Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: We're Off to BE the Wizard/--- ?

  1. #1

    Question We're Off to BE the Wizard/--- ?

    I should start off by saying I've never played in a system that I straight up didn't like, and I prefer to focus on the positive and constructive criticism.

    My friends and I tried 4e about five years ago and finished a whole campaign in it up to around Level 10. (Side note, it was a pretty cool homebrew game by a first time GM set in the Dragaeran Empire world of author Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series, and we affectionately nicknamed the campaign "DragaeranBallZ.")

    What some of them loved about the system and others complained about the system was the same, and I heard it time and again: "Every class feels the same, and they all feel like a wizard+[insert class]!"

    In 4e perhaps the most dramatic change was that every class, including fighters, had increasing numbers of "powers" to choose from that were daily or otherwise limited abilities that could do things like "damage plus the enemy is pushed this many squares" or "damage plus you and someone change places" or "weapon damage plus [insert elemental type] damage" or even "deal damage to every enemy in a five foot radius and they are slowed" or perhaps something that didn't involve damage at all.

    For me this aspect definitely had its charm in terms of versatility and classes like fighter getting in on a bit of "controller" role stuff like battlefield positioning, and more options often lead to more interesting tactics. I played a Warden and having powers helped relieve me of the unease of not having a long prepared spell list at my disposal. Also this guy I had NEVER seen play anything other than a mage or psion type spellcaster (and have not since then either) actually played a martial styled cleric for once. And he had a blast because he dealt excellent lightning themed damage and still had a diverse selection of spell-like "powers."

    So I'm wondering, did others feel the classes were too similar? Or did they welcome the balance and/or variety powers provided? Or none of the above?
    Last edited by magrat4; 09-06-2016 at 01:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    7,705

    Default

    I've only ever played 4e and 5e, starting with 4e. My issues with 4e while I was playing it were with the people I played with (pretty inconsistent, uncommitted, temperamental group; crappy controlling DM introduced us to the game, etc.) moreso than the game itself. It was all I knew. With the context of 5e, I can see some of the flaws others most often complain about (most notably the massive focus on combat), but it made me happy to be a little munchkin and charop the most ridiculous sets of powers (still sad my radiant themed monk with a small MC into cleric never got to keep going past level 1... he was gonna kick butt). Even still, it didn't bother me that everyone had a roughly equal amount of at-will, encounter, and daily powers, as I felt like the class features and the specific powers available to each class felt relatively distinct.


  3. #3

    Default

    Now that you mention it, 4e was kind of "embrace your inner munchkin" and that was a nice change for me since I usually played support classes.

    Having switched right from 4e to 5e, do you notice any lingering features?

    The one that comes to my mind is the fighter's "second wind" where he can regain HP during a battle. I heartily approve of that reappearing in 5e.

    My holdover from playing 4e is that I always use the word "bloodied" now when something is half HP or below. I can't help it, but my fellow players don't seem to catch on.

    I hope you'll find another opportunity to dust off your monk...or another system to bring him to life.
    Last edited by magrat4; 09-13-2016 at 04:54 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    7,705

    Default We're Off to BE the Wizard/--- ?

    I absolutely brought the bloodied term/condition over. The fighter's action surge is another sort of holdover (from action points). There are other concepts (like rogues' sneak attack) that I suspect are holdovers from even before 4e, so I won't list them. A lot of people seem to like and want to keep the flanking and shifting (5 ft step) rules, but I'm still trying to figure out if they're a good fit in 5e - currently leaning toward "no" for flanking and "yes" for shifting.

    Dak bin'Yannah the githzerai monk will likely never be truly fulfilled. Even if i made a gith monk for 5e or something else (not that I play any other games for there to be a something else), he might have the flavor (radiant soul monk would come closest) but wouldn't have the crunch that made him so awesome.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •