4E Caster Attack

[continuumc]

There is something that's been bugging me lately, and I wanted to pose it on here incase i'm missing something.

In 4th ed, a fighter for instance..will make a melee (or ranged) attack and gain 1/2 his level, plus ability modifier, plus weapon enhancement, plus proficiency bonus to his/her attack. Let's say those come out to: 2, 4, 2, 3: for a total of plus 11 to his attack.

Now..a spellcaster, will cast a spell and get..half level bonus, ability modifier, and implement enhancement: so.. 2, 4, 2: for a total of: plus 8 to his attack.

11...vs 8? Somehow that doesn't seem quite fair in my mind - it suggests to me that i'm missing something..but for the life of me I cannot figure out what.

[ninja_penguin]

Reason being is that 99% of the time, the caster implements are targeting a non-AC defense. Usually, the non-AC defenses of a monster (and PC!) are lower then the AC defense.

[Arcane Copycat]

Following the general monster creation guidelines from the DMG, most enemies have an AC of level+14, and other defenses level+12 before being adjusted based on said monsters stats.

[continuumc]

While that is true, there are certain non-casting classes which have a fairly large amount of attacks targetting other defenses as well.

[Arcane Copycat]

While that is true, there are certain non-casting classes which have a fairly large amount of attacks targetting other defenses as well.

Rogue and Ranger, mostly. Classes designed to be highly accurate. So instead of giving them a whole bunch of Dex +2 attacks, they just changed the targeted defense.

[continuumc]

You could be right, we haven't really had any difficulties with casters being highly inaccurate, I was just working on a bard and noticed the different. So I started burrowing to make sure there was no implement "proficiency", and then went...well, that's odd.

[Arcane Copycat]

You could be right, we haven't really had any difficulties with casters being highly inaccurate, I was just working on a bard and noticed the different. So I started burrowing to make sure there was no implement "proficiency", and then went...well, that's odd.

Well I always saw magic user getting a bit ripped off for damage myself. I mean, any martial class can take a weapon focus feat for bonus damage, but wizards only get their bonuses to 2 elements, either restricting the attacks chosen, damage done by other elements, or blowing more feats to cover all the bases.

But yeah, I think the lack of proficiency just balances out wizards targeting fort/ref/will instead of the usually higher AC

[continuumc]

Well, I can see the damage: as a fair number of spells do tend to be bursts or blasts, but again: there are non-casters with plenty of those as well.

[ninja_penguin]

Also, in general; monsters (especially brutes) tend to have high fortitude defenses, and controllers have higher will. Although in general, targeting will defense is a solid bet; I think it's (on average) the lowest monster defense.

[continuumc]

Yeah, will tends to be the lowest except for caster-monsters.

[Kurald Galain]

You could be right, we haven't really had any difficulties with casters being highly inaccurate,
You know what else helps? Area attacks. My wizard may have a lower to-hit bonus than the party rogue, but he makes an average of three attacks simultaneously. So he will hit.


Well I always saw magic user getting a bit ripped off for damage myself. I mean, any martial class can take a weapon focus feat for bonus damage, but wizards only get their bonuses to 2 elements,
Those feats like Burning Poison and Explosive Frost (or whatever they're called) are indeed rather sub-par. However, by the current rules, you can use a dagger or staff as your arcane implement and take weapon focus for that. Also, there are numerous other damage boosts, such as the Staff of Ruin and various feats from Arcane Power.

[continuumc]

You can use a dagger as an implement, however, it does not necessarily say that taking weapon focus on a dagger increases your spells.

By implement description: it says you gain the implements enhancement bonus.

[Kurald Galain]

You can use a dagger as an implement, however, it does not necessarily say that taking weapon focus on a dagger increases your spells.

FAQ says you can (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396). Although I agree it's a silly rule.

[Arcane Copycat]

Those feats like Burning Poison and Explosive Frost (or whatever they're called) are indeed rather sub-par. However, by the current rules, you can use a dagger or staff as your arcane implement and take weapon focus for that. Also, there are numerous other damage boosts, such as the Staff of Ruin and various feats from Arcane Power.

Or a sword. The idea of a wizard using a fullblade as an implement, although highly impractical, is still amusing

[continuumc]

Ah, I stand corrected.

[Burley]

The one thing that WotC did make clear about weapons as implements is that you do not gain the weapon's proficiency bonus to implement attacks. Ever.

You can take the feats from PHB2 and Arcane Power, like Implement Expertise and Dual Implement Mastery (something like that).

Also, you can use Weapon Expertise on Weapons-as-Implements. But, you can't use Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise at the same, because it's all feat bonuses.
Same thing for Weapon/Implement Focus.

Am I ninja'd? ~scroll~ I am!

Also, Arcane Copycat, with the advent of the Implement Proficiency feat, you can have a wizard wield an Executioner's Axe as an Implement. Or a Greatsword.
But, wait... I've confused myself. Could a Dwarven Druid take Implement Prof. (Axes) and Dwarven Weapon proficiency (which gives a bonus to damage, not weapon damage) and increace the damage of his implement powers?

[Kurald Galain]

Also, Arcane Copycat, with the advent of the Implement Proficiency feat, you can have a wizard wield an Executioner's Axe as an Implement.

I'm reasonably sure you can only pick weapons for your implement that already exist as an implement for some other arcane class.

[Burley]

Okay... Well, then, the axe is out. But, all Heavy and Light Blades are still in.

[Asbestos]

Although, really... is there any reason beyond 'the rules say so' that we shouldn't be able to use axes or flails as implements via a feat? Does this unbalance things somehow?

[Burley]

While it may not imbalance things, much of the things I say fall into the "The Rules don't say I can't, so I can" category. I don't want to just assume that I should be able to, just because it's not game breaking.
I don't break the rules to make sense. I follow the rules to the brink of insanity.

[Kurald Galain]

While it may not imbalance things, much of the things I say fall into the "The Rules don't say I can't, so I can" category.
Well, the core of 4E is firmly that unless the rules explicitly say that you can, you can't do it.

On the other hand, I don't really think it's possible to unbalance 4E in that fashion (heck, you could give everyone double feats, or double WBL, and it wouldn't unbalance things all that much, but that's because many of the feats and items are pretty lacklustre). There are only a handful of weapon powers that might be considered unbalancing on a caster (or more likely, might be considered unbalancing on anyone), and those tend to be sword- or staff-based anyway.

Cunning staff, stuff like that.

[Mando Knight]

Well, the core of 4E is firmly that unless the rules explicitly say that you can, you can't do it.

Huh. And here I thought that the 4E DMG was one where it specifically added in the "yes and" rule from improv...

[Kurald Galain]

Huh. And here I thought that the 4E DMG was one where it specifically added in the "yes and" rule from improv...
Yes, and that rule is only necessary because all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't". But one paragraph in the infrequently-read DMG doesn't weigh up against all the other books.

[Mando Knight]

Yes, and that rule is only necessary because all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't". But one paragraph in the infrequently-read DMG doesn't weigh up against all the other books.

I've never seen a "no, you can't" like that in any of the 4E books I've read. Is it in one of the not-character-options sections of the PHB2? :smallconfused:

[NecroRebel]

Yes, and that rule is only necessary because all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't". But one paragraph in the infrequently-read DMG doesn't weigh up against all the other books.

I'm with Mando on this one; it seems to me that it never says, anywhere, that if it isn't written you can't do it. Quite the contrary, all of the 4E materials seem to suggest that if it is written, you can do it, and if it's not written, ask your DM.

Also, it specifically suggests that DMs, when asked if they can do something, say "Yes" and decide on a ruling (the aforementioned "Yes, and..." suggestion)

[Kurald Galain]

I'm with Mando on this one; it seems to me that it never says, anywhere, that if it isn't written you can't do it.

Okay, simple example. I want to play a low-level chararacter that can become invisible at will, for extended periods of time. What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

[NPCMook]

Okay, simple example. I want to play a low-level chararacter that can become invisible at will, for extended periods of time. What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

Do you want an honest answer or a lie?

[Kurald Galain]

Do you want an honest answer or a lie?

:rolleyes:

[NPCMook]

:rolleyes:

What?

The honest Answer is yes, play a Fey Lock.

The Lie is No, no you can't do that.

[Kurald Galain]

The honest Answer is yes, play a Fey Lock.

The Lie is No, no you can't do that.

Heh. (1) that's not at will, since you have to succeed at an attack roll for it to work; (2) it's not for extended periods of time, since it lasts only one round; and most importantly (3) it's not invisibility either, since everyone can still see you except for that one target.

I ask if I can play a character with a certain ability, and you say "yes" but give me a character that does not in fact have that ability. This underlines my point that the 4E response to an original idea tends to be "say yes, but make a ruling that either doesn't actually do that, or has such a large chance of failure that it's pointless".

[NPCMook]

{Scrubbed}

[Nightson]

What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

How is that balanced?

Same thing I'd say if a player asked me if they could have fly as an at will spell at low levels.

At higher levels I'd be a lot more willing to work with the player on some sort of extended invisibility, but low level characters can't do everything.

[cupkeyk]

Also, you can use Weapon Expertise on Weapons-as-Implements. But, you can't use Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise at the same, because it's all feat bonuses.
Same thing for Weapon/Implement Focus.


Could I have some clarification on this? i was under the impression that a power must have the benefit of the keyword to gain teh benefit. So a Sorc with weapon expertise (dagger) will not gain any benefits to his powers since none of his powers have the weapon keyword and a fighter with implement expertise (heavy blade) will not benefit from the feat because his powers do not have the implement keyword.

The quoted comment seems to suggest that a bard needs only either weapon expertise (light blade) or implement expertise (songblade); or a warlock weapon expertise (light blade) or implement expertise (pact blade) and have the bonuses for all their powers.

[Kurald Galain]

How is that balanced?

Same thing I'd say if a player asked me if they could have fly as an at will spell at low levels.

So the answer is "no, because it is not balanced".

Note that I was not suggesting "a character who can do everything" - just a character who can become invisible a lot.

However, I can think of several other RPGs that have no problem with a starting or low-level character be near-permanently invisible. Such as Vampire (take a dot in Obfuscate and you're all set), Aberrant (it's a simple low-level power), Exalted (stealth charms ftw), 2E (low-level spell that lasts 24 hours) and 3E (play a pixie, or a 6th-level warlock).

And I can make the same case for flight. 2E/3E have several flying races, and so does ElfQuest. Vampire? Take Protean or Movement of the Mind. Werewolf? Owl totem. Aberrant? Yeah, there's a low-level flight power. How is this problematic again?

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it is unbalancing for a low-level character to become invisibile (or airborne) for lengthy periods of time; it's just one of the (many) things that 4E disallows just to be sure.

[NPCMook]

Could I have some clarification on this? i was under the impression that a power must have the benefit of the keyword to gain teh benefit. So a Sorc with weapon expertise (dagger) will not gain any benefits to his powers since none of his powers have the weapon keyword and a fighter with implement expertise (heavy blade) will not benefit from the feat because his powers do not have the implement keyword.

The quoted comment seems to suggest that a bard needs only either weapon expertise (light blade) or implement expertise (songblade); or a warlock weapon expertise (light blade) or implement expertise (pact blade) and have the bonuses for all their powers.

To gain the bonus from Implement Expertise, the power must have the Implement Keyword.
To gain the bonus from Weapon Expertise, the power must have the Weapon Keyword.
For classes that have to juggle between the two, Focused Expertise

[cupkeyk]

To gain the bonus from Implement Expertise, the power must have the Implement Keyword.
To gain the bonus from Weapon Expertise, the power must have the Weapon Keyword.
For classes that have to juggle between the two, Focused Expertise

What is focused expertise and where is it found?

[NPCMook]

What is focused expertise and where is it found?

Focused Expertise gives you a +1 to attack rolls with powers that have either Weapon or Implement Keyword with a specific weapon. Scaling at 15th and 25th level.

It can be found in Dragon 375, in the Monk Playtest Article

[Burley]

Could I have some clarification on this? i was under the impression that a power must have the benefit of the keyword to gain teh benefit. So a Sorc with weapon expertise (dagger) will not gain any benefits to his powers since none of his powers have the weapon keyword and a fighter with implement expertise (heavy blade) will not benefit from the feat because his powers do not have the implement keyword.

The quoted comment seems to suggest that a bard needs only either weapon expertise (light blade) or implement expertise (songblade); or a warlock weapon expertise (light blade) or implement expertise (pact blade) and have the bonuses for all their powers.

In the realm of common sense, I posit that Implement feats should help with implement powers, and weapons feats for weapon powers. However, when you take feats that give +1 while wielding a certain item or family of items, these feats do not say "+1 when using a power with the X keyword." Following the link that Kurald posted, WotC 'official' opinion is that while wielding X as a legitimate Y, you get Z bonus, regardless of X or Y being the keyword. (Of course, I do take certain liberties in saying that, and notice that it is not quoted.)
So, a Sorcerer or Swordmage could take weapon focus/expertise and as long as they are using that weapon as their implement, they would get the bonus. They are trained to use that tool more effectively, whether through whacking or pointing.

[NPCMook]

Weapon Focus is the only feat that follows that rule.

A Swordmage with Weapon Focus: Heavy Blades, gains a bonus to damage when using a heavy blade as an implement. A Swordmage using Weapon Expertise: Heavy Blade, does not gain a +1 to attack when using a heavy blade as an Implement.

[Kurald Galain]

In the realm of common sense,

Heh. We could make a loooong list of rules in 4E that defy common sense. Of course, verisimilitude was not high (or at all) on the developer's list of priorities :smallbiggrin:

[NPCMook]

{Scrubbed}

[Burley]

Really, Kurald. I understand, and to an extent, agree with you. But, I don't want to be reminded of my hobby's shortcomings everytime I try to have pleasant conversation about it. :smallsmile:

Anywho, I tend to go by the books, literally. If something has been errata'd, I'm in the dark. Neither my work computer, nor my personal laptop ever want to load up WotC websites. (I just bought a new computer, but failed to remember any sort of access-to-the-outside-card.)
So, NPCmook, I'm interested whether there is something in print that says what you just said, or if that is from errata. I don't think I understood the edit well enough.

[Kurald Galain]

Really, Kurald. I understand, and to an extent, agree with you. But, I don't want to be reminded of my hobby's shortcomings everytime I try to have pleasant conversation about it. :smallsmile:

Ah, we probably need more threads about "what do you LIKE about system X", rather than threads about what people dislike :smallsmile:

[potatocubed]

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it is unbalancing for a low-level character to become invisibile (or airborne) for lengthy periods of time; it's just one of the (many) things that 4E disallows just to be sure.

I don't think that's valid - other games have different concepts and expectations of what is and isn't balanced. Sure, starting-character-flight is okay in Aberrant, but starting-character-quantum-inferno (one of the absurd Quantum 6+ powers from the Player's Guide) isn't. In any game with a power scale, the possibility exists for some things to be out of whack on that scale.

Short version: The assertion isn't "becoming invisible for long periods of time is unbalancing", it's "becoming invisible for long periods of time is unbalancing in 4e D&D".

Remark 1: Becoming invisible - and flying, for that matter - were unbalancing in 2e AD&D and 3.x. I gnashed more teeth over challenging characters that could fly and go invisible than anything else.

Remark 2: I don't necessarily disagree with your general premise, mind you. There was a sense in 3.x that "if the rules don't say you can, you can't" and that continues into 4e, although I don't think I could point to an explicit mention of that.

I think it's more a sort of conceptual tipping-point: when you have a 'critical mass' of rules, people start thinking "If this is missing then it clearly wasn't intended to be there" rather than "If this is missing then I should make something to replace it".

Kind of like the difference between finding a shed, and finding a stack of lumber and some shed-building instructions.

[Burley]

~snip 'cause I agree~
I think it's more a sort of conceptual tipping-point: when you have a 'critical mass' of rules, people start thinking "If this is missing then it clearly wasn't intended to be there" rather than "If this is missing then I should make something to replace it".

Kind of like the difference between finding a shed, and finding a stack of lumber and some shed-building instructions.

That is exactly the point of getting it all out here, though. The forum is not a gaming table, and we all have different expectations of what a game should be. For us to have converstion that isn't dilluted with "That's not the way I do it," we have to look at what is presented to us all. That would be the printed rules, without any sort of common sense thrown in.
Once we throw the common sense in, I basically stop functioning in the forum. Don't take my right to post away from me by demanding that I think before I start... what were we talking about?
Oh, yes. Okay, some feats say "when X happens" and some don't. I find that for the most part nothing is going to be severely overpowering, and if you have a good group of players, they'll realize they are overpowered and fix the problem themselves. I say, if it don't say you can't, grammar states that you can.

[Tiki Snakes]

Okay, simple example. I want to play a low-level chararacter that can become invisible at will, for extended periods of time. What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

Gnome.

From first level, they can turn invisible 1/encounter for most of two turns. for a feat, they can stay invisible for that time AND make arcane attacks.

Take a class that focuses on the Gnomes reactive stealth potential, take some low level and non-magical stealth enhancing items (there are some shoes and camo gear in dragon 373), maybe get yourself a Gloaming Shroud. With stealth training, you're now doing pretty good, basically dissappearing from sight whenever you want to, given a tiny bit of cover.
If you want, you could take the cut-throat multiclass, and make bluff-checks to hide as a mere minor action.

Or, hey. If level 6 is low enough, there's a wizard daily power at level 6 that gives you or one other invisibility till the end of next turn, but is sustainable. So, yeah.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Obsfucate is much more of a way of not being noticed than actually being invisible, at least for the first Dot. Basically Stealth.

If you make it to paragon, there are magic items aplenty to pump your stealth to the stratosphere, or make you truly invisible. Sure, you'll have to be level 16 to BUY a ring of invisibility, but you could find one from level 11, if you have let your DM have a wishlist of items and he's feeling nice.

as for "Yes, and" I'd personally be willing to consider homebrewing some racial feats for such a gnome player as was interested in 'turning invisible at will' in order to increase and improve his fade-away racial power. Maybe increasing the duration? and/or making it sustainable in some way.
At paragon tier, sure. Why not make it an at-will racial power if they have several feats spent enhancing it already? They've already sacrificed to get it, so unless they are being incredibly cheap, or just causing chaos for the sake of it, i'd not have a problem with that.

Likewise Flight. Hovering, at will flight at lvl1? Eh, probably not. But you want to play a harpy homebrew, or a 'raptoran'? Hey, maybe you miss your 3.5 dragonwrought kobold. Sure, here are some wings.
Taking the Dragonwrought example as the one I've actually considered already; Base it on the Kobold Race, but switch shifty for 'Winged'. By default, let's have it work like a safewing amulet. You reduce the distance you fell by, oh, ten feet or so, and always land on your feet. In addition, cause that's not much, how about being able to glide horizontally for that same distance.
Spend a feat to strengthen your wings, maybe with some stat pre-requisits, maybe not, probably level4 required, and you gain an at-will move action power. You gain a fly speed equal to your speed, but must land at the end of the action or fall.
Let's say they want more? Sure, give em a level 8 requisit follow-up feat that gives them a fly speed of their speed, but 'Clumsy'. They can now fly to their hearts content.
If they're all about the flying, there are plenty of Powers that give it, at least i found so in sorcerer. Hell, there's a level 2 encounter (utility) power that gives you AND an ally a flying-move.
If they really want it all as part of their character, just throw in another racial feat part-way through paragon that lets them have a proper fly speed. Maybe a further feat at Epic that'll let them hover, too.

To be fair, if they used their flying to try and gank encounters by staying out of reach, they'd soon find me using the falling rules. If they're a flying Fighter, those D10's of damage aren't going to be the end of the world, but if they're a flying sorcerer, that'll leave a mark. Not to mention the whole falling on your face down into the middle of a load of angry creatures thing.

Yada yada yada. /wandering rant.

[kamikasei]

So the answer is "no, because it is not balanced".

I thought the point was to show that 4e DMs won't allow anything that the rules don't explicitly spell out already, not to show that 4e DMs will refuse some requests by players as being too powerful?

[Kurald Galain]

Gnome.
That's neither at will, nor is it for an extended period of time.


Or, hey. If level 6 is low enough, there's a wizard daily power at level 6 that gives you or one other invisibility till the end of next turn, but is sustainable.
Note the difference: 3E warlock/6 can become invisible whenever he likes, for up to 24 hours a day; 4E wizard/6 can become invisible once per day, for up to five minutes assuming he doesn't attack anyone in the meantime. So, yeah. And warlocks are considered a low-tier class in 3E, despite their nigh-permanent invis.


Also, I'm pretty sure that Obsfucate is much more of a way of not being noticed than actually being invisible, at least for the first Dot.
It is. That means it is in fact more powerful than invisibility, because it also makes you inaudible.


Sure, you'll have to be level 16 to BUY a ring of invisibility, but you could find one from level 11, if you have let your DM have a wishlist of items and he's feeling nice.
That ring lets you become invisible once per day, for about ten seconds only. Not very impressive.


as for "Yes, and" I'd personally be willing to consider homebrewing some racial feats for such a gnome player as was interested in 'turning invisible at will'
Okay, that's the first answer here that's actually close to a "yes". However, the problem in the past has been that whenever 4E DMs in this forum say "yes" and make up a rule for some action, they end up with a rule that makes the action not worth taking. For instance, the example you give for a winged kobold might be called flying, but he really isn't flying; and the example for invis is a clear "no" during heroic tier, at least.


I thought the point was to show that 4e DMs won't allow anything that the rules don't explicitly spell out already, not to show that 4e DMs will refuse some requests by players as being too powerful?
The point is that they say "no". Which excuse they pick for saying "no" (or saying "yes but it won't do anything", which is just another term for "no") is immaterial. Invisibility is not considered too powerful by half a dozen other RPGs I could mention, including 1E through 3.5E.

For instance, last time I asked about throwing somebody overboard off a ship. The answer the forum DM came up with was something like "make an attack roll followed by an opposed strength check, and then the enemy gets to make an athletics check followed by a saving throw". That translates as "no, don't bother trying to throw somebody off, just use One Of Your Powers".

This is endemic: if creative approaches were frequently more powerful than powers, then there's no point in having the power system. The problem is that the alternative tends to mean that there's often no point in a creative approach. This is probably a feature as it makes things easier on the DM.

[Asbestos]

I thought the point was to show that 4e DMs won't allow anything that the rules don't explicitly spell out already, not to show that 4e DMs will refuse some requests by players as being too powerful?

Us 4e DMs, we sure hate our players :smallamused:

I know that I love that one section of the DMG on 'actions not in the rules' (or whatever it is, pg 32? I can never remember despite using it so often) Its probably the most useful part of the DMG, IMO.

I also wouldn't go calling the DMG 'obscure' or 'little used'. Everyone that I know of that DMs 4e has the DMG (and bought the DMG, PHB, and MM as a package)

[Tiki Snakes]

Re: The Ring - Ah yes, so it is. My bad. I misread it as being more in-line with the numerous flight-granting items.

Re: Obsfucate - Yeah, but no. For one Dot in the Masquerade (oWoD?) you get to
• Cloak of Shadows [1]: Remain hidden so long as you do not move
For one Dot in Requiem (nWoD?) you get to
• Touch of Shadow
The vampire may conceal items on their person from sight
In oWoD you needed two dots to become invisible "Until you attracted attention" (Attacked?)
In masquerade, you need 3 dots to do more or less the same.

So, basically, one dot in obsfucate does not do that. At best, it is equivalent in power to a good hide check. At best, a good 4th ed stealth check can do MORE.

And they are mind affecting powers, so in theory, wouldn't affect mindless creatures, which dnd at least has plenty of. Really, the invisibility issue is mostly a case of 'what do you actually want to do with it?' If it's a matter of stealthy shenanigans, that's exactly what stealth is for. If it's so nothing can ever find or target you, well, that's a wee bit munchkin in it's direction, and I'd possibly be more wary of giving access to such a thing.

Also, bare in mind, a Gnome at LVL 1 can turn invisible for a little bit every 5 minutes, then take a feat to attack whilst invisible, take a feat to remain concealed when hidden if attacking with a ranged or area attack, etc.
A Wizards Invisibility power is Sustainable, so once a day, for as long as you care to concentrate. There's even an entire Wizard Paragon Path devoted to being invisible as much as possible.

You can't really expect to get everything at level 1. In your own example, it takes till level6 for the Warlock to become invisible. I don't recall a 3.5 class that gets Invisibility of such a sort any time sooner, though there may be, given how many exist. Still, Warlocks are considered 'Low Tier' because of their low damage and so on, I understood, or lack of save-or-dies. Imagine them without their (frankly in other classes hands over-powering) abilities, like flight, spiderclimb, or invisibility all day every day.

If the Character Concept is that they are masters of the invisible, however, that's an easy fit for 4th, frankly.

Worth noting by the way, reguarding the Kobold, that solution is intended to mirror the Dragonwrought Kobold of 3.5 SPECIFICALLY. Who had to spend a feat to get wings at all, and could at best glide. Similarly, he had to spend quite a few feats to actually be able to fly at all, really, and feats are less plentifull in 3.5.

Clumsy Flight is a very fair way of giving a low level character flight, imo, because it avoids any possible cheesiness via penalties to attack (As far as I remember) Whilst still allowing actual flight, without other limit. For races that, unlike the Dragonwrought Kobold, are more likely to be considered 'True Fliers', well, It depends. They'd be a careful Homebrew job. I'd probably not give them a 'normal' fly speed at level1. The alternatives are clumsy, and possibly overland, but I can't entirely remember the overland rules.

The safest way would be simply giving them an at-will power that lets them fly their speed, but they fall if they don't land. Then, if it's an issue, you could tack on an overland flight speed and/or clumsy later, at a cost of a feat or so. Such a race would probably not get any other racial power at lvl1 though, because flying is quite enough.

[its_all_ogre]

For instance, last time I asked about throwing somebody overboard off a ship. The answer the forum DM came up with was something like "make an attack roll followed by an opposed strength check, and then the enemy gets to make an athletics check followed by a saving throw". That translates as "no, don't bother trying to throw somebody off, just use One Of Your Powers".

bull rush, they get a save to avoid falling off, instead falling prone.
per the raw, simple.
as for the invisible/flight thing, it does change massively based on system.
both are masively powerful if you are running a combat campaign, not so much for challenging players, but if yo want them to go up a level or whatever before facing the big bad.
players use invisible and flight, as they should if roleplaying their characters well and have no reason not to, bypassing all the tasty xp.

now you have to either nerf the boss or give them the xp for bypassing the encounters, which some do not like.(i would just give them the xp but there you go)
now lets list all the games you do not get invisibility/flight at low levels or indeed at all.
WFRP, vampire(as pointed out above), deadlands, dungeoneer and i'm sure there are others.
now comparing lists will bring a more even picture.
however surely this is as always simple, if you don't like it, don't play it. if you do then play it.

[NecroRebel]

Okay, simple example. I want to play a low-level chararacter that can become invisible at will, for extended periods of time. What do you think the average 4E DM would say to that?

You're moving the goalposts, Kurald. You said:


...all the rest of the rulebooks clearly say "no you can't" [to things that the books don't specifically allow].

And, of course, they don't.

Claiming that "Oh, the DM might say 'no' to something means the rulebooks say 'no' to the same thing" is badly flawed reasoning.

As, mind you, are comparisons to other games where an example ability (becoming permanently and limitlessly invisible) isn't overpowered, and saying that because it is (or even might be) overpowered in 4E that it being banned in 4E means that 4E says you should always say "no" to these things.

The DMG, as was mentioned previously, makes the "Yes, and..." improvisational aid explicitly encouraged for roleplaying and even combat mechanical purposes. It implicitly encourages something similar for out-of-combat mechanical purposes - to use your example, the DM is encouraged to sit down with the player who wants to become perpetually invisible at low levels, whatever those may mean, and say "Alright, you want perpetual invisibility, let's see if we can't make this balanced." And homebrew something.



And for your example of pushing someone off the ship, that should've been a simple bull rush or push effect. It's not the rules' fault that the DM in question wasn't familiar with the rules that govern that exact situation. Rather, it is the DM's fault that they aren't familiar with the rules.

Also:
Note the difference: 3E warlock/6 can become invisible whenever he likes, for up to 24 hours a day; 4E wizard/6 can become invisible once per day, for up to five minutes assuming he doesn't attack anyone in the meantime. So, yeah. And warlocks are considered a low-tier class in 3E, despite their nigh-permanent invis.

In Rifts, it's expected that most characters deal 100-400 damage, per attack, with some of the crappiest available equipment, at level 1. What's your point? Different systems, different paradigms, different numbers, different things that are considered powerful or not.

And:
Okay, that's the first answer here that's actually close to a "yes". However, the problem in the past has been that whenever 4E DMs in this forum say "yes" and make up a rule for some action, they end up with a rule that makes the action not worth taking. For instance, the example you give for a winged kobold might be called flying, but he really isn't flying; and the example for invis is a clear "no" during heroic tier, at least.

The point is that they say "no". Which excuse they pick for saying "no" (or saying "yes but it won't do anything", which is just another term for "no") is immaterial. Invisibility is not considered too powerful by half a dozen other RPGs I could mention, including 1E through 3.5E.

Once more, you're confusing DMs that are inflexible or aren't sure how to adjudicate odd actions well with the rules being inflexible and incapable of adjudicating odd actions at all.

Also, assuming that, because one thing is possible or easy in one system, it should be possible and easy in another system is idiotic. It's like saying that because I could go to the store today and buy a computer that I should've been able to go to the store five hundred years ago and buy a computer.



tl;dr: You've changed what you're arguing from attacking the books to attacking your DMs. Stop it.

[Burley]

Um... What he said?

But, really: Compare 4e to 4e, because that's what the thread is about.