On the topic of casters being overpowered or too good i think that's a problem with the removal and simplification of some rules that made casters easier to play while not bringing down the overall power level of the spell:
If to cast a 3rd level spell that deals 8d6 damage I first have to spend a turn concentrating then wait until the next turn to fling said spell and at any point getting attacked puts me at risk of interrupting my spell then it makes sense for a spell of that level being that powerful. Now if you make it so the spell comes out instantly and thus there's no risk of losing it then then spell should deal less damage since there's less risk involved in its casting.
Honestly, from what little Ironclaw i played, I liked how spells worked: Normally you can take two actions on a single turn and they cannot be the same action (for example you can't attack twice) preparing a spell was an action and then you had to spend another action to attack with it, so while a caster might stand in place to cast his spells, a martial will be moving, guarding and or attacking meaning they are a lot more mobile.
I like the idea of having multiple actions in a turn which aren't super restrictive like what D&D 5e does with actions and bonus actions, some classes have few or no uses for their bonus actions so you might end up taking a feat to make up for that. Meanwhile on a system with multiple actions, action points or or the like allow for far more permutations than the standard "I move towards enemy, attack it" or "move away from enemy and guard".
The bonus action is a good idea that keeps munchkins from exploiting the action economy like they can in 3e/PF. Its a little more flexible/integrated than the 4e minor action, but it's almost too integrated. I can't quite explain it.
I like the 4e action economy of Standard, Move, Minor, but unless you've got something that requires a minor, that minor action often goes to waste. If you do have thing that eats a minor (like a summon), that minor is outsizedly powerful; unless you are dazed and have to convert your standard, you aren't really giving any thing up. And I think its sort of the same way with the 5e bonus action. If you aren't using it, you're losing it.
Sorry, that was sort of stream of consciousness.
Someone else suggested the idea of making casters declare targets at the start of the turn and resolve at the end of the turn is a good idea (or at least the start of one).
Again, just sort of spitball, I think, going on with that idea, have bigger spells take more actions, or let casters take longer to cast but hit harder. I'm not a huge fan of having (non-munchkin) casters lose spells, but if a caster get smacked upside the head, it makes the caster spend more actions to keep chanting.
Could add some fun to melee builds, like a Monk's Ki strike interrupting a spell, or maybe a Witchhunter build for a fighter.
And thinking in genera I'd like se see some options that let you trade in action economy for bonuses. The trick I think is making them meaningful enough to matter, but not so powerful as to mandate their use.
Just typing this out, I think something I might playtest with my 4e group is a minor action to add +1 situational bonus to any non-AC defense.
The problem is that such a code of conduct would be nearly unenforceable in a true open license and defeat the purpose. No one company will have control over this license, so they won't have an incentive to put such moral clause in in the first place.
They're talking about giving it to the Linux foundation, and see the Linux Code of Conduct.
I'm not saying they'll be successful or that it'll be enforcable, but you're going to see the trannies try their damnest, even if Paizo's heart is in the right place.
Anyway, as Erik said, no point arguing over something that hasn't come out yet. Especially not when we know that the NGL is going to be either a near duplicate of the OGL, a total dumpster fire, and probably both so its more engaging to speculate how Wizards is going to fuck that up.
youtu.be
