Quote from: Marleycat;759124I don't see why a particular save couldn't be switched with any actual harm to the system. I understand LibraryLass's view of wanting all enchantment spells to key off charisma but that would run into the possible issue of making Enchanters or Sorcerer/Warlock subclass equivelents too 1 note.

So I prefer Bill's view or solution of a wisdom/charisma split for enchantment spells. Because its been my experience that if your wizards are either all specialists like 5e or 90%+ specialists like Fantasycraft or Chivalry and Sorcery players tend to keep inside their school or tradition or mode whatever you label it and dip outside only for basic utility or iconic spells. Because its to their advantage and it fits a coherent theme.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying they should all be Cha-based, necessarily, just that it seems like the logical stat and I hope that they're not all Wis-based out of some misguided traditionalism. Even Int-based might be cool in the right context. I can't think of too many enchantments that should be resisted with the physical stats, but maybe that's a limitation of my own creativity.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;757690Bah. 3E was nearly as bad, it just obfuscated things more. But it's tough to blame the designers for that, since the rules wound up unwittingly encouraging a style of play that mutated the game heavily once it got into the general population ...

  And as I said on TBP, it's past time for someone to admit their wrongdoings. Who fed 3E after midnight?

People keep saying it was an accident.  Why is this?

Quote from: mcbobbo;759193People keep saying it was an accident.  Why is this?

  Because playtest reports, designer comments, etc. suggest that WotC didn't really intend for CoDzilla, scry/buff/teleport, and similar tactics to be the default--it just sort of emerged from what the rules changes (and lack of changes) wound up encouraging.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;759197Because playtest reports, designer comments, etc. suggest that WotC didn't really intend for CoDzilla, scry/buff/teleport, and similar tactics to be the default--it just sort of emerged from what the rules changes (and lack of changes) wound up encouraging.

Also, the designers apparently didn't expect players to dip into one level of classes in order to acquire bonuses. Basically, they had no idea the player-base would take the char op tools 3E provided and take them to unfathomable extremes.

Even now there is serious bitching by some because the classes are generally backloaded and it's near impossible to CharOP ala 3e even with multiclassing. Because to get more then 1 attack you either have to have 5 levels of Fighter or 8 combined levels in a class with that feature. If you want 3 attacks you have to have eleven levels in the fighter class. So single dipping or doing the 5/7/3/4/1 dance screws you bad.

Say you want to make a Swordmage your best bet is 11/9 Fighter/Wizard Eldritch Knight/Abjurer subclasses. And feats have to be in.

A Bladesinger is probably something like Ranger or Paladin 8 Wizard 12. I would include Bard/Wizard 8/12 but they are being redone into a full caster. Also the above doesn't take into consideration Sorcerers and Warlocks.

The overall point is that you'll want to go 5-6 levels minimum likely more, in any given class to achieve any kind of synergy beyond some unrelated mess of numbers better suited for white room theorycraft idiocy.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;759128When I saw that on the equipment list the other day, I thought it was pretty dumb.  "If you are proficient in playing cards, you get advantage on card games"

Really?  Whatever happened to just plain "gambling"?  It's just a reminder that they're getting caught up in the super minor details that end up requiring a million skills, and that's just dumb.  What next, proficiency in brushing your teeth and how to use a lantern?

Use lantern proficiency is on page 13. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;759266Use lantern proficiency is on page 13. :rolleyes:

You could just say fuck it and go C&C style with profiencency bonuses if you have a particular prop. The reason they are doing this middle ground is so it can be used in any playstyle pertinent to 1-4e.

Page: Random Goblin Pic (Not sure the 'Page:' format really worked out to well).

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140619

Quote from: CRKrueger;759152Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws - part of the Starter Set and Basic?  If those actually include mechanics for them, Ouch.  I figured the all the story bullshit would get piled on in the 3 hardbacks, didn't know they'd be laying the foundation in the starter.

Apparently the  mechanic is called Inspiration, and it basically means that of you role-play your character well, you get a benny you can use to give yourself Advantage later down the line.

Seems pretty easy to ignore if you don't like it, although I expect howls of outrage about it from the 'mother may I' brigade.

Quote from: Marleycat;759227Even now there is serious bitching by some because the classes are generally backloaded and it's near impossible to CharOP ala 3e even with multiclassing. Because to get more then 1 attack you either have to have 5 levels of Fighter or 8 combined levels in a class with that feature. If you want 3 attacks you have to have eleven levels in the fighter class. So single dipping or doing the 5/7/3/4/1 dance screws you bad.

Say you want to make a Swordmage your best bet is 11/9 Fighter/Wizard Eldritch Knight/Abjurer subclasses. And feats have to be in.

A Bladesinger is probably something like Ranger or Paladin 8 Wizard 12. I would include Bard/Wizard 8/12 but they are being redone into a full caster. Also the above doesn't take into consideration Sorcerers and Warlocks.

The overall point is that you'll want to go 5-6 levels minimum likely more, in any given class to achieve any kind of synergy beyond some unrelated mess of numbers better suited for white room theorycraft idiocy.

I like that. Should see more characters based on a theme or even roleplay instead of characters whose concept is "I get full attacks when I charge"

Rearloading for the win.

Quote from: jadrax;759300Apparently the  mechanic is called Inspiration, and it basically means that of you role-play your character well, you get a benny you can use to give yourself Advantage later down the line.

Seems pretty easy to ignore if you don't like it, although I expect howls of outrage about it from the 'mother may I' brigade.

I would immediately toss that 'benny for roleplay' out the window, but might give everyone one benny per game session. Maybe.


No howl of outrage, I just don't agree with the concept of bennies for roleplay.

Quote from: jadrax;759299Page: Random Goblin Pic (Not sure the 'Page:' format really worked out to well).

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20140619

Look like garden trolls...

I actually think they look quite like this guy, especially the nose.

Quote from: Bill;759313I would immediately toss that 'benny for roleplay' out the window, but might give everyone one benny per game session. Maybe.


No howl of outrage, I just don't agree with the concept of bennies for roleplay.

Yeah not a big fan of that either usually I figure if nobody went of the rails and they used their traits or whatever as a guide post everyone gets an extra action point or fate/luck point kind of deal.

Quote from: Bill;759313I would immediately toss that 'benny for roleplay' out the window, but might give everyone one benny per game session. Maybe.


No howl of outrage, I just don't agree with the concept of bennies for roleplay.

Same here. Hero points, Fate points - whatever you want to call them - are fine. Just don't tie them to something as nebulous as roleplaying.