid the strain. You could ignore strain altogether. Additionally, because the feats are thematic, it suggests selective use. You want don't want telepathy in your game? Ban that one feat and the associated skills.

Is this balanced? Yes! It's a toolset for balance. You want to make psychics more powerful, reduce the strain. You want to reign them in, increase it or ban problematic abilities. You can set a cost and recharge rate that makes sense for the pace of your game. This system also gives you trememdous flexibility in creating a character. You could have a 19th level rogue who hits 20 and suddenly discovers he can see a moment into the future every now and then (Combat Sense +4 or somesuch), or you can have an entire retinue of psychic classes with gonzo abilities (I do). If you're a 20th level 4e, you can't have +4 in anything (correct me if I'm wrong), and you're tied to a power source unless you multiclass via feats. There's only one schematic for the recharge rate of abilities. You don't have the same kind of options as a player or a DM.

To be fair, there's nothing in core 3e this good either. It's also worth noting that the actual skills in that book are frequently unbalanced and scale either way too fast or way too slow, and need some fixing up. But there's no reason we couldn't see this approach in the future.

So, if I am to boil this down into an incredibly simplified version, characters essentially have "Mana" or "Fatigue" from which they draw their powers. This sort of system is a granularity I would absolutely revel in having in D&D. Everything you do is limited by points from draw from a specific pool. It's worked great for UA(though it can get OP 'cause of poor math...but anyway), Monks and their Ki pool, even Eidolon Evolution Points. Skyrim uses both Magicka and Fatigue, the latter powering martial feats and the former for well..magic. WoW uses "mana" for casters and "rage" for warriors, "energy" for rogues, "runic power" for Death Knights.

Honestly I enjoy the system because it's A: simple, you have X points and spells/powers that cost Y value of them. You can create a wide variety of different powers that all function on the same basic mathematics X points minus Y power cost and different systems for utilizing this power

----

On the 4e commentary part, I'm not sure by what you mean by "+4 in anything", like...to hit? To skills? Well, at 20th level you are usually trained in 3-4 skills(that's a +5 bonus) and have a +10 bonus to them for 1/2 level, and then whatever the appropriate mod is(+4 isn't unreasonable for a skill with a high score behind it), so 19+/- In a trained skill is pretty normal. Perhaps I'm missing the connection, but given the limited skill list, and the fact that it serves a different purpose than in your above system. So...clarify?