D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah but you could, if you wanted to, come up with justification for wizards not using swords... I'm not really seeing a difference here... maybe in scope but the fundamental idea of being restricted from doing something...just because is present in both instances.

You could come up with a justification for why they generally don't use swords, yes. In fact in say 4e wizards pretty much don't use swords. Most of them aren't proficient with a sword and they have better things to do with their actions. However, there is at least no rule against a wizard picking up a sword and whacking someone with it. There's VERY VERY LITTLE justification for that being IMPOSSIBLE and outside the rules. You can keep protesting that it is the same thing, but it utterly plainly is not the same thing. A fighter simply CANNOT cast a fireball, it requires a very large amount of expertise to do that, which is a highly reasonable justification. Everyone in the real world can pick up a sword and swing it, maybe not WELL, but well enough to be significantly deadly with it at a basic level. Its very hard to come up with a credible justification for that being impossible for wizards. Yes, you can make up some rigamarole 'reason', but its strained at best and is going to be something like "they don't like to do it, its against custom" or somesuch. There's always going to be a point where you say screw custom! I want rules that say "when you actually do X, here's what happens" not rules that say "I'm arbitrarily saying X is impossible for rigamarole reason Y." And don't bother with more examples of less strained restrictions, yes, there will be SOME restrictions, which model realistic sorts of narrative reasons for things.

 

[13garth13]

snip

A dagger is about 6 inches long. A short short sword is 7 inches long. One inch makes that much of a difference?

snip

I'm not replying to the rest, because I don't have any investment in this argument (as always, what triggers people's "TOO MUCH GAMISM/METAGAMISM" gag reflex varies from person to person, and there's always this nebulous line that gets crossed for that person, that to someone else looks like a double standard).

But I do believe that the accepted length for a short sword is roughly two feet (24 inches), which is nowhere close to to seven. Just a nitpick...and of course that number varies depending on which source you look at. Some Roman gladii (is that the plural of gladius?!?!) were 18-20 inches and I do believe that most people consider them short swords. But even with the tremendous amount of variation in definition, it's safe to say that anything under 1 foot/12 inches is considered a dagger/long knife/dirk. But seven inches?!

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Imaro]

Name three. Name three justifications for wizards not being able to pick up a sword and use it. Note, I didn't say use it well, or even with proficiency. But, being able to use it at all. After all, a wizard can use a dagger. A dagger is about 6 inches long. A short short sword is 7 inches long. One inch makes that much of a difference?

Or, why can't a wizard use armour and cast spells that have no somatic component? There are several in all editions of D&D.

Or why can't a cleric use a sword?

Why does picking up a fifth magic weapon make my paladin stop being a paladin?

These are all 100% gamist elements. Which, true, is why you can't use daily powers more often as well. But, the difference being, you CAN use daily elements once a day each. Outside of the five out of three HUNDRED martial powers in the PHB, all of them are completely tied to the fiction and easily narrated. You can't Crack the Shell (Fighter daily) more than once per day, because the opportunity just doesn't come up that often - any more than you can guarantee that you will critical hit when you want to. The only difference is, in 4e, it grants the player the option of declaring a given attack to be a critical hit.

So again it's scope... which, at least according to some of the arguments I've seen you posit is incoherent on the part of [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]... correct? If not why not? I mean why does a wizard not being able to use a sword bother him but a maneuver only ever useable 1x per day by a skilled and trained warrior (sometimes mythological in his prowess) doesn't? The original point was that he didn't like being told he couldn't do something for gamist reasons... you've already acknowledged these are both instances of gamist restrictions with nothing to differentiate them except scope... so why isn't this incoherent?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So again it's scope... which, at least according to some of the arguments I've seen you posit is incoherent on the part of [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]... correct? If not why not? I mean why does a wizard not being able to use a sword bother him but a maneuver only ever useable 1x per day by a skilled and trained warrior (sometimes mythological in his prowess) doesn't? The original point was that he didn't like being told he couldn't do something for gamist reasons... you've already acknowledged these are both instances of gamist restrictions with nothing to differentiate them except scope... so why isn't this incoherent?

I think we keep cross-posting, lol. Honestly, I understand your argument. In the final analysis its like I say, some things just seem easily plausible, that you only get one shot at baiting in all the bad guys and whacking them all with your sword once a day. The CAGI power is a 'plot coupon', you get to do that. You can look at spells as the same sort of thing "the flow of mana is just right, FIREBALL!" and the wizard gets to pick when that is.

Some things just don't seem terribly plausible, that there are magical barriers against certain people using certain weapons. Yeah, maybe you can pick the "Priest of St Cuthbert" subclass or whatever and you give up edged weapons, but given that D&D is a game that aims to fill a number of related genre, and classic D&D actually goes against some of them (why are dwarves non-magical, in the Norse tales they derive from they are PURELY magical). I'm OK with that, as a "here's a description of a specific genre where A, B, and C" but it just seemed burdensome that the whole game included these fairly arbitrary restrictions. I think 4e is just better for having not only left them behind but actually actively supported the possibilities of having different conventions.

I mean frankly, in all of my 4e campaigns, nobody ran a dwarf wizard, or even a dwarf cleric, nor made wizard swing a sword (there was a swordmage, a bit different thing). I just prefer that when the game doesn't NEED for purely mechanical reasons to raise a barrier against something, that it doesn't. I think that's better policy in game design myself, unless you are specifically emulating some very narrow niche like reproducing some fantasy literary world or something and really NEED those restrictions. Even then I'd try to make them 'organic', the most logical choices for players to follow. In fact I just never saw the real need for 'wizards can't use a sword' in AD&D, they'd be stupid to use one anyway, except VERY rarely if they have no other option. I really doubt even a +5 Vorpal Sword would appeal to very many high level 2e wizards, they just have lots better things to do. Likewise restrictions against things like dwarf wizards, doesn't really NEED to be there, its more of a setting thing than anything else.

Most of these things were balance mechanisms tied very tightly to OD&D mechanics, and frankly they're just obsolete.

 

[Imaro]

I think we keep cross-posting, lol. Honestly, I understand your argument. In the final analysis its like I say, some things just seem easily plausible, that you only get one shot at baiting in all the bad guys and whacking them all with your sword once a day. The CAGI power is a 'plot coupon', you get to do that. You can look at spells as the same sort of thing "the flow of mana is just right, FIREBALL!" and the wizard gets to pick when that is.

Some things just don't seem terribly plausible, that there are magical barriers against certain people using certain weapons. Yeah, maybe you can pick the "Priest of St Cuthbert" subclass or whatever and you give up edged weapons, but given that D&D is a game that aims to fill a number of related genre, and classic D&D actually goes against some of them (why are dwarves non-magical, in the Norse tales they derive from they are PURELY magical). I'm OK with that, as a "here's a description of a specific genre where A, B, and C" but it just seemed burdensome that the whole game included these fairly arbitrary restrictions. I think 4e is just better for having not only left them behind but actually actively supported the possibilities of having different conventions.

I mean frankly, in all of my 4e campaigns, nobody ran a dwarf wizard, or even a dwarf cleric, nor made wizard swing a sword (there was a swordmage, a bit different thing). I just prefer that when the game doesn't NEED for purely mechanical reasons to raise a barrier against something, that it doesn't. I think that's better policy in game design myself, unless you are specifically emulating some very narrow niche like reproducing some fantasy literary world or something and really NEED those restrictions. Even then I'd try to make them 'organic', the most logical choices for players to follow. In fact I just never saw the real need for 'wizards can't use a sword' in AD&D, they'd be stupid to use one anyway, except VERY rarely if they have no other option. I really doubt even a +5 Vorpal Sword would appeal to very many high level 2e wizards, they just have lots better things to do. Likewise restrictions against things like dwarf wizards, doesn't really NEED to be there, its more of a setting thing than anything else.

Most of these things were balance mechanisms tied very tightly to OD&D mechanics, and frankly they're just obsolete.

Cool, I wasn't trying to argue with you about your preferences just understand better why some were ok and others weren't... this post is much clearer on why you have the preferences you do and it really seems to boil down to aesthetics... which I think is what it boils down to for most people...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Cool, I wasn't trying to argue with you about your preferences just understand better why some were ok and others weren't... this post is much clearer on why you have the preferences you do and it really seems to boil down to aesthetics... which I think is what it boils down to for most people...

Oh, yeah, in the end pretty much everything in games is in some large degree 'aesthetics'. Its a leisure/artistic kind of pursuit. Its not like there's some other sort of standard to uphold. I was actually a little disappointed that 4e got so weird and crunchy on the point of "let my wizard cast spells with his sword" or just "let me be good at swordplay AND wizardry". Not that there aren't a fairly large number of ways to do that in 4e, but it took a LONG time to get there, and many of them are either obtuse, or come with very specific mechanics and such.

I mean the most straightforward is to class as wizard, MC into Swordmage, or use the Arcane Implement Proficiency feat, and then use your sword as an implement. Not too hard, but given the vast numbers of feats and options... It also only gets you a very basic "use my sword as a wand" sort of level of capability. You could go on into the rather involved power swapping process and get swordmage powers, but it was very unoptimal and took 10 levels to really get you what you wanted.

I LIKE classes, but then I always find that I like them more in theory than in practice...

 

[Imaro]

Oh, yeah, in the end pretty much everything in games is in some large degree 'aesthetics'. Its a leisure/artistic kind of pursuit. Its not like there's some other sort of standard to uphold. I was actually a little disappointed that 4e got so weird and crunchy on the point of "let my wizard cast spells with his sword" or just "let me be good at swordplay AND wizardry". Not that there aren't a fairly large number of ways to do that in 4e, but it took a LONG time to get there, and many of them are either obtuse, or come with very specific mechanics and such.

I mean the most straightforward is to class as wizard, MC into Swordmage, or use the Arcane Implement Proficiency feat, and then use your sword as an implement. Not too hard, but given the vast numbers of feats and options... It also only gets you a very basic "use my sword as a wand" sort of level of capability. You could go on into the rather involved power swapping process and get swordmage powers, but it was very unoptimal and took 10 levels to really get you what you wanted.

I LIKE classes, but then I always find that I like them more in theory than in practice...

The best way I found, and the character I had the most fun with hands down in 4e was a hybrid swordmage and wizard... the versatility and synergy the character had was great and I could determine whether I wanted to be more swordmage focused or wizard focused through the selection of powers... the only thing I'd say was a downside to it was that the fact I couldn't up the damage of the swordmage powers... so he didn't exactly feel like both a skilled swordsman and a wizard... but he was actually a really fun character to play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The best way I found, and the character I had the most fun with hands down in 4e was a hybrid swordmage and wizard... the versatility and synergy the character had was great and I could determine whether I wanted to be more swordmage focused or wizard focused through the selection of powers... the only thing I'd say was a downside to it was that the fact I couldn't up the damage of the swordmage powers... so he didn't exactly feel like both a skilled swordsman and a wizard... but he was actually a really fun character to play.

Right, and for the really well-versed player that was willing to delve into CB deeply, read the various forums, and/or was intimately familiar with THREE PHBs and the FR sourcebook! It really should be a lot easier. Contrast with 2e where being a 'fighter/wizard' involved one choice and making sure you met the requirements of both classes and were a race that was allowed to MC. Consider 5e as another example, you can simply be a fighter and pick Eldritch Knight at level 3 (or 2, I forget, not that hardcore on 5e). You could also do actual 3e-style MC into both classes too if you really wanted, and the DM is OK with it. Clearly 4e managed to be a bit 'technical', which I would definitely work on in any rewrite.

 

[D'karr]

As much as I like 4e I have come to the conclusion that there ARE certain 'core' faults, things in the overall design that detract. I think there are too many levels, the game should be 18 or 20 levels. By this I mean your Epic Apotheosis should happen AT level 20, not that Epic should be discarded.

I disagree with the game finishing at 20, but that is just a matter of preference. That is if I'm understanding correctly your use of apotheosis as the completion of the character's (group's) destiny quest. I would simply have made Epic a 3 or 5 level progression instead of 10 levels (levels 21-25 are Epic, for example). 10 levels is hard to fill out, and Epic can drag if not enough is happening, IMO.

I do agree with the removal of cruft - powers and feats. The idea of swapping powers was one that made little sense, though mechanically it was understandable why. Powers should simply scale better or have gradients with level. Redundant feats, should be culled, and more feats should be generalized so that they don't have stupid restrictions and can be shared instead of creating similar feats twice or more. On the other hand feats could have also been made to have more versatility so that they grow with the character. So a feat you pick at level 3, has more effects at level 8, etc. At level 8 you choose the new effects, or pick another feat. Things like that.

Totally agree on the use of the disease track. I've done this extensively to great effect in my game. Rituals on the other hand I'm a bit on the fence on. That is one area of the game that could really have broken entirely with the base framework and I would not have even batted an eye on. I think that one of their weaknesses is that they tried to standardize this area too much. This more than anything is what creates the whacky costs and other weirdness. I could have seen these become the "high magic" component of the game. Rain of Colorless Fire, a ritual - cost unknown/undefined.

Magic Items I can see the reason within the design space, so I'm not extremely bothered by them. For example the items in Mord's Mag Emp are more interesting than those before, but I can see design space for the wide range. With 4e I liked that they really made it so Magic Items could completely be an optional thing by using the Inherent Bonus.

How would you have corrected/improved what you mention about tactical insufficiency, which I'm not totally understanding?

 

[D'karr]

You don't even need to have different sized damage dice.

I started out with Moldvay Basic and in that one all weapons did D6 damage. There were optional rules to differentiate weapon damage.