So...4th edition casters and wizards.
Yawn.
In almost every sense of the word, wizards, sorcerers, and even warlocks and the like feel like...like nothing special.
Does anyone else feel similarly?
So, recently I decided to run a 4th edition game, because I am a relatively new DM, and I want to do something special with 4th edition, mostly because the thought of running a 3.5 or (*shudder*) a 3rd edition game seems too daunting. I want wizards and arcane types (even the Divine casters, for their gods' sakes!) to feel like something different from every other hero, you know?
So I started messing around with rules, and came up with two ideas.
A) A backlash drawback that the player must make an Endurance DC or something similar to prevent the chaotic magical energies from striking back.
or
B) Possible possession by extraplanar beings that the caster must "fight" with a skill check to defeat for its power...if anyone has played Deadlands before, this idea would be right up your alley.
Or something! It just feels so...bland sometimes.
Or am I the only one?
they are different.
It's just not the extreme it used to be.
it used to go like this:
fighter-- attacks a monster
rogue-- kills a monster
cleric-- heals the fighter
wizard-- kills all the monster without even needing to roll
high level low level it worked the same way, it's just that at low level the wizard would run out of spells.
In change in 4E to casters being equal in power is a good one. And it hasn't robbed the casters of their uniqueness. They still do things that fighters and such can not do.
why should casters be more powerful? why should casters have to pay a price?
If you make possible penalties for arcane classes, none of your players would ever play them. As soon as you said "hey yeah sure you can be a wizard, but every time you cast a spell you might take damage or be possessed," your players would either pick a different class, or start looking for a different DM.
Are you finding casters boring mechanically or in terms of flavor?
Mehcanically, I find every class in 4th edition kinda boring on paper but a lot of fun to play tactically. Casters no more or less than melee; they feel very special when I'm playing them well, even if they're less interesting on paper.
In terms of flavor, I sympathize a bit; 4th edition D&D is not the king of fluff in the RPG world. But they're still interesting as described in the books, and a good player can give them spectacular flavor.
Obviously, if what someone finds interesting is the 3rd edition save-or-lose wizard or the 3rd edition batman, solve every-problem-by-magic utility wizard, then thank goodness wizards are now boring for that player!
So...4th edition casters and wizards.
Yawn.
So... previous-E martials and Fighter.
Yawn. *Eyeroll*
I already see where this is going.
In almost every sense of the word, wizards, sorcerers, and even warlocks and the like feel like...like nothing special.Does anyone else feel similarly?
If by "nothing special" you mean "not a billion times more powerful than everyone else" then yes, they are nothing special. If you mean "omg they are exactly teh sames!" then I'd advise you to actually read the diferences between, say, the Wizard and Fighter class. If you can't see the glaring differences, then either you have no idea how 4E works or you are just not trying to see the difference.
So, recently I decided to run a 4th edition game, because I am a relatively new DM, and I want to do something special with 4th edition, mostly because the thought of running a 3.5 or (*shudder*) a 3rd edition game seems too daunting. I want wizards and arcane types (even the Divine casters, for their gods' sakes!) to feel like something different from every other hero, you know?
Why? Why should a Wizard or a Cleric be a different caliber of hero than a Fighter or a Rogue? This is exactly why there were problems with casters in previous editions; this assumption that they should be ultra super cool while martial classes are just boring.
And since you are the DM, have you ever asked your players if they thought casters in 4E were "boring"? Have you even played the game yet?
So I started messing around with rules, and came up with two ideas.A) A backlash drawback that the player must make an Endurance DC or something similar to prevent the chaotic magical energies from striking back.
or
B) Possible possession by extraplanar beings that the caster must "fight" with a skill check to defeat for its power...if anyone has played Deadlands before, this idea would be right up your alley.
Now the post has swerved wildly away from where I thought it was going.
So, your solution to casters being "boring" is to make it a bad idea to be a caster? What are you even thinking here?
Or something! It just feels so...bland sometimes.Or am I the only one?
My advice? Play the game before you impliment stuff like this. Actually see that Wizards and other casters are very very different than other classes and yes, special in their own way. What I get from this post is "Casters no longer work under a completely different system than everyone else! Therefore, since I am new to the game, I will assume they are 'bland' and exactly the same as everyone else!"
4E casters are all special and interesting. However, in 4E, casters are special and interesting not because they are casters. They are special and interesting because they are a class. That is the difference between 4E and older editions.
wizard-- kills all the monster without even needing to roll
Reminds me of a quote from my friend on the subject;
"What's their AC? Wait a minute, I'm the sorcerer, I don't care!"
You're not the only one, it seems to be a fairly common sentiment.
However, if you look beyond the basic mechanics (that everyone gets basically the same number of powers), and at what the powers represent, and what they do, you'll see there are some differences.
First, I need to make the point that when you talk about casters and 'everyone else,' everyone else - the 4 martial classes - are distinctly in the minority. The majority of classes have a supernatural powersource, so, of course, they're not going to look that special just for being supernatural.
Giving each power non-martial powersource a drawback wouldn't be a terrible idea (the Martial source is already just more limitted in what it can plausibly do, so hardly needs one). The drawback should be thematic and minor or remote enough that it completely discourage players.
Arcane: 'backlash' - arcane powers, whether impersonal formulae or pacts with eldritch beings, are not safe. Anytime a spellcaster rolls a 1 with a daily power (with a multi-target or multi-attack daily, only the first roll counts), he is targeted by the power, as well (regardless of normal targeting considerations).
Divine: The obvious thing here is to give behavioral guidelines based on the deity served. But, since deities are hard to figure out, lets just go with something random. When a character rolls a one with an encounter prayer (again, only the first roll if more than one), his 'faith is tested' - the next standard-action divine power he uses doesn't work (but isn't expended), in effect, he loses his next standard action, but, he can delay it by doing something else.
Primal: Call of the wild. When a Primal character rolls a 1 with an at-will invocation (again, only the first roll if more than one), he gets drawn into a primal fury (save ends). He must attack the nearest enemy each round, using only at-will powers.
You could have items or feats to ameliorate these problems. Like a magical arcane implement that doesn't add it's enhancement bonus when you're targetted by a backlash. Or a feat that gives a save bonus to exit primal fury.
Y'know, if it's going to work on '1's, you might as well give martial characters 'fumbles,' too, but they should be less dramatic.
You could have items or feats to ameliorate these problems. Like a magical arcane implement that doesn't add it's enhancement bonus when you're targetted by a backlash. Or a feat that gives a save bonus to exit primal fury.
Feat tax to remove a penalty you just randomly decided to apply? No.
Y'know, if it's going to work on '1's, you might as well give martial characters 'fumbles,' too, but they should be less dramatic.
Fumbles?! Do you see? Do you see now where this is heading?
Fumbles?! Do you see? Do you see now where this is heading?
Yes. Yes, I do.
And, we really need a more fiendish smiley...
Fumbles?! Do you see? Do you see now where this is heading?
Yes. Yes, I do.
And, we really need a more fiendish smiley...
does this work? >=D
Also, my DM uses a Fumble System, works for both parties and very well.
Natural 1: Roll a d20
1-2: Attack Negated and you take the damage at full
3-4: Attack is redirected an an ajacent ally and deals full damage.
5-6: Attack Negated and you roll damage against yourself
7-8: Attack is redirected an an ajacent ally and you roll damage
9-10: Target gains an Oppertunity Attack against you
11-20: Attack as normal, still miss if you miss on the natural 1 (if target has defence of 13 and you have +13 then it hits, if you have +11, you miss)
They can be flavored to effect every class (ex: Arcane Magic explodes in your face, or You swing your Sword, but you hit your leg.)
Wow.
Didn't expect so many well thought out and...excited responses...
If you make possible penalties for arcane classes, none of your players would ever play them. As soon as you said "hey yeah sure you can be a wizard, but every time you cast a spell you might take damage or be possessed," your players would either pick a different class, or start looking for a different DM.
Not neccessarily. The idea of having a great amount of power, with an equally significant drawback, intrigues me and a couple players I've played in a few games with. That's why I originally thought of implementing it into D&D. The extremes are fun to play with, I think. Having great power with great drawbacks is a lot of fun to play with, because you never know what to expect. You have to be very careful with what you do. Even in 3rd, you had to be careful what spell you casted, and had to go into a full rest in order to get any of them back...
Are you finding casters boring mechanically or in terms of flavor?
Mehcanically, I find every class in 4th edition kinda boring on paper but a lot of fun to play tactically. Casters no more or less than melee; they feel very special when I'm playing them well, even if they're less interesting on paper.
In terms of flavor, I sympathize a bit; 4th edition D&D is not the king of fluff in the RPG world. But they're still interesting as described in the books, and a good player can give them spectacular flavor.
Obviously, if what someone finds interesting is the 3rd edition save-or-lose wizard or the 3rd edition batman, solve every-problem-by-magic utility wizard, then thank goodness wizards are now boring for that player!
I find them boring in both, actually. Because, in my opinion, wizards and casters used to be special, used to be powerful and capable of doing more than your average joe. Everyone else had to work to be as good, WHICH THEY COULD, if they built their character halfway well and were smart and tactical with their character.
I've played with players in 3rd who could disarm an entire army with a flurry of chains, while the wizard stood back and pelted big baddies. Equally as powerful, if used right. To be as good as a wizard, a non-caster had to build their character right, and be somewhat smart about how they played their character.
Sure, there were some inbalances, but that was what made it fun, challenging, and exciting.
4th edition seems, in some ways, like the Politically Correct version of D&D, where everything is perfectly balanced. Nothing is extreme, nothing is challenging...and yet, I still like the system. I really do. I'm just trying to add some spice to it, is all.
So...4th edition casters and wizards.
Yawn.
So... previous-E martials and Fighter.
Yawn. *Eyeroll*
I already see where this is going.
In almost every sense of the word, wizards, sorcerers, and even warlocks and the like feel like...like nothing special.Does anyone else feel similarly?
If by "nothing special" you mean "not a billion times more powerful than everyone else" then yes, they are nothing special. If you mean "omg they are exactly teh sames!" then I'd advise you to actually read the diferences between, say, the Wizard and Fighter class. If you can't see the glaring differences, then either you have no idea how 4E works or you are just not trying to see the difference.
So, recently I decided to run a 4th edition game, because I am a relatively new DM, and I want to do something special with 4th edition, mostly because the thought of running a 3.5 or (*shudder*) a 3rd edition game seems too daunting. I want wizards and arcane types (even the Divine casters, for their gods' sakes!) to feel like something different from every other hero, you know?Why? Why should a Wizard or a Cleric be a different caliber of hero than a Fighter or a Rogue? This is exactly why there were problems with casters in previous editions; this assumption that they should be ultra super cool while martial classes are just boring.
And since you are the DM, have you ever asked your players if they thought casters in 4E were "boring"? Have you even played the game yet?
So I started messing around with rules, and came up with two ideas.A) A backlash drawback that the player must make an Endurance DC or something similar to prevent the chaotic magical energies from striking back.
or
B) Possible possession by extraplanar beings that the caster must "fight" with a skill check to defeat for its power...if anyone has played Deadlands before, this idea would be right up your alley.
Now the post has swerved wildly away from where I thought it was going.
So, your solution to casters being "boring" is to make it a bad idea to be a caster? What are you even thinking here?
Or something! It just feels so...bland sometimes.Or am I the only one?
My advice? Play the game before you impliment stuff like this. Actually see that Wizards and other casters are very very different than other classes and yes, special in their own way. What I get from this post is "Casters no longer work under a completely different system than everyone else! Therefore, since I am new to the game, I will assume they are 'bland' and exactly the same as everyone else!"4E casters are all special and interesting. However, in 4E, casters are special and interesting not because they are casters. They are special and interesting because they are a class. That is the difference between 4E and older editions.
Well, aren't you a friendly chap?
Your last point is fantastic. It explains exactly what I was going for. Seriously. It is true about previous editions, where wizards were special and interesting because they are casters, and now they're just another class. That is exactly why I'm not entirely fond of 4th edition.
I have played 4th ed before. I am currently playing a lvl 11 Warforged Wizard/Spellscarred Savant. I also ran a 4th ed dungeon crawl for 3 months. So I do have some idea what I'm talking about.
I just put this post up to see if anyone had any ideas on how to spice up the game a little.
"more than your average joe."
no PC should be an average joe.
"Everyone else had to work to be as good, WHICH THEY COULD, if they built their character halfway well and were smart and tactical with their character."
3E past third level there where only three effective classes, wizard cleric and druid. AKA the casters. Other classes simply could not keep up if the player of the caster optimized.
"ideas on how to spice up the game a little."
ok, that we can do. But I see no reason to tie sacrifices for power to 'casters'.
4th edition seems, in some ways, like the Politically Correct version of D&D, where everything is perfectly balanced. Nothing is extreme, nothing is challenging...and yet, I still like the system. I really do. I'm just trying to add some spice to it, is all.
It is much better balanced, yes. Which still surprises me, when I stop to think about it, since that balance was achieved by making all classes more like 3e spellcasting classes (that is, with powerful limitted-use abilities).
The breadth and scope of what can be done with magic is still greater than what can be done by the minority of classes that use the 'martial' power source, though, so the distinction is still real, just less extreme.
While you could build an effective non-caster in 3e (at the time, I was really rather bored with casters, and my characters were never ineffective), you did have to get used to the fact that, even if you could be a contributing member of the group, you could never contribute as much, in as bewildering a variety of ways, as the casters. You needed to have a down-to-earth, 'soldier on' kind of attitude. If you could handle it, it could still be fun.
In 4e you won't be able to get the converse 'god like power to twist reality to you whim' thing that casters had, but you can certainly get some of the supernatural feel - from the fluff, visualization, and breadth of the non-martial powers.
It is much better balanced, yes. Which still surprises me, when I stop to think about it, since that balance was achieved by making all classes more like 3e spellcasting classes (that is, with powerful limitted-use abilities).
it wasn't. 3E wizards lacked at will and encounter powers. 4E was based on the book of nine swords.
The book of nine swords made melee classes scale as well as casters. And introduced encounter powers.
Well, aren't you a friendly chap?
Just giving my opinion. Your mentality is "me me me", and in particular that your favourite classes be catered to. That's not the best way for the game to be, and I'm going to say that right now. I'm sorry if I didn't seem "friendly", but I honestly just want it to be known that there are people playing the game who would prefer that every class is special.
Your last point is fantastic. It explains exactly what I was going for. Seriously. It is true about previous editions, where wizards were special and interesting because they are casters, and now they're just another class. That is exactly why I'm not entirely fond of 4th edition.
Do you even realize how silly that sounds? Having a certain subset of classes that are inferior just so that another set of classes can be special? This isn't going to happen.
I just put this post up to see if anyone had any ideas on how to spice up the game a little.
No, you didn't. You asked how to spice up casters, so that they once again overshadow other classes. Really.
Not neccessarily. The idea of having a great amount of power, with an equally significant drawback, intrigues me and a couple players I've played in a few games with. That's why I originally thought of implementing it into D&D. The extremes are fun to play with, I think. Having great power with great drawbacks is a lot of fun to play with, because you never know what to expect. You have to be very careful with what you do. Even in 3rd, you had to be careful what spell you casted, and had to go into a full rest in order to get any of them back...
But in 4E, casters are not more powerful than other classes, so why would they have drawbacks?
I find them boring in both, actually. Because, in my opinion, wizards and casters used to be special, used to be powerful and capable of doing more than your average joe.
This is exactly the mentality that 4E strives to avoid. You state it yourself here. You want to subsets of classes; Casters and "Average Joes". To you, Martials are just "Average Joes", not heros. Sorry, in 4E, EVERY PC is a hero, not just the ones who chose the right class.
Everyone else had to work to be as good, WHICH THEY COULD, if they built their character halfway well and were smart and tactical with their character.
Why should Casters get a free ride? Why do Casters get to be good by default while others had to "work for it"?
I've played with players in 3rd who could disarm an entire army with a flurry of chains, while the wizard stood back and pelted big baddies. Equally as powerful, if used right. To be as good as a wizard, a non-caster had to build their character right, and be somewhat smart about how they played their character.
Yup, using boring gimmick builds, your 3E Fighter can use the same action repeatedly and be able to defeat a very highly specialized type of enemy almost as good as the Wizard! All he has to do is use all his I-Win-Button spells.
Sure, there were some inbalances, but that was what made it fun, challenging, and exciting.
*Sigh*
No. Imbalance is not fun. Having to cheese out to be almost as good as another class is not fun.
No. It's not true challange. It's a team game, no one character should be more "challanged" than the others. As well, the "challange" is based on your prefered character archtype, so those who want to play a Fighter without the "challange" are out of luck.
No. It's not exciting. While the Wizard has every possible option they need to do anything they want, the Fighter can use one technique over and over and over, which is always performed by rolling a single dice, and is even then usually negated by most enemies anyway.
Really? What I'm reading here is "It was fun and exciting for me to play an imbalanced Wizard, because I got to be powerful while my party members were challanged by their class choices". Again, 4E is about being a team of adventurers, all working as a team, all being heros. It's not about a lone special character overshadowing everyone else.
4th edition seems, in some ways, like the Politically Correct version of D&D, where everything is perfectly balanced. Nothing is extreme, nothing is challenging...and yet, I still like the system. I really do. I'm just trying to add some spice to it, is all.
Ah, buzzwords. Haven't seen those in a while. What next, "4E is Communist"?
4E is challanging. The party must combine all of their powers and abilities together to overcome deadly foes. Unless they work together, they will fail.
That's my final word here. D&D 4E is a game about being a team of heros working together to overcome challanges. You don't seem to want that, You want a game where you, the all-powerful Wizard, defeat challanges while a few "Average Joes" follow behind. 4E isn't that game. You say you like 4E? What do you like about it? You apparently don't like it for the concept of teamwork.
It is much better balanced, yes. Which still surprises me, when I stop to think about it, since that balance was achieved by making all classes more like 3e spellcasting classes (that is, with powerful limitted-use abilities).it wasn't. 3E wizards lacked at will and encounter powers. 4E was based on the book of nine swords.
The book of nine swords made melee classes scale as well as casters. And introduced encounter powers.
BoNS /did/ make non-casters more like casters, and 4e did build on that. What distinguished casters wasn't that they 'used magic,' it was that they had abilities that were limitted in whether and how often they could be used, balanced by those abilities being extremely potent. In contrast, martial or 'melee' classes had abilities that could be used as much as desired, but were much less powerful and much less varied.
In 4e, everyone has high-power, limitted-use abilities - both encounters and dailies - and only a couple of unlimitted-use abilities in the old non-caster mode.
In that sense, 4e balanced casters and non-casters by making everyone a caster - that is, by giving everyone powerful abilities that are not always available.
It is much better balanced, yes. Which still surprises me, when I stop to think about it, since that balance was achieved by making all classes more like 3e spellcasting classes (that is, with powerful limitted-use abilities).it wasn't. 3E wizards lacked at will and encounter powers. 4E was based on the book of nine swords.
The book of nine swords made melee classes scale as well as casters. And introduced encounter powers.
BoNS /did/ make non-casters more like casters, and 4e did build on that. What distinguished casters wasn't that they 'used magic,' it was that they had abilities that were limitted in whether and how often they could be used, balanced by those abilities being extremely potent. In contrast, martial or 'melee' classes had abilities that could be used as much as desired, but were much less powerful and much less varied.In 4e, everyone has high-power, limitted-use abilities - both encounters and dailies - and only a couple of unlimitted-use abilities in the old non-caster mode.
In that sense, 4e balanced casters and non-casters by making everyone a caster - that is, by giving everyone powerful abilities that are not always available.
4E characters are a blend of caster and non caster.
they get their dailies from casters
they get their at wills from non casters (and the 3E warlock)
they get their encounter powers from BoNS
The non casters became more like casters and the casters became more like non casters. Things meet in the middle.
It's still the case that wizards are the only class with the real potencial to end encounters with a single action. Sleep is that good, always was.
...
That's my final word here. D&D 4E is a game about being a team of heros working together to overcome challanges. You don't seem to want that, You want a game where you, the all-powerful Wizard, defeat challanges while a few "Average Joes" follow behind. 4E isn't that game. You say you like 4E? What do you like about it? You apparently don't like it for the concept of teamwork.
+1
/thread
OP,
I think I know where your frustration comes from. It's not a problem with the power or capability of the arcane classes, it's the lack of process that differentiates them from the martial ones. On paper, every class is the same. Everybody gains their powers in the same way, which is really the problem, because it wouldn't work that way. Your abilities as a wizard don't feel special because the process for attaining and utilizing them is no different to how a fighter swings his sword. Everybody uses the same damage buttons, it just so happens that yours are "magic-flavored". That's not good enough.
Character building and development is inextricably linked to roleplaying. We re-built the wizard some time ago because this concept was not being addressed. The old version is posted in the thread linked below. Things have been revised since then, but it'll be some time before we can post the new classes (the warlock is even sweeter). Check out where we started from and tell me if you like it. I can tell you one thing. We've playtested it a lot over the past year and a bit, and it really isn't overpowered at all.
The wizard, specifically, really is quite different from other classes. He gets additional at-will 'cantrips,' and can swap out utility and daily attack spells with his spellbook feature. The player in my group who started out playing a wizard was surprised at how 'boring' it was to play a warlock in our second campaign.
The wizard, specifically, really is quite different from other classes. He gets additional at-will 'cantrips,' and can swap out utility and daily attack spells with his spellbook feature. The player in my group who started out playing a wizard was surprised at how 'boring' it was to play a warlock in our second campaign.
I'm getting a little tired of responses like this. Many others besides myself have the same grievance as the OP, and whenever it's voiced, it always gets the same narrow-minded retort. "The wizard gets to exchange daily attack spells." "The wizard has cantrips." Obviously we can see that. If these shallow push-button mechanics in any way helped us to feel like we were developing and playing a wizard, we wouldn't be complaining.
The wizard is somewhat different to the other classes in 4E, for what it's worth, but hardly in the way that it should be. Every class should have its own process. I don't really get this feeling enough out of the 4E classes. The more classes they publish, the more apparent it is that they're recycling the same ideas, and the less interested I become.
The wizard is somewhat different to the other classes in 4E, for what it's worth, but hardly in the way that it should be. Every class should have its own process. I don't really get this feeling enough out of the 4E classes. The more classes they publish, the more apparent it is that they're recycling the same ideas, and the less interested I become.
It sounds as though you're saying that each class should be based on its own mechanical subsystem in order to make it feel unique. Is that accurate?
Because if so, I couldn't possibly disagree more. Basing every class on a different subsystem is awful game design. For one thing, a different subsystem for every class makes the game nigh impossible to balance and very easy for munchkins to break. For another, it makes the system much harder to learn (you learn new basic mechanics for your character every time you roll a new class) and places a far greater emphasis on system mastery (the one who knows every subsystem inside and out is king).
4th edition's way is vastly superior: one robust system (mainly, the power system) that can accurately represent any character or archetype. Then every player only has to learn one subsystem. Then no one character will vastly outshine another and make him obsolete (and that is exactly what "balance" means--everyone contributing significantly and relatively equally. I have trouble taking seriously those who say 4th edition is "politically correct" or sanitized "fun" because it ensures balance. The vast majority of players don't enjoy playing characters who are vastly outshone and therefore worthless. Balance alone prevents that situation).
My wizard in 4th edition can throw around fireballs, do magic tricks, utilize teleportation circles--all kinds of things that only an arcane caster can do and that no melee character can do. So why is my wizard not distinct? Because I didn't have to learn an entirely new subsystem to create him? Because a fighter can also do area of effect damage (in which case my complaint is that fighters should be pigeonholed more!)? Because he isn't overpowered compared to melee characters? No. My wizard is unique and uniquely arcane.
The wizard is somewhat different to the other classes in 4E, for what it's worth, but hardly in the way that it should be. Every class should have its own process. I don't really get this feeling enough out of the 4E classes. The more classes they publish, the more apparent it is that they're recycling the same ideas, and the less interested I become.
I am 100% totally completely fine with classes being more similar than in previous editions as long as they remain balanced. I despised 3.5 because the classes I wanted to play were all basically worthless because the party caster could just destroy everything while I sat and read a book until my turn came up so I could roll a couple d20s before the wizard got back to reshaping reality to fit his whims.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Your link appears to be broken?
You do realise that, every Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/"caster" in general is something special, a character with Hero-caliber.
And so is the Fighter/Rogue/"non-caster"
Fluff-wise, a caster in itself is a very powerful person (since the majority of the population would be non-combat minions and the Wizard can cast Scorching burst at-will, well... you don't want a maniacal Wizard of the loose). That goes for the Martial character as well, who is something above the average joe/town guard/burglar/woodsman/etc.
So it goes something like this: Casters in the world belongs to a minority, but everyone of them is a powerful person and Hero-caliber. Likewise, there are a lot of people who can swing a sword/shoot a bow, but only a minority is of them is adept enough to belong to the Hero-caliber, aka the Martial PCs.
Just look at the Star Wars RPG, where you can play a Jedi. In general, a Jedi would be a very powerful player class, so you may wonder why anyone would pick anything but Jedi as ac class in terms of power. Simple, because the Soldier/Scoundrel/Scout/Noble is also of the Hero-caliber, the Heroic classes, the créme de la créme. How else do you think Jango Fett could shoot down a Jedi with a single blaster pistol?
That said, I would definetily want to see a Miscast/Fumbe/Blasphemy/Affront table, because my first RPG (not D&D) had this and it was a blast of fun (though while tripping over an Invisible Turtle was fun, loosing an ear or a finger when shooting with a bow was not) But you would have to add it for all classes, because no class is supposed to be more penalised than another.
A Miscast table for Arcane powers, Fumble table for Martial powers, Blasphemy table for Divine powers and Affront table for Primal classes (don't know what the psionic powers or the shadow powers would be called).
Also avoid penalising multi-attackers (ex Ranger and Wizard) by making the fumble on the first attack roll of the power, every other attack part of the power would simply be automatic misses.
A problem the fumble-table brings though, more than making everyone suck, is that it slows gametime and combat.
tripping over an Invisible Turtle was fun,
I call "RoleMaster" :-)
It sounds as though you're saying that each class should be based on its own mechanical subsystem in order to make it feel unique. Is that accurate?
In a way, yes. But I don't think those subsystems should be so drastically different that they create imabalance. They should all revolve around the same basic system (this is what I like about 4E), but have their own ways of approaching it (what I don't like about 4E). It believe that there is a way to do this without affecting or imbalancing power.
Basing every class on a different subsystem is awful game design. For one thing, a different subsystem for every class makes the game nigh impossible to balance and very easy for munchkins to break. For another, it makes the system much harder to learn (you learn new basic mechanics for your character every time you roll a new class) and places a far greater emphasis on system mastery (the one who knows every subsystem inside and out is king).
It just sounds like you're repeating by rote what everybody else says over and over again. This assertion isn't based on anything, and I don't see the facts that support it. Your concept of "king" is strange to me. Who's trying to win? It's a game in which people imagine things at each other. What group are you playing in where people feel inferior to the person who knows how to use the rules better? So many of you whine like wounded little children about the 3E wizard as if it killed your puppy, or kicked sand in your eyes on the beach. Like you've been personally wronged by the transgressions of an imaginary, mechanical abstraction. There's a strange note of personal offense in these responses that I find to be really weird. It's just math and make believe. You're a human being with an imagination. These are not hard things to deal with. You shouldn't NEED a rules system to defend your sense of pride or self esteem.
4th edition's way is vastly superior: one robust system (mainly, the power system) that can accurately represent any character or archetype.
I really don't feel that it does. I guess that's me.
Then every player only has to learn one subsystem. Then no one character will vastly outshine another and make him obsolete (and that is exactly what "balance" means--everyone contributing significantly and relatively equally.
You make a pretty drastic logical leap here that's pretty hard for me to follow. What it appears you're saying is that as soon as people have different systems to represent their abilities, inherent inequalities in power will emerge, making some "better" than others. That's not what balance means. This is what balance means, in the context we're discussing:
balance - a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
A condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions. The concept of balancing things in correct proportions seems to be what is lost on so many of you. Correct does not neccessarily mean 'the same'. Correct means that things are equal relative to one another. We're all created equal, but we're all created different as well. THINK about it. 3E was one extreme, in which casters had wildly different approaches to non-casters, but the problem wasn't just the approach. It was how powerful the spells themselves were. So it wasn't just the fact that fighters didn't get their own little list of special attacks, it's that they didn't have access to abilities that were that gamebreaking. It was imbalanced in two different areas of proportion: clas progression, and effectiveness of class powers.
1) Gamebreaking abilities should never exist, but they have nothing to do with your class's respective method of attaining them.
2) Changing a class's process of attaining powers (progression) does not have to change the mathematical or functional strength of the power, or the strength of a character's contribution, but it does make things a hell of a lot more interesting. If that's too difficult for you, well, I guess I can't argue. We've found it to be a hell of a lot more fun.
Just because 3E was terrible doesn't mean that you can justify the opposite extreme (in which magic-flavored fluff is piled over the same damage buttons). Just because we want more mechanical variation than 4E provides, doesn't mean that things will automatically turn back to other extreme. It's as if you're unable to imagine a middle ground between the two.
Neither are the best way to play. 3E was unequal; different approaches, different proportions. 4E is homogenous; same approach, same proportions. What I'm saying is that it's possible to play in such a way where you have different approaches, correct proportions. In no way does a different subsystem inherently undercut the power of one class and boost another. It could if you weren't careful, but arguing that it inherently would is, well, an unbalanced argument. You can adjust your system without imbalancing the math. We've done it with our wizard. It works just fine. You're just having trouble imagining a different, more balanced solution.
The problem with this thread is its title. "Casters vs. Everyone Else." It's not about that. Casters should function differently, but they should be no more or less powerful or significant when it comes to solving problems as part of a party. It's possible, you just have to be imaginative.
I am 100% totally completely fine with classes being more similar than in previous editions as long as they remain balanced. I despised 3.5 because the classes I wanted to play were all basically worthless because the party caster could just destroy everything while I sat and read a book until my turn came up so I could roll a couple d20s before the wizard got back to reshaping reality to fit his whims.
In no way would diversity inherently necessitate the level of imbalance that 3E presented. Classes can be different to each other in function without breaking balance. One extreme does not justify the opposite.
The problem with this thread is its title. "Casters vs. Everyone Else."
indeed. So why are you defending it?
So far I've only seen you advocate new power systems for... casters.
In no way would diversity inherently necessitate the level of imbalance that 3E presented. Classes can be different to each other in function without breaking balance. One extreme does not justify the opposite.
I agree with this.
However creating several "feel different" ability schemes and progression schemes that balance out OK with each other is not a small task. These schemes would have to share mechanics where they interact with each other (in combat, when adventuring, for multi-classing as three big issues). They also have to interact with the scheme used for monsters and encounters (which is already a separate progression scheme, optimised for a certain style of play).
Perhaps 4E design has gone too far in making things similar? In some places you can definitely see the joins where different classes get essentially the exact same feature refluffed. Thing is, it's a pretty strong starting point to make the progressions identikit, in terms of design effort and testing required. I'm not sure that any PnP gaming company has the resources to do otherwise, at least not in one big release.
The reason classes all work off the same system is for multiclassing.
both the feat rules for multiclassing and the hybrid rules depend on classes using the same system.
@Jetzine:
You say you are tired of people saying "The Wizard is different enough because of this laundry list of ways it differs from other classes, not mentioning their completely different power set and playstyle"*? In the same vein, I'm tired of people saying "The Wizard is exactly the same as every other class in 4E, and they are all just the same class with different flavour". How do we reconcil this?
I doubt you believe that every class in 4E is just a "colour swap" of eachother. You admited there are differences. But then why do you call it "homogeny"? Why are the differences not enough for you? Every class has a different playstyle, different powers, and different class abilities unique to them (Leaders are kinda bad on this, I will admit, but from what I've heard of the Artificer, they have at least tried new things). Does it matter that they use the same underlying system? Are you seriously telling me that without everyone having distinct mechanical subsystems, they are "all the same"?
I can understand wanting your favourite class to be special. But they already are, and at the same time they are balanced. What more would you want?
*Some license was taken with this, as although that is not what you specificlly said, this is what the people you oppose think.
@General Henry
You're right, I only have addressed casters, but I actually do advocate new systems for all the classes. After we homebrewed our wizard, it became apparent that all the other classes had to change as well. We're pretty comfortable with this. Slobo777a is right. It is no easy task, but we didn't expect it to be. It's not terribly difficult either. We're not straying too far from the 4E core system. We just want things to progress in a way that makes sense to us. I mean, we're basically slowly drafting up our own version of the game, so yeah we have our own multiclassing/hybrid rules (I'm trying to combine the two, actually).
@slobo777a
Perhaps 4E design has gone too far in making things similar? In some places you can definitely see the joins where different classes get essentially the exact same feature refluffed. Thing is, it's a pretty strong starting point to make the progressions identikit, in terms of design effort and testing required. I'm not sure that any PnP gaming company has the resources to do otherwise, at least not in one big release.
This is a very strong point. Yes, I do feel it has gone to far, and I agree equally that setting things back to 0 and making things the same was the best starting point from a design perspective. It has given us the basic framework on which all of our homebrew classes are built.
@Rustmonster
I'm tired of people saying "the wizard is different enough" right after I very obviously just said it wasn't. If I don't feel like it's different enough for my playing style, already knowing the laundry list that people are going to show me, then who is anyone to argue my preference, and what good is the laundry list? The fact that it is different enough for you doesn't magically make it different enough for me. The same is true of your point. You're tired of people complaining about the wizard being too similar, or boring, when you clearly feel it's doing it's job. The reason that you're wrong is simply that other people disagree with you. If the wizard was doing its job in the sense that you feel it is, people wouldn't disagree with you. The reconciliation is that neither of us are really wrong, we just expect different things out of our gaming experiences.
I suppose what I'm tired of is this:
*Some license was taken with this, as although that is not what you specificlly said, this is what the people you oppose think.
I feel that they're not actually paying attention to my point and simply restating their own opinions without taking my experience into account. I'm not concerned with the power of the wizard, or how different it is to the other classes. I am concerned with it playing like a wizard would play, which would inherently be different in its process of construction and development. That it is different is the byproduct, not the goal. How different it is is of no concern to me. I want mechanics that feel like I'm learning how to control magic over the course of my career, not push buttons that I pretend are magic. Some magic is justified by push buttons, some things need to be more open-ended. I like things to be more well thought out than they are. The process and mechanics of being a caster used to feel immersive, like you were studying the craft. The things that made it feel this way were in now way linked to the wizard being overpowered. They took away the cheese (good) along with the process (bad). I'm tired of people not being able to make this distinction and missing this point.
I doubt you believe that every class in 4E is just a "colour swap" of eachother. You admited there are differences. But then why do you call it "homogeny"? Why are the differences not enough for you?
Are you seriously telling me you don't recognize the blatant similarities between class mechanics? Slobo777a seems to. Many others have as well when I brought this up ages ago. There's a back and forth here. The differences between classes are mostly cosmetic. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Eldritch blast is a longbow. Most powers follow this protocol of some specified damage total + a status effect/some tactical benefit (pull/push/slide a square or two, combat advantage, whatever). In ways, this is the boon of 4E. It has made apparent something that has always been the case. When it comes down to combat and dealing damage, things just ain't that different. There's little you can do to differentiate a blast of acid from wounding gash. Both deal ongoing damage, but one does so by corroding flesh, the other by letting blood. This push button mechanic (for lack of a better term) works for a lot of things, but not everything.
I think the important thing be that the idea comes before the math, which doesn't seem to be the case most of the time. It's not that the classes aren't different, it's that they're made with the mechanics of a role with a power source skinned over them. I'd rather it be the other way around. I'd rather ask the question, "What does this class do?" and then ask "How do they do it?" Then I'd ask "How do we write the mechanics for that?" It's a subtle difference but I think it's hugely important. I feel really bad about having to shortchange you on this, but going into this anymore is going to require its own thread. It's a really involved topic. This does deserve to be reconciled, and I apologize for lacking the patience right now to resolve it thoroughly. Many examples need to be brought up and called into question to fully elucidate what I'm talking about here, and I feel like I'm reaching the rambling point.
Are you seriously telling me that without everyone having distinct mechanical subsystems, they are "all the same"?
Stylistically, no. Functionally, more than I'd like. I mean, keep in mind here, we're all arguing with different ideas of what "mechanical subsystem" may mean. You have no idea to what degree I modify things to make things how I like them. It's probably not nearly as drastic as you think.
And another thing. The wizard is not my favorite class. The rogue is. Your use of the word special is what aggravates me. I don't care about special. There is no special. It's just a game. You're talking about product, I'm talking about process. I just want the wizard to be fun to play, and a fun wizard to me is not a chess piece that fires magical explosions. I like magical explosions, but my concept of a wizard is not that shallow. I really need to post our progress on the wizard. It would save me a lot of explaining. Our wizard deals less damage but has a widely expanded array of cantrips that scale up as he is able to hit higher DCs (everything requires a roll). It's a more subtle, situational style of control.
I'll say this to you, though, Rustmonster. Until some kind of reconciliation is reached, continue to enjoy 4E the way you enjoy it. On the same token, stop attacking those who don't just because they don't share your opinions on what makes a satisfying game. If you're going to contribute to a thread like this, please try to approach it constructively, with the aim of helping someone find an alternative. If there are enough people who don't feel the way you do, it may be worth looking a little more critically at what you've been handed. 4E may work just fine for your needs, which I respect wholly, but it's far from perfect.
I must say, first, that all too often when people bring up any sort of displeasure at the similar feel of casters to other classes (or even any lack of uniqueness of the power sources in general) people come out of the woodwork, foaming at the mouth, decrying anyone who wants a little variety in the mechanical feel of the power sources as trying to bring back 3.x god-wizards.
As has been stated on this thread and in the forums before: Power level and mechanical structure are separable entities. Not everyone looking for mechanical uniqueness in casters is trying to usher in the old power structure of gods, casters, and then a very distant everyone else.
Now that that's out of the way, steering away from the edition war, our group implemented a change, a temporary fix with which I'm not entirely happy, that the OP might consider implementing in your game.
My 3.5 DM and I worked came up with power source specific benefits. For example, arcane characters could lengthen the casting time of their spells to either increase their accuracy, or increase their potency (either damage or conditional effects). But we didn't just give the arcane casters stuff and leave everyone else out in the cold. Martial characters get special bonuses and abilities with weapons their proficient with, and get to choose a single "weapon of choice" with which they get even more flexibility. Divine casters got special invocations to their deity that, depending on the deity and the class, had either a cool and long-lasting effect on their powers, or a cool and long-lasting effect on the enemy.
The first player's handbook was the only one out at the time, so those were the only power sources the mechanic was constructed for, and most of my 4E experience since the initial testing has been pretty by the book because of how little time we actually have to play and finesse a system-in-progress.
That said, my mad eladrin warlock (star and vestige pact...yeah, he's messed up) is by far my favorite character to this edition. I'm currently looking to add a bit more depth to the power source-specific mechanics, and come up with multi-classing rules for them, since most of my playtest group hated the feat-based multi-classing and thus refused to multi-class anyway (the group does, as it turns out, love hybrid classes), so their was no urgency there.
As has been stated on this thread and in the forums before: Power level and mechanical structure are separable entities. Not everyone looking for mechanical uniqueness in casters is trying to usher in the old power structure of gods, casters, and then a very distant everyone else.
Thank you…just…
+…thank you. There is a God. SOMEBODY gets it.
I agree that in general, the classes are similar to a degree. I understand what they are saying: how is it that a wizard and a warrior always have the exact same number of known abilities? I havn't played 4E as much as 3.5, but i've noticed the VERY large different in how each game is played. in 3.5, caster was supreme; they had the most customizable options and the ability to alter in situations. Comparing a wizard with a couple dozen spells at his beck and call, or a fighter who hacks and slashes, the occasional cleave or power attack. They done a great thing with martial classes in providing them with specific attacks they can execute then the standard "bash the face in" swing, or the rangers basic bow shot. It makes it feel like they've been trained and know how to fight. It makes them different from the face-bashing creatures they fight. What i think they're trying to say is that, even though that is the case, how is it a wizard who spends his life studying magic will never know more powers then that of the fighter? or cleric? Yes, having all classes have the same number of powers at every level makes it more balanced. My largest dislike of 4E compared to 3.5 is that it lost a LOT of its customizability. While the powers are different, they all essentially do similar things. From 3.5, they increased the power of the non-caster classes, but at the same time decreased the power of caster classes to make them all equal, but in doing such by making them all share a same power system, they lost a lot of their uniqueness.
One way i think this can be rectified, is if there was a system of learning additional powers ontop of those chosen at a price: similar to rituatals and alchemical formulas. It would be much more difficult obviously, but it would allow the classes to be balanced: all classes would have the ability to do this. Each would do it differently though. Wizards study tomes and books to learn new powers, while a melee character can study under a master to learn a new fighting techinque; the divine character can visit a holy shrine. Something that a class can be customized even further beyond knowing a set number abilities no matter what happens. But then again, my favorite part of 3.5 was actual character creation, and customizing the character to make crazy posibilities.
@RustmonsterI'm tired of people saying "the wizard is different enough" right after I very obviously just said it wasn't. If I don't feel like it's different enough for my playing style, already knowing the laundry list that people are going to show me, then who is anyone to argue my preference, and what good is the laundry list? The fact that it is different enough for you doesn't magically make it different enough for me. The same is true of your point. You're tired of people complaining about the wizard being too similar, or boring, when you clearly feel it's doing it's job. The reason that you're wrong is simply that other people disagree with you. If the wizard was doing its job in the sense that you feel it is, people wouldn't disagree with you. The reconciliation is that neither of us are really wrong, we just expect different things out of our gaming experiences.
Wait wait, hold up. So, I'm wrong, yet, neither of us are wrong?
I can see your point. I understand it's not different enough for you. You want other to accept that. But at the same time, you're saying that I'm wrong, and that the Wizard is in fact wrong even if I think otherwise. I just don't get that.
I'm not concerned with the power of the wizard, or how different it is to the other classes. I am concerned with it playing like a wizard would play, which would inherently be different in its process of construction and development. That it is different is the byproduct, not the goal. How different it is is of no concern to me.
Okey, I kinda understand what you're saying here.
I want mechanics that feel like I'm learning how to control magic over the course of my career, not push buttons that I pretend are magic. Some magic is justified by push buttons, some things need to be more open-ended. I like things to be more well thought out than they are. The process and mechanics of being a caster used to feel immersive, like you were studying the craft.
In otherwords, it is a "feel" issue. I can see why previous edition casters felt more like they were learning spells, mainly that the player was required to read entries. But concider this. Those "puch button" spells are the powers a Wizrad has. Rituals are the other kind. Have you ever concidered Rituals? That feels like being a Wizard in the same vein as old editions.
The things that made it feel this way were in now way linked to the wizard being overpowered. They took away the cheese (good) along with the process (bad). I'm tired of people not being able to make this distinction and missing this point.
I can get that. But I believe they DID do that. Rituals are like those studied spells, without the cheese. Also, just to add, the reason people miss the point is that they don;t think about the "feel" when people bring this up. They instead think of the mechanics of vancian casting. That was my assumption. Now that you've explained it, I have more understanding.
Are you seriously telling me you don't recognize the blatant similarities between class mechanics? Slobo777a seems to. Many others have as well when I brought this up ages ago. There's a back and forth here. The differences between classes are mostly cosmetic. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Eldritch blast is a longbow. Most powers follow this protocol of some specified damage total + a status effect/some tactical benefit (pull/push/slide a square or two, combat advantage, whatever). In ways, this is the boon of 4E. It has made apparent something that has always been the case. When it comes down to combat and dealing damage, things just ain't that different. There's little you can do to differentiate a blast of acid from wounding gash. Both deal ongoing damage, but one does so by corroding flesh, the other by letting blood. This push button mechanic (for lack of a better term) works for a lot of things, but not everything.
No, I see the similarity. I understand that 4E runs on an underlying framework that every character shares. My contention is that having an underlying freamwork does not mean it is homogenous. Yes, many basic powers mimic eachother. But most are very unique. Yes, they usually run on the X damage + status system, but isn't that how attack spells worked in previous editions too? Again, powers are attack spells, for the most part. As for the "push button mechanic" not working for everything, I agree. Which is why they DON'T all work like that.
I think the important thing be that the idea comes before the math, which doesn't seem to be the case most of the time. It's not that the classes aren't different, it's that they're made with the mechanics of a role with a power source skinned over them. I'd rather it be the other way around. I'd rather ask the question, "What does this class do?" and then ask "How do they do it?" Then I'd ask "How do we write the mechanics for that?" It's a subtle difference but I think it's hugely important. I feel really bad about having to shortchange you on this, but going into this anymore is going to require its own thread. It's a really involved topic. This does deserve to be reconciled, and I apologize for lacking the patience right now to resolve it thoroughly. Many examples need to be brought up and called into question to fully elucidate what I'm talking about here, and I feel like I'm reaching the rambling point.
I understand, even if I slightly disagree. I still hold that a Wizard is not just "Controller, add Arcane". His attack powers still feel like what a Wizard would do. I would like to talk about it in more detail, but I can see that it would derail this.
Stylistically, no. Functionally, more than I'd like. I mean, keep in mind here, we're all arguing with different ideas of what "mechanical subsystem" may mean. You have no idea to what degree I modify things to make things how I like them. It's probably not nearly as drastic as you think.
Would it be possible for you to explain it then?
And another thing. The wizard is not my favorite class. The rogue is. Your use of the word special is what aggravates me. I don't care about special. There is no special. It's just a game. You're talking about product, I'm talking about process. I just want the wizard to be fun to play, and a fun wizard to me is not a chess piece that fires magical explosions. I like magical explosions, but my concept of a wizard is not that shallow. I really need to post our progress on the wizard. It would save me a lot of explaining. Our wizard deals less damage but has a widely expanded array of cantrips that scale up as he is able to hit higher DCs (everything requires a roll). It's a more subtle, situational style of control.
I just assume that the reason someone would go out of their way to make a class different is that they want their favourite class to be special. Again, at the time I had no idea you were doing this for anyone but Wizard. As for fun, that is again subjective. I feel that the Wizard class is not "shallow", mainly because of their utilities, cantrips, and Ritual usage. Although I'm all for more cantrips.
I'll say this to you, though, Rustmonster. Until some kind of reconciliation is reached, continue to enjoy 4E the way you enjoy it. On the same token, stop attacking those who don't just because they don't share your opinions on what makes a satisfying game. If you're going to contribute to a thread like this, please try to approach it constructively, with the aim of helping someone find an alternative.
You'll have to excuse me. I have some... anger issues. I tend to do that, I honestly don;t want to "attack" anyone. It's just a game, I'm not really that invested in how people play it. I just wanted to get my opinions out there. I feel the 4E Wizard is different, and I thought the system proposed, and specificlly the idea behind it, that being making casters special while Martial were "Average Joes", was off. I'm now pretty intrigued about your ideas, although for the time being I hold that the power system is, to me, superior to other ideas I've seen.
If there are enough people who don't feel the way you do, it may be worth looking a little more critically at what you've been handed. 4E may work just fine for your needs, which I respect wholly, but it's far from perfect.
I understand it isn't perfect. Please don't think that I believe it is the best that a game can be. It's just that, again, I feel that it is supirior to previous iterations, and that its idea of a common class framework is more effective than any other systems I've seen proposed, while still allowing characters to be different. I want to see the game improve and grow, and if I saw a system that I thought was both balanced and allowed more difference, I'd likely be all for it. I just oppose things like the OPs suggestion.
Again, sorry for the temper tantrum.
"In otherwords, it is a "feel" issue. I can see why previous edition casters felt more like they were learning spells, mainly that the player was required to read entries. But concider this. Those "puch button" spells are the powers a Wizrad has. Rituals are the other kind. Have you ever concidered Rituals? That feels like being a Wizard in the same vein as old editions."
Rituals are not THAT helpful in making a wizard feel like a wizard, or making arcane feel arcane, or making a caster feel like a caster. Yes, it helps a lot, especially for the wizard. (I've actually homebrewed a lot of broken 3.5 spells into rituals, rendering the caster at the mercy of whomever might get passed his party for more than a mere standard action.) But the fact of the matter is that most of the rules for DnD are combat-oriented. The 4E wizard's combat abilities (the abilities out of which most parties will get the most mileage) do not feel like a wizard. Why do I magically forget how to cast sleep when I learn my first paragon daily? Did my spell-book shrink? Did my disappearing, reapearing ink deside not to reappear? The power system in 4E is, as it stands right now, not a good system for modelling how some people see wizards.
(For that matter, this problem applies to every class. Why does my fighter reach a level where he's too tactically brilliant to sweep a spear under a guy's feet? The martial classes, however, mostly because their status effects are more homogenous, [wow, prone or slowed, yippee] are easier to refluff powers for.)
"I can get that. But I believe they DID do that. Rituals are like those studied spells, without the cheese. Also, just to add, the reason people miss the point is that they don;t think about the "feel" when people bring this up. They instead think of the mechanics of vancian casting. That was my assumption. Now that you've explained it, I have more understanding."
I for one don't give a rat's patooty about Vancian casting. I actually found Vancian casting to be a pain in the tookus, and overall make little sense. But I do think that different sources of power should have noticeably different feels to their mechanics. (Unlike jetzine, I do care that the power sources all feel the same. The barbarian and psionics in 4E are a breath of fresh air over copy and paste mechanics for every class.)
Break them along sources of power. Non of the four types of power source, innate magic/psionics, pact magic (which would include primal power), learned magic/psionics, or martial prowess/physical or mental conditioning, is special, because their are four mechanics different enough to be recognizeable as something unique in origin, mechanic, and flavor, but similar enough to be balanced and commensurable.
As jetzine (I believe it was jetzine) has said, however, don't point out mechanics we know exist as proof that the problem we see does not exist. If we thought rituals made up for the wizard not feeling right in other areas, then this thread would not be here. We are aware of the mechanics of the class. And, at least in my opinion, while rituals are great, and a marvelous opportunity for putting the party in harm's way, they don't make up for the shortcomings of the feel of the rest of the class.
"No, I see the similarity. I understand that 4E runs on an underlying framework that every character shares. My contention is that having an underlying freamwork does not mean it is homogenous. Yes, many basic powers mimic eachother. But most are very unique. Yes, they usually run on the X damage + status system, but isn't that how attack spells worked in previous editions too? Again, powers are attack spells, for the most part. As for the "push button mechanic" not working for everything, I agree. Which is why they DON'T all work like that."
Really? Look at Split the Tree and then look at Eldritch Rain and tell me that you can't just take one class's powers and sub them in for another. What distinguishes these two powers? An ability score and one line of text. Homogeny exists in 4E, although it's worst within the same role,
"I understand, even if I slightly disagree. I still hold that a Wizard is not just "Controller, add Arcane". His attack powers still feel like what a Wizard would do. I would like to talk about it in more detail, but I can see that it would derail this."
Are you saying you disagree that the concept should preceed the math, or are you disagreeing that 4E has reversed this? I think you mean the latter, because honestly, if you believe the former, I don't ever want you to be my DM.
And please do explain what you mean when you say the Wizard's powers "feel like what a wizard would do." Because, quite frankly, I don't think the system by which powers are learned, or to a large degree the powers themselves, represent well the concept of the wizard. The rituals do better, but rituals are irrelevant to at least 80% of most DnD games....
"I just assume that the reason someone would go out of their way to make a class different is that they want their favourite class to be special. Again, at the time I had no idea you were doing this for anyone but Wizard. As for fun, that is again subjective. I feel that the Wizard class is not "shallow", mainly because of their utilities, cantrips, and Ritual usage. Although I'm all for more cantrips."
For the record, the wizard is not my favorite class either. My favorite class was a homebrew sorcerer that resembled a sort of warlock/arcane barbarian. It was awesome, but nothing like a wizard. And again, we know the mechanics of the wizard, and I personally don't think it's enough to make them feel like a wizard. It's nothing drastic enough to make me not play 4E if my players want to, but it is drastic enough for me to invest the time and effort into finding a solution.
"You'll have to excuse me. I have some... anger issues. I tend to do that, I honestly don;t want to "attack" anyone. It's just a game, I'm not really that invested in how people play it. I just wanted to get my opinions out there. I feel the 4E Wizard is different, and I thought the system proposed, and specificlly the idea behind it, that being making casters special while Martial were "Average Joes", was off. I'm now pretty intrigued about your ideas, although for the time being I hold that the power system is, to me, superior to other ideas I've seen."
The power system is, as has been said before, a place to start. It's certainly more balanced than a wizard suffering through 4 levels of complete ineptitude and a jaw, femur, pretty much life of glass only to become the party's god by level 12. It did go too far, however, in my opinion in homogenizing the classes, and what came out does not represent my concept of what a wizard should do/feel like. *Note that these are two separate issues, and that I feel like both are relevant and problematic, while some in this thread have seen credence in only one or the other.
"I understand it isn't perfect. Please don't think that I believe it is the best that a game can be. It's just that, again, I feel that it is supirior to previous iterations, and that its idea of a common class framework is more effective than any other systems I've seen proposed, while still allowing characters to be different. I want to see the game improve and grow, and if I saw a system that I thought was both balanced and allowed more difference, I'd likely be all for it. I just oppose things like the OPs suggestion."
I don't think anyone here believes the game is perfect. And I'm not sure anyone here believes prior iterations are better. But this is a homebrew forum: a forum for finding problems in the system and solving them, and this a problem that has cropped up on these boards more than once. The power system may be the most efficeitn system out there, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better, or should stop trying to make the game fit our concepts, or be as fun as we can make it.
I oppose the OPs suggestion as well. The classes are reasonably well-balanced at the moment, and without giving the casters something (something that should not be done haphazardly, lest you fall into a state of imbalance) you can't force penalties on them. They aren't the uber-gods they were in 3.x, and don't need to be nerfed. They aren't even, on average, marginally better than other classes.
I'm tired of people saying "the wizard is different enough" right after I very obviously just said it wasn't.
That's disagreement. It's a common feature of debate in a public forum.
I'm not concerned with the power of the wizard, or how different it is to the other classes. I am concerned with it playing like a wizard would play, which would inherently be different in its process of construction and development. I want mechanics that feel like I'm learning how to control magic over the course of my career, not push buttons that I pretend are magic.
Hmm. OK. So not D&D, then. Ars Magica would be a good candidate for that. I liked Mage: the Ascension better, but I'm afraid you'd have the same problem with it: the same mechanics were used for all magic (and science/technology, which were also just forms of magic).
Some magic is justified by push buttons, some things need to be more open-ended. I like things to be more well thought out than they are. The process and mechanics of being a caster used to feel immersive, like you were studying the craft.
What, really? How was the vancian casting system not 'push button?' You stacked your rack with pre-packaged spells from your list. That list was prettymuch arbitrary: whatever spellbooks and scrolls you'd picked up in your adventuring career. What was it that gave you an 'immersive' feeling?
As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Eldritch blast is a longbow.
I wasn't aware that longbows targeted REF and that mastering them was a matter of health or force of personality. You mean it happens to do d10, like a longbow. Well, there are only so many perfect solids to make dice out of...
I'd rather it be the other way around. I'd rather ask the question, "What does this class do?" and then ask "How do they do it?" Then I'd ask "How do we write the mechanics for that?" It's a subtle difference but I think it's hugely important.
OK, that I get. Simulationist vs Gamist, as it's so often put. 4e is less simulationist, more gamist, consciously so - and much better balanced and easier for the DM to prep encounters for, as a result.
But, as you point out, that's something that happens from the ground up when the game is designed. You can get that by modifying an existing system, but it'll be an extensive re-write.
I'd seriously consider looking at alternative systems.
@tony_v: "You mean it happens to do d10, like a longbow. Well, there are only so many perfect solids to make dice out of..."
Oh - the irony!
edited to add: mentioned with a very light-hearted chuckle 
I swear, everytime I go back and remember the misery that was the vancian magic system I cry a little inside.
Did you really enjoy having to rewrite your stats for almost every single spell (well over 20 or 30 in most games) every time you leveled up? If you didn't, your turn would scroll to a crawl as you had to check the spell's individual rules in a lengthy and wordy section of the book that usually took well into the second or third paragraph to get to the point.
Heaven forbid you decide to switch up your spells. Now you have to spend your time going over spells while the rest of the party is moving on to the next encounter.
The only thing that made the old magic system any different than anything else was its sheer annoyance. You usually had to recalculate just about every minuscule detail about the spell at level up (range, damage, area, save DC, etc). A session wouldn't go by without having to check the lengthy discription of at least one spell. Now, with everything in compact blocks, getting the info you need is quick and painless.
Having all powers run on the same base mechanics has made things easier for both players and DMs. And for my money, I always prefered the style and idea of a dynamic caster who always has something to cast as opposed to the old 3.5 caster that would run out of spells and become useless.
The immersive thing that weapon-users get to do is pick their weapon combos. Separately from the power listings.
Really, an immersive spell-casting system only has to do something similar for magic. I think that the ritual system is a where I'd start if a character asked for a bit more depth to Arcane powers. Adding some abstract categories or schools to it, and allowing interested characters to invest in this might be a compromise path to a completely new build system.
@tony_v: "You mean it happens to do d10, like a longbow. Well, there are only so many perfect solids to make dice out of..."Oh - the irony!
Yeah, I know, the d10 and rarely-seen d30 aren't even 'perfect' (thier faces aren't regular polygons - the horror!
).I think that the ritual system is a where I'd start if a character asked for a bit more depth to Arcane powers. Adding some abstract categories or schools to it, and allowing interested characters to invest in this might be a compromise path to a completely new build system.
Rituals do give you some chance to flesh out your caster with some additional non-combat mojo. 'Anyone' (with the feat) can do it, though, so it's just a start. I do admit that I miss schools. Abjuration, Conjuration, Echantment/Charm, Evocation, Illusion/Phantasm, etc... they at least sounded a tad occult (unlike so many of the spell names, themselves).
Rituals do give you some chance to flesh out your caster with some additional non-combat mojo. 'Anyone' (with the feat) can do it, though, so it's just a start. I do admit that I miss schools. Abjuration, Conjuration, Echantment/Charm, Evocation, Illusion/Phantasm, etc... they at least sounded a tad occult (unlike so many of the spell names, themselves).
Yes . . . I'm also starting to like the idea of Martial rituals (training, weaponsmithing, kata), Primal rituals (not sure what to call them), Psionic rituals (meditations).
The ritual system is a bit sideline, not as developed as the rest. More room for house rules and homebrewing that don't upset balance . . .
I swear, everytime I go back and remember the misery that was the vancian magic system I cry a little inside.
Did you really enjoy having to rewrite your stats for almost every single spell (well over 20 or 30 in most games) every time you leveled up? If you didn't, your turn would scroll to a crawl as you had to check the spell's individual rules in a lengthy and wordy section of the book that usually took well into the second or third paragraph to get to the point.
Heaven forbid you decide to switch up your spells. Now you have to spend your time going over spells while the rest of the party is moving on to the next encounter.
The only thing that made the old magic system any different than anything else was its sheer annoyance. You usually had to recalculate just about every minuscule detail about the spell at level up (range, damage, area, save DC, etc). A session wouldn't go by without having to check the lengthy discription of at least one spell. Now, with everything in compact blocks, getting the info you need is quick and painless.
Having all powers run on the same base mechanics has made things easier for both players and DMs. And for my money, I always prefered the style and idea of a dynamic caster who always has something to cast as opposed to the old 3.5 caster that would run out of spells and become useless.
Very, very good points, sir. I agree and disagree. Yes, 3.5's magic system was quite complicated, and often convoluted, often calling for rules lawyering and all that fun stuff.
However, I think that is what many players actually liked about 3rd and 3.5, and previous editions.
The game turned magic into something akin to science, where the player/caster had to, well, "solve" how the spells were going to work out. The player/caster had to plan and deliberate and carefully calculate how he was going to be effective.
Sure, playing a wizard in 3.5 could be annoying. I won't deny that. But it made you have to put some work into it.
And yeah, I'll never be one of the guys who spends much of his free time outside of game deliberating tactics and loopholes, not only for a caster character, but really any character. I'll never be good at powergaming, of twinking my character out to be badass. But that, I always felt, was fun about 3.5.
But I totally agree with what everyone is saying about 4th, in that it is easier for EVERYONE to play. But when it comes down to it, I feel, and I'm sure other people will agree with me, that easy and simple doesn't always equal fun.
Or at least a sense of accomplishment.
Maybe that's what it's about...
Maybe you have more of a sense of accomplishment when you successfully play a powerful caster-type in previous editions, or even any class, because you had to think and deliberate and figure out, and often carefully plan, exactly how you were going to build your character and make him beyond playable. To make him bad-ass.
In 4th, anyone can be bad-ass. It's hard to really build an awesome character, because, like that one guy in "The Incredibles" said, "When everyone is super, no one is."
And that is what 4th edition is about. Everyone can be a badass with no extra 'homework' involved. That's all there is to it, really.
In 4th, anyone can be bad-ass. It's hard to really build an awesome character, because, like that one guy in "The Incredibles" said, "When everyone is super, no one is."
And that is what 4th edition is about. Everyone can be a badass with no extra 'homework' involved. That's all there is to it, really.
You seem to think that only some of the PCs should be "super"... but it's a game about heroic characters, and not one about a hero and his sidekicks. All of the PCs in D&D are heroic. No one PC should be any more "super" than another assuming equal level. But just because the PCs are all "super" doesn't mean everyone is. The PCs are "super" in a world of normals.
It's not a matter of one PC being "super" compared to the others, but rather the PCs being "super" compared to the rest of the campaign world. Heroes are rare. Most NPCs in the campaign world would use the minion rules in 4e. They may be skilled, or wealthy, or have high social status, but they're just not heroic.
If D&D were a comic, it would be Justice League or X-Men, not Superman or Wolverine.
Think about it... Was Fafhrd more "super" than the Grey Mouser? Was Gimli more "super" than Legolas? (And Gandalf doesn't count, since by any reasonable standard he would be an NPC advisor controlled by the DM.) Who was the most "super" of the Narnia kids: Peter, Susan, Edmond, or Lucy? Were Kahlan or Cara really any less "super" than Richard or Zedd?
Even in the Harry Potter books (in which Harry was obviously the main character), there was little real difference between Harry, Ron, and Hermione except for Harry's relationship to Voldemort. (Hermione actually knew more about magic than Harry or Ron, so surely she should have been the most "super" by your standard, right?)
A PC in D&D should be "super" regardless of what class the player chooses, because every PC is a hero in the campaign world, and all heroes are "super". If you want to play a game where your character is the most important of them all, go find a video game. If you want to play a game where you're part of a group of heroes, roughly equal in power to each other but a level above the norm in their world, then that's a tabletop RPG.
I'm not concerned with the power of the wizard, or how different it is to the other classes. I am concerned with it playing like a wizard would play, which would inherently be different in its process of construction and development. I want mechanics that feel like I'm learning how to control magic over the course of my career, not push buttons that I pretend are magic.
Hmm. OK. So not D&D, then. Ars Magica would be a good candidate for that. I liked Mage: the Ascension better, but I'm afraid you'd have the same problem with it: the same mechanics were used for all magic (and science/technology, which were also just forms of magic).
Just read a bit of the thread and I have to say that Ars Magica does a great deal with making wizards truley unique and meorable, characters pursue magic like wizards really should pursue magic rather than like video game characters.
have a read:
www.atlas-games.com/arm5/index.php
forum.atlas-games.com/viewforum.php?f=4&...
From what I can see, those wanting the wizard (and such casters) to be "more complex but not more powerful" simply want extra bookkeeping.
Personally I'm more than happy with the wizard's daily spells, utility spells, and rituals going into books you have to keep track of. A truly learned and epic wizard will probably have several books with him full of spells to prepare and rituals to perform. For me, that's all the nod I needed to the old vancian magic system.
The fact that you don't need to read an entire article for every single spell seems to be the perceived problem. While I much prefer the new, simple way form of powers, if someone wanted to go back to a more complex mode, I wouldn't want to deny them that. Adding a few extra variables into caster abilities might work out while not breaking the system.
Ideas:
-Reduce the range of spells and allow a bonus to increase that range (perhaps tied to level or ability score)
-Reduce the radius of area spells to a minimum and increase the burst or blast radius (perhaps by a specific spell factor combined with level or ability score)
-Try reintroducing Meta-Magic: simple alterations to the spells normal variables at the cost of maybe a move or minor action.
-Consider adding the High-Crit property to some single target At-Will powers.
Okay, those are some ideas. I've seen enough of this tragic thread to see what the real problem was and how the OP made some very poor word choices early on that derailed this thread far off from what he was looking for. If you want some serious talk now on just simple houserules to add more complexity (without necessarily adding power) to spellcasters, I highly recommend starting a new thread. This one is bound to stay on fire for a while longer.
The fact that you don't need to read an entire article for every single spell seems to be the perceived problem. While I much prefer the new, simple way form of powers, if someone wanted to go back to a more complex mode, I wouldn't want to deny them that. Adding a few extra variables into caster abilities might work out while not breaking the system.
Ideas:
-Reduce the range of spells and allow a bonus to increase that range (perhaps tied to level or ability score)
-Reduce the radius of area spells to a minimum and increase the burst or blast radius (perhaps by a specific spell factor combined with level or ability score)
-Try reintroducing Meta-Magic: simple alterations to the spells normal variables at the cost of maybe a move or minor action.
-Consider adding the High-Crit property to some single target At-Will powers.
Sometimes, I like complexity. Not in real life, mind you. Ick. But in my gaming, I kinda do.
You also wrote:
I've seen enough of this tragic thread to see what the real problem was and how the OP made some very poor word choices early on that derailed this thread far off from what he was looking for. If you want some serious talk now on just simple houserules to add more complexity (without necessarily adding power) to spellcasters, I highly recommend starting a new thread. This one is bound to stay on fire for a while longer."
Yeah. I've never been much of a forum poster before. Considering the numerous...less than pleasurable responses I've gotten so far...I'm not sure I'm going to be so eager to do this again. Internets people are so...irate.
Anyways!
Thank you, sir, for your honest and well-thought out opinion. The rest of you as well. I probably shouldn't have made my post so "poorly worded" and with less heavy-handed opinions, but ah well.
Also, I kinda like where you're going with those meta-magic type ideas. Quite intriguing.
Yeah. I've never been much of a forum poster before. Considering the numerous...less than pleasurable responses I've gotten so far...I'm not sure I'm going to be so eager to do this again. Internets people are so...irate.
No matter how long you've been posting or how much experience you may think you have, the internets will always find a way to surprised you. This is something I came to terms with not too long ago. Even the slightest chance for conflict, even if only spoken briefly and in passing, can set loose discussions we never expected.
As for houseruling extra complexity into 4e spellcasters, I wish you luck. There are plenty of people around here who can and will help with such a task, so long as the goal is clear. That's also the great thing about the internets: it's not all bad.
Yes . . . I'm also starting to like the idea of Martial rituals (training, weaponsmithing, kata), Primal rituals (not sure what to call them), Psionic rituals (meditations).
Oh yes, I'm quite looking forward to seeing Martial Practices fleshed out. Rituals already cover arcane and divine (key skills include arcana and religion), and, since nature is already a key skill for some rituals, they could be seen to cover Primal, as well.
Psionics used to be divided into attack/defense modes, disciplines and sciences. I don't know what psionic powers are currently being called, but if it's one of those, one of the others could be used for rituals. 'Sciences' for instance, would probably work, connoting special knowledge and painstaking, time consuming effort.