4E?

[The New Bruceski]

There's a second preview that disallows several combos from the first preview. For instance, sneak attack only works on rogue powers, just like fighter marking only works on fighter powers.

Do you know if this is only for hybrid characters, or a general rule for all multiclassing? Wondering if I should make a note of it.

[Yakk]

Say, how are the Hybrids? From the preview, they seemed really easy to break (2nd Level Rogue/Warlock, I'm looking at you :smalltongue:).
A 2nd level Rogue/Warlock can cross a crowded street under stealth at full speed until they attack (their stealth just has to beat the passive perception of everyone in the street, unless someone is actively looking for the character), is that what you are talking about?

The Rogue/Warlock still needs full cover/superior concealment to enter into stealth.

And I think you can pull off the same trick by level 4 or 6 with multiclassing.

When I mentioned flight, what I was thinking of was The Dark Crystal, which is most definitely not an adventure undertaken by Paragon or Epic characters. 4E can't model a Gelfling accurately, because of balance concerns. Sure, you could add a Paragon or Epic racial feat that allows that feature, but that's nonetheless a sacrifice for the sake of mechanical balance.
No, 4E cannot model The Dark Crystal with flying Gelfling PCs out of the box without houseruling.

Once again, this isn't so much balance as "fundamentally changes what kind of obstacles are obstacles". You can change this yourself (yes, houserules), but by placing a presumption of when these things become common, they make it easier to keep the DM's adventure preparation and the Player's character designs more orthogonal.

I wonder if that is a fundamental principle -- it seems to show up in 4e. That adventure generation, and character design, are orthogonal processes. In essence, you can DM 4e without knowing how to make a 4e PC, or even what choices your PCs made in character creation; you don't have to be an expert on your PCs characters and classes to create and run a fun game. I suppose this falls into the "make the DM's job easier".

Do you know if this is only for hybrid characters, or a general rule for all multiclassing? Wondering if I should make a note of it.
No, it is just hybrids.

Hybrid rogues get a Hybrid Sneak Attack feature that works on any Rogue power while using a light blade etc.

Multiclass rogues get a once/encounter Sneak Attack that works on any attack using a light blade etc.

Normal rogues get a Sneak Attack that works on any attack using a light blade etc.

Basically the "rider on attack" powers tend to be left at full power, but restricted to being used when you use powers from the class. This helps when dealing with things like Barbarian strikers (where most of their striker is in the power), vs Rogue/Ranger strikers (where most of the striker is in the class feature).

Multiclassing deals with it by having a feat tax to pull off these combos; Hybrids have no such feat tax. It wouldn't be hard to imagine a feat tax option that lets you use Hybrid Blah on powers outside of your class 1/encounter to level the playing field with multiclass characters.

[Indon]

Once again, this isn't so much balance as "fundamentally changes what kind of obstacles are obstacles".
The system's strict maintenance of capability versus challenge is a large part of the game's balance - since obviously, providing options for different levels of capability would lead to the same situation that exists in 3.5.

[Yakk]

The system's strict maintenance of capability versus challenge is a large part of the game's balance - since obviously, providing options for different levels of capability would lead to the same situation that exists in 3.5.That is a different kind of balance. I wasn't aware that that was what was being talked about.

There is inter-character balance (you could also call this 'spotlight defence' maybe?), and there is character-DM balance (you could call this 'power moderation' maybe?), and there is character-option balance (you could call this 'system mastery control').

4e has power moderation; it presumes level 1 characters cannot do 1000 damage and fly to the moon in a turn (and far less than this).

4e has spotlight defence; it is hard to make a non-striker overshadow a striker (it is possible, but it is hard).

4e has system mastery control; there is some attempt to avoid tempting build option choices that actually make your character ineffective.

4e is not perfect at any of the above.

By 'balance' do you refer to one, or all, or any of the above sub categories? (The terms I used are pretty made up, I just wanted to have a word to use to describe them)

[Indon]

By 'balance' do you refer to one, or all, or any of the above sub categories? (The terms I used are pretty made up, I just wanted to have a word to use to describe them)

I was referring to all the categories of balance in general, but the specific example of flight restriction promotes all three, by limiting what players can do in general, in relation to each other (unless you gave all players flight, which wouldn't be anyone's objective), and in relation to their other options.

In fact, I daresay that there isn't much distinction between 'spotlight defense' and 'system mastery control', as any system which lacks one will lack the other, and any system which possesses one must possess the other.

That is to say, any system in which some players have the ability to 'steal the spotlight' is breakable in system mastery terms by choosing that option.

Any system which is breakable through mastery would allow a player to overshadow players who are not using that option.

So I daresay that in effect, those two seemingly distinct concepts are the same type of balance, narrowing down balance to player balance (player-player) and challenge balance (player-dm).

[Oracle_Hunter]

A 2nd level Rogue/Warlock can cross a crowded street under stealth at full speed until they attack (their stealth just has to beat the passive perception of everyone in the street, unless someone is actively looking for the character), is that what you are talking about?

The Rogue/Warlock still needs full cover/superior concealment to enter into stealth.

And I think you can pull off the same trick by level 4 or 6 with multiclassing.
Yeah, cheap invisibility.
(1) Shadow Walk means when you moves 3 or more squares, you gains concealment until the end of your next turn.
(2) Ghost Step (Rogue Utility 2) removes the stealth penalty for moving at full speed.
(3) A hidden character is treated as invisible

So, the Warlock stands behind a brick wall and moves 3 to gain Concealment, and then walks into the alley. He starts from Total Concealment (there's a wall in the way) and gains Concealment before leaving it. So long as he moves at least 3 a turn (overlapping Shadow Walk effects) and keeps making his stealth checks, he is invisible until he attacks.

Before Hybrid, he needed to be a LV 8 Warlock (MC Utility has 8th level as a requirement) to pull this off. Considering the general power level at that point, this sounds about right.

With Hybrid he can pull this off at LV 2 - which is incredibly outside the power level. Why? Because it means a, say, Halfling Feylock, can go anywhere he wants invisibly provided he doesn't talk or attack - all by making a Stealth check when he gets out of bed in the morning. And who's going to beat that +11 (16 Dex + Racial + Train + 1/2 LV) Stealth Check with their Passive Perception?

Better yet, if he's a Gnome he can get permanent stealth if someone takes a swing at him.
Did they fix that? And similar abusive combinations?

[Yakk]

Did they fix that? And similar abusive combinations?
Not yet; but PHB3 isn't out yet (we just have Beta Dragon content).

Stealthed characters aren't invisible; invisible characters aren't stealthed. (You know where an invisible character is unless the invisible character makes a stealth check; the invisible character does get a bonus for being concealed from your vision!)

Stealth just means "they don't know where you are". Which I suppose is pretty strong. :)

Note that a warlock can do this without MC at level 2 by taking a -5 penalty to their stealth checks. Halfling Warlock with Background: Urban and Skill Focus: Stealth can get a +3 (stat) +0 (level) +2 (racial) +5 (trained) +3 (focus) -5 (moving more than 2 squares) = +8 stealth modifier, and walk right in front of a guard.

The level 2 hybrid only has a +3 over this character (admittedly, the level 2 hybrid could have taken skill focus:stealth to up that to a +6).


I was referring to all the categories of balance in general, but the specific example of flight restriction promotes all three, by limiting what players can do in general, in relation to each other (unless you gave all players flight, which wouldn't be anyone's objective), and in relation to their other options.
Having common flight doesn't have to break spotlight monopolies, nor does it have to be better than other options; a ramping up of general power can fix this problem.


In fact, I daresay that there isn't much distinction between 'spotlight defense' and 'system mastery control', as any system which lacks one will lack the other, and any system which possesses one must possess the other.
They are distinct; 4e does spotlight defence by making it easy to be a damage dealing striker, and a tough defender.

One can argue that superior two handed weapons and fighter powers can lead to spotlight defence problems where a fighter makes a better striker than (say) a warlock can be.

If there where many possible ways of being a damaging striker, of which 2/5 sucked horribly, then that would be a 'system mastery control' balance problem. The striker might still be better at striking than any non-striker, but still be incompetent at their job.

The starlock might be an example of a poor 'system mastery control' balance in 4e: it has a mixture of con and cha based attacks, and int riders, that make the obvious path one that can easily be seriously sub-optimal.

That is to say, any system in which some players have the ability to 'steal the spotlight' is breakable in system mastery terms by choosing that option.
But you can have 'spotlight' problems without system mastery problems, sort of. And you can definitely have system mastery problems without spotlight problems.

Any system which is breakable through mastery would allow a player to overshadow players who are not using that option.
Not always. A game where there are 5 distinct roles, you might be ridiculously incompetent or good at (say) fighting, but this doesn't matter when the diplomacy character has their turn with the spotlight.

The system mastery problem can still occur even if you each have a spotlight niche, because your character might be the designated fighting character, yet because you forgot to take 'perfect defence' your character is unviable. Or maybe your diplomacy character didn't take the defence ability, so the character dies when anyone looks at them harshly.

You could put this into challenge balance, I suppose.

So I daresay that in effect, those two seemingly distinct concepts are the same type of balance, narrowing down balance to player balance (player-player) and challenge balance (player-dm).

[Mando Knight]

Did they fix that? And similar abusive combinations?

How about the fact that you don't stay hidden if you attack?

[Oracle_Hunter]

How about the fact that you don't stay hidden if you attack?
I'm willing to take that in order to, say, scout out the entire enemy fortress without being noticed.

Or to walk through the bandit camp to the prisoner tent without being noticed.

Or even scout ahead of the party to point out any ambushes.

Seriously, even limited Perma-Invisibility at LV 2 is ridiculously powerful. Heck, it doesn't even have a 5 minute cap!

EDIT: And the ever popular "hit and run" since all you need to regain invisibility is to gain Total Concealment from any observers and use a Move action.

[AllisterH]

You can see that 4e is really focused on making the DM life easier (DMG1 & 2, the monster builder) since I think WOTC realized something....

The limiting factor for D&D has never really been finding people willing to play, especially in the Internet age, it has been finding people willing to DM.

Make that easier/more fun and you'll get more groups.

[Indon]

If there where many possible ways of being a damaging striker, of which 2/5 sucked horribly, then that would be a 'system mastery control' balance problem. The striker might still be better at striking than any non-striker, but still be incompetent at their job.
All right, here I see more clearly what you mean about 'system mastery control'.

I question that that is a type of balance at all. I think that's a learning curve issue.

In no system where options are meant to exist are all options meant to be equal. Some systems reward understanding superior options more than others - reducing that reward may balance the comparative effectiveness of players with each other, or streamline encounter predictability, but in and of itself, what is it intended to balance in and of itself?

To more clearly demonstrate my point, let's take each form of balance to its' extreme.

With player-player balance at its' extreme, it is impossible for a player to perform a task that he is not designated to do, better than another player who is designated to perform that task. Nothing seems wrong with that.

With player-DM balance at its' extreme, it is impossible for a player to surprise a DM in a well-prepared encounter. This result may have undesirable consequences, but in and of itself, that result does not seem problematic.

With 'system mastery' balance at its' extreme, it is impossible for a player to choose a more effective option. This result strikes me as extremely undesirable, not what we would want to do at all when we try to balance a game.

Thus I would assert that what you call system mastery, consists simply of learning curve issues that are affected, albeit significantly, by what I would describe as the 'actual' balance concerns, that is to say our endgoals when we set out to balance a game.

[jmbrown]

Yeah, cheap invisibility.
(1) Shadow Walk means when you moves 3 or more squares, you gains concealment until the end of your next turn.
(2) Ghost Step (Rogue Utility 2) removes the stealth penalty for moving at full speed.
(3) A hidden character is treated as invisible

So, the Warlock stands behind a brick wall and moves 3 to gain Concealment, and then walks into the alley. He starts from Total Concealment (there's a wall in the way) and gains Concealment before leaving it. So long as he moves at least 3 a turn (overlapping Shadow Walk effects) and keeps making his stealth checks, he is invisible until he attacks.

Before Hybrid, he needed to be a LV 8 Warlock (MC Utility has 8th level as a requirement) to pull this off. Considering the general power level at that point, this sounds about right.

With Hybrid he can pull this off at LV 2 - which is incredibly outside the power level. Why? Because it means a, say, Halfling Feylock, can go anywhere he wants invisibly provided he doesn't talk or attack - all by making a Stealth check when he gets out of bed in the morning. And who's going to beat that +11 (16 Dex + Racial + Train + 1/2 LV) Stealth Check with their Passive Perception?

Better yet, if he's a Gnome he can get permanent stealth if someone takes a swing at him.
Did they fix that? And similar abusive combinations?

What's this hybrid you're talking about?

[nightwyrm]

What's this hybrid you're talking about?

It's a system released as a playtest on Dragon that's going to be in the PHB3. Essentially, it splits all the classes in half so you can mix and match two classes into one class.

[jseah]

I would have said that scouting is part of adventuring. As in, your party are generally considered to be a group of adventurers, as opposed to craftsmen making baskets for a living. And yes, a significant part of adventuring does involve dealing with risk, which requires a method of conflict resolution.

Now, if you consider the typical activities performed by adventurers to be combat, then yes, the 4e rulebooks are very heavily focused on combat. But then again, with such a definition of combat, that would also be true of every previous edition of D&D as well.
Excuse me, I would just like to point out something from 3.5. See the utility wizard spells. I posted something like this before on non-combat wizards who make the party's life easier by avoiding combat instead of helping to fight them.

Not quite possible in 4E. (those utilities only help when used in large numbers or when they are cheap, something not present in rituals)


Let me see. My question was:
You're claiming 4e characters can't function as scouts, diplomats or researchers without house rules? Or are you simply claiming that those are also combat roles in 4e?
What did you find unclear about that?
- They can't be specialized in 4E. And yes, they are non-combat roles.

I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?
Non-combat roles are perfectly viable for adventurers and can, in fact, make significant contributions to the party. A librarian, or sage, who travels with the party can point out safe locations/weak points, enemy behaviour and habits, and apply non-combat magic (if any) to gather more information.
The group applies their force more efficiently, are harder to ambush and are better prepared. Hardly not contributing.

The strategic view in RPGs is not something a videogame can do. Since 4E has only the mundane talky/ritual things that any class can do, with no specialization for the strategic element, 4E can feel like a videogame by shoveling all characters into predictable combat roles.

[Tiki Snakes]

- They can't be specialized in 4E. And yes, they are non-combat roles.

Non-combat roles are perfectly viable for adventurers and can, in fact, make significant contributions to the party. A librarian, or sage, who travels with the party can point out safe locations/weak points, enemy behaviour and habits, and apply non-combat magic (if any) to gather more information.
The group applies their force more efficiently, are harder to ambush and are better prepared. Hardly not contributing.

The strategic view in RPGs is not something a videogame can do. Since 4E has only the mundane talky/ritual things that any class can do, with no specialization for the strategic element, 4E can feel like a videogame by shoveling all characters into predictable combat roles.

So ignore your class's 'main attribute' and pump everything you can into skill training and rituals. Bingo, you're a Sage, can travel with the party pointing out safe locations, weak points, enemy behaviour and habits, and non-combat-magic (Rituals). As you have no interest in being combat viable, the cost of rituals is a non-issue, so you cast them all you like. The time, likewise, isn't relavent, as you aren't a combat character anyway, and it's only really in combat that per-round stuff is important.

Of course, I'd rather have a Real Adventurer in my own party, so they could do most of the same as the above, and actually help when the crap hit the fan, but that's beside the point. :)

[jseah]

The time, likewise, isn't relevant, as you aren't a combat character anyway, and it's only really in combat that per-round stuff is important.
Oh but the time is important too. If you're outside the walls of an enemy castle, you can't afford to stand in the same spot for 10 minutes casting a divination ritual just to know when the change of guard comes. (and you can't cast beforehand since you didn't know there was a guard)

And if you're going to run around getting prepared, knowing which questions to ask is a problem. Unless you burn some 10 to 20 divinations on "what to bring". In which case, the cost is a problem.
Or if you're going to port through each door (they have tamper-sensors on the locks) the cost for ritual teleports quickly becomes exorbitant.

You also cannot make a safe area (via long standing illusion or extra dimensional space) to retreat to, give emergency escapes or even get through a thick stone wall.

Elementary defenses foil you, even in paragon and perhaps epic. I'm talking about as simple things as a barred adamantine door with regular patrols.

And you will still have dailies, encounters and at wills. Where's the specialization in that?


Of course, I'd rather have a Real Adventurer in my own party, so they could do most of the same as the above, and actually help when the crap hit the fan, but that's beside the point. :)
And if it's pointless (meaning highly inefficient) to play one, then it's patently a bad choice. Which makes the "over-prepared" play style unplayable.

Really, the system encourages a kick-in-the-door approach to a military situation. And it's the most efficient way since you've got all these kick-ass powers which blow things up.

[hr]
EDIT: I mean that the entire game is focused on tactics.
Use what power, when, and to what effect? Shall I help my teammate or destroy that enemy?

The larger view, the reason for fighting that battle or even the war itself, is left to the "story" and unsupported by character creation rules.

[Yakk]

All right, here I see more clearly what you mean about 'system mastery control'.

I question that that is a type of balance at all. I think that's a learning curve issue.
People use the term 'balance' to refer to it.

Ie, "that feat is imbalanced, because it is something every character should take".

Weapon Expertise (or some other *Expertise) in 4e is an example of such an imbalance. It is so good that not taking it (at least by mid/late-heroic) is almost guaranteed to be a bad idea. If you haven't taken it by level 16, you are almost certainly screwing up.

It isn't a spotlight problem or a player-DM balance problem; it is a problem that it requires (some) system mastery to know "don't take nimble blade or that fun looking crit power; it sucks. Instead, take weapon expertise."

In a system with robust "system mastery control", the options presented to the player won't be full of "newbie traps". The options could differ considerably, but they are all roughly as good. Or maybe there are "poor options" or "dangerous options"; if so, they are clearly labelled as such.


In no system where options are meant to exist are all options meant to be equal. Some systems reward understanding superior options more than others - reducing that reward may balance the comparative effectiveness of players with each other, or streamline encounter predictability, but in and of itself, what is it intended to balance in and of itself?
If your selection of options are imbalanced, then the range of options could easily be an illusion if you care about character competence.

The introduction of * expertise feats to 4e actually reduced the design space of 4e characters, because entire collections of low-level feats became bad choices until you got your requisite expertise feat.

In a system with more "system expertise balance", the set of choices presented to a character are more "balanced" against each other.

To more clearly demonstrate my point, let's take each form of balance to its' extreme.
Taking any kind of design principle to an extreme generates a ridiculous game.

With player-player balance at its' extreme, it is impossible for a player to perform a task that he is not designated to do, better than another player who is designated to perform that task. Nothing seems wrong with that.
If you go extreme, it is impossible for a character to perform any task that another
character has spotlight rights over. It just doesn't work.

With player-DM balance at its' extreme, it is impossible for a player to surprise a DM in a well-prepared encounter. This result may have undesirable consequences, but in and of itself, that result does not seem problematic.
In the extreme, the results of each encounter are predetermined, and player choice does not impact how the plot goes.

The softer kind of 'system mastery balance', each choice the game system presents to the player is balanced against the others. None dominates any other, all are viable choices that are not 'dumb'. There are no newbie traps. There are no hidden combos that dominate the alternatives.

And here you present the more extreme version:

With 'system mastery' balance at its' extreme, it is impossible for a player to choose a more effective option. This result strikes me as extremely undesirable, not what we would want to do at all when we try to balance a game.

A system without system mastery control might have the option to play a fighter or a paladin. Both have the same spotlight of melee-powerhouse; but paladins are strictly better than fighters. Maybe there is some token bonus to fighters; but it isn't worth what you give up.

[oxybe]

that all depends on how one views magic though.

should magic be the be-all, end-all in efficiency? if so why? because it's magic? i personally disliked the fact that a wizard could just go "ho hum a problem..." *6 seconds later* "problem solved!" .

if you want magic to solve all your problems without any real effort or expenditure of resources, then 4th ed isn't for you.

then again, breaking into a fortress shouldn't just be easy, in either heroic or paragon, IMO. if it was, there would be very few fortresses if you could just "scry and die". most who could afford fortresses would have to be able to afford protection via magical veils called "DM fiat" or "ridiculously over-prepared with more wards & guards then a dwarf has hairs on his chin".

[jseah]

then again, breaking into a fortress shouldn't just be easy, in either heroic or paragon, IMO. if it was, there would be very few fortresses if you could just "scry and die". most who could afford fortresses would have to be able to afford protection via magical veils called "DM fiat" or "ridiculously over-prepared with more wards & guards then a dwarf has hairs on his chin".
That is true. Breaking into a fortress is not something that you can just do easily. And yet attacking the front gate is something that is more likely to succeed than sneaking in the back. There's something wrong with that.

If they have protection from teleport, then the barred adamantine door isn't just a barred door anymore. It's a barred door you can't teleport to bypass. Now you need to get rid of the anti-teleport before bypassing it, or get rid of the door, or one of myriad number of other ways to get through the obstacle.


that all depends on how one views magic though.

should magic be the be-all, end-all in efficiency? if so why? because it's magic? i personally disliked the fact that a wizard could just go "ho hum a problem..." *6 seconds later* "problem solved!" .

if you want magic to solve all your problems without any real effort or expenditure of resources, then 4th ed isn't for you.
And a non-deadly combat is "real effort"? One where the players can't lose but might need a healing surge they get back in a few hours rest? (can't possibly die to a gate guard unless they misjudged the situation badly)

It's the same thing. A strategic situation is just like a combat, but over a longer time and space scale.
:::
I need to get into that castle but they want to keep me out.
Should I burn an illusion over at the gate to distract the guards? We can bypass that encounter but then we'll have problems scaling the wall after...
Or perhaps I should use it (whatever daily resource) to get a better idea of their defenses and priority targets to make combats easier?
:::
This is very similar to the problems faced by characters in combat, but on a larger scale. It places the combats into perspective. You know why and what you're doing, instead of just charging in and hoping to grab whatever McGuffin is sitting in the dungeon.

That entire part of the game cannot have anyone doing it to any relevant extent. Rituals are too weak, the number of applications needed to generate the effect desired costs too much.
There is no specialized control over the strategic element in 4E. (all characters can talk, but no character can do something that's not tactical combat that another character cannot do)

Wizards being OP is 3.5's weakness. The at will, encounter (5 min recharge) and daily is good 4E system of resource limitation. Application of that resource to something other than direct combat would be nice.

[Kurald Galain]

So ignore your class's 'main attribute' and pump everything you can into skill training and rituals. Bingo, you're a Sage,

Actually you're not: by doing so you do not become meaningfully more skilled at anything than a regular adventurer. You can get more skills, but not get any that wouldn't be covered by a normal party, and not get more ranks in any than other people do.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually you're not: by doing so you do not become meaningfully more skilled at anything than a regular adventurer. You can get more skills, but not get any that wouldn't be covered by a normal party, and not get more ranks in any than other people do.

I guess you could get quite skill happy on skill focuses, but still, yeah....the slight advantage in overall skill proficiency would be made up for by completely sucking in combat.

My usual group got sufficiently annoyed with it to make a prestige class that is basically a rogue with a greater number of skill points, and skill focused abilities for the price of no sneak attack, etc progression. It's still somewhat useful in combat, but it's value is in giving a true skill monkey somewhere to shine. Would also make a good factotum PrC.

[Renchard]

that all depends on how one views magic though.

should magic be the be-all, end-all in efficiency? if so why? because it's magic? i personally disliked the fact that a wizard could just go "ho hum a problem..." *6 seconds later* "problem solved!" .

if you want magic to solve all your problems without any real effort or expenditure of resources, then 4th ed isn't for you.

then again, breaking into a fortress shouldn't just be easy, in either heroic or paragon, IMO. if it was, there would be very few fortresses if you could just "scry and die". most who could afford fortresses would have to be able to afford protection via magical veils called "DM fiat" or "ridiculously over-prepared with more wards & guards then a dwarf has hairs on his chin".

I think what the point might be (and not to put words into anyone's mouth, I apologize in advance), isn't so much about magic, but what magic allowed you to do in 3.5, which is, succinctly, player empowerment.

Having access to magic in 3.5 allows the player to set the contours of the scenarios they face, with little the DM can do about it besides escalating counter-measures or hardcore nerfing. If you want to break the front door of the fortress down, you can. Or you can teleport. Or you can scry first. Or charm a guard. Or go invisible and sneak in the sewers. Or commune to make sure there aren't otyughs in the sewer first. Or just cast "Control Winds" on the fortress so it isn't there anymore. Ultimately, as a player, it's YOUR CALL. Is it any wonder that so many people find moving from 3.5 to 4e so depressing? You've lost a textbook of options to go to variations of "I attack with my spell THIS WAY".

4e encounters are ultimately DM designed set pieces. If the party wants to go in the sewer, you design the sewer set piece. If they find a ritual to teleport into the throne room, you make a throne room set piece. If they talk their way into the castle, you make a diplomacy skill challenge and then use the throne room set piece anyway.

I think it's pretty obvious why 3.5 is so much better in this regard. In 3.5, you can face the situation in a multitude of ways, like sneaking into the sewers with magic or teleporting into the castle with magic or charming the guards with magic. This eventually leads to a climactic fight where your fighter is power attacking melee monsters and you cast a SoD on the big bad guy. In 4e, no matter what your players do to solve the situation, like sneak into the sewer set piece or use the teleport ritual or have a diplomacy skill challenge, they just get to fight some lovingly crafted encounter that lasts for 10 rounds of tactically challenging play that involves everyone equally.

[jseah]

This eventually leads to a climactic fight where your fighter is power attacking melee monsters and you cast a SoD on the big bad guy.
Not all the time. Some times, the wizard makes a mistake and you get caught, thrown in jail and executed the following morning. =)

Or maybe the rouge busts you out with concealed lockpicks. Or the fighter's allies come riding in to shoot you free.


<...> allows the player to set the contours of the scenarios they face <...>
But yeah, that's close to the point I was trying to make but couldn't put in words.

[AllisterH]

That's not actually too different.

You're basically saying "let's magic our way in" which is why you end up with silly scenarios such as an entire Antimagic zone.

There should be a cost to magic and a reason why you would want to actually use mundane skills.

Otherwise you might as well play Ars Magica. (Much better magic system IMO)

[Drager]

The following comment may seem like a personal attack, it isn't meant that way it is just that Renchard put my argument so succinctly, but backwards that it was easier (and hopefully makes the point better) than typing up something similar.

No offense is intended. Everyone's opinions are equally valid.


I think what the point might be (and not to put words into anyone's mouth, I apologize in advance), isn't so much about magic, but what magic allowed you to do in 3.5, which is, succinctly, player disablement.

Not having access to magic in 3.5 prevents the player from setting the contours of the scenarios they face, with little the DM can do about it besides escalating power levels or hardcore buffing. If you want to break the front door of the fortress down, you can't. You can't teleport. You can't scry first. Or charm a guard. Or go invisible and sneak in the sewers. Or commune to make sure there aren't otyughs in the sewer first. Or just cast "Control Winds" on the fortress so it isn't there anymore. Ultimately, as a player, it's NOT YOUR CALL. Is it any wonder that so many people find moving from 3.5 to 4e so liberating? You've lost a textbook of options to go to a larger textbook.

4e encounters are ultimately DM designed set pieces, just like in 3.5. If the party wants to go in the sewer, you design the sewer set piece, but they can do it with no magic or with magic. If they find a ritual to teleport into the throne room, you make a throne room set piece, just like teleporting for 3.5. If they talk their way into the castle, you make a diplomacy skill challenge, unlike the dull, automatic success/failure of 3.5 and then use the throne room set piece anyway, just like 3.5.

I think it's pretty obvious why 3.5 is so much worse in this regard. In 4E, you can face the situation in a multitude of ways, like sneaking into the sewers with or without magic or teleporting into the castle with magic or charming the guards with magic, or talking your way past the guards without magic, or climbing the wallls with or without magic. This eventually leads to a climactic fight where your fighter is power attacking melee monsters and you cast a GotG on the big bad guy. In 3.5 and 4e, no matter what your players do to solve the situation, like sneak into the sewer set piece or use the teleport ritual or have a diplomacy skill challenge, they just get to fight some lovingly crafted encounter that lasts for 10 rounds of tactically challenging play that involves everyone equally.


*Fixed*

Thus in 4E all characters are useful and more options are available. It is terribly difficult for me to see why anyone would prefer the clunky 3E system to this. An exciting skill challenge folowed by, or including a combat encounter in 4E is something easily made by the DM on the fly or carefully crafted before hand, by preferecne. In 3.5 all the work had to be done initially or there was no way things were going to turn out fun, and then if you're players did something unexpected it was nearly impossible to cope. In 4E you jsut set a skill challenge or encounter (or a mix) up to cope with the new development, it take maybe a minute or two, but hten off you go. In 3.5 it ends the session.

[Kurald Galain]

No offense is intended. Everyone's opinions are equally valid.
Sure, but everyone's facts are not. You just mentioned that without magic, characters in 3.5 can't break down the front door of the fortress, or charm a guard, or sneak in the sewers, whereas by RAW they clearly can do all of that. Oops.

[jseah]

Magic accomplishes far more than just breaking down doors and entering. In 3.5 at least. You can avoid battles with magic.

Every situation had a specialist. A viable character concept (often magical) which would excel in that situation in ways that other characters could not achieve.
Often, these new ways involved different ways to do things. Not merely a +20 to a check. (although that is good too)

Put it another way. If you're sneaking into a castle, there should be some way to apply magic to help you get in.
[This is a genre assumption I'm making. Magic in D&D is the flashy, visible type. One that can duplicate many many mundane things. ]

And a character who specializes in this should be able to come up with unique and interesting ways to break security that isn't so easily predictable as "talking to the guards" or picking the lock on the gate.

[AllisterH]

You do realize that rituals can and do most of the things you want right?

What you seem to be arguing for jseah is that magic should be EASY and be the default solution for any problem...I kinda have to dsiagree with that as historically, this was NOT true pre 3.x

Magic should be better than mundane but it MUST come at a cost otherwise you might as well play Ars Magica (again, another plug for the best "Want to play a Mage?" RPG around...You can tell I love it)

[Kurald Galain]

In 3.5, you can face the situation in a multitude of ways, like sneaking into the sewers with magic or teleporting into the castle with magic or charming the guards with magic. This eventually leads to a climactic fight where your fighter is power attacking melee monsters and you cast a SoD on the big bad guy. In 4e, no matter what your players do to solve the situation, like sneak into the sewer set piece or use the teleport ritual or have a diplomacy skill challenge, they just get to fight some lovingly crafted encounter that lasts for 10 rounds of tactically challenging play that involves everyone equally.

Actually, the latter strikes me as bad adventure design; and badly designed adventures exist for any edition.

[jseah]

What you seem to be arguing for jseah is that magic should be EASY and be the default solution for any problem...I kinda have to disagree with that as historically, this was NOT true pre 3.x
To have dedicated character take care of a certain problem? Of course it'll be easy.

Easier at least. And if you apply magic, it should be easier than not. After all, you've got one more resource to play with.

You can be good at what you specialize in. You should be.


Magic should be better than mundane but it MUST come at a cost <...>
The cost of being good at something via specialization is that you aren't as good in others.
That's the cost. That's also where 3.5 screwed up. Magic didn't take enough of a character's resources.

You can't have a specialist for everything when you only have four party members. Generalizing a bit will take the edge of your specialist skills but ideally you shouldn't be covering ground other characters have already covered.

...
I think my concept of an "ideal" party is probably different from yours. An ideal party should have a few roles:
1) Combat power (aim to kill/disable enemies, does the hard work in combat)
2) Combat control (protect weaker members, guide flow of battle)
3) Intelligence (avoiding combat, anticipating enemies, knowing where to go)
4) Mobility (moves party around, gets them into places they can't, also the party face)

[Artanis]

If you want to break the front door of the fortress down, you can. Or you can teleport. Or you can scry first. Or charm a guard. Or go invisible and sneak in the sewers. Or commune to make sure there aren't otyughs in the sewer first. Or just cast "Control Winds" on the fortress so it isn't there anymore.

Let's see...

-Break down the door: 4e can too
-Teleport: 4e can too
-Scry: 4e can too
-Commune: 4e can too

So there's a bunch of stuff that 4e can do as well. Now let's look at the others.
-Using a charm spell on the guard and the going invisible are little more than ways to invalidate encounters. I will freely admit that 4e assumes that if a DM puts work into an encounter, it's because he actually wants it to mean something, rather than just be bypassed.
-Destroying the fortress with a spell, I don't even know where to start. You say it's a GOOD thing to make hours and hours of work go to waste by removing an ENTIRE ADVENTURE with a single spell? And not even a very imaginative spell-casting at that.

So this entire list breaks down into two categories: stuff 4e can also do, and stuff that crumples up hours of the DM's time and tosses it into the trash can. If you like the latter, then more power to you...but some people don't intend to waste their friends' time so blatantly and casually.

[AllisterH]

The cost of being good at something via specialization is that you aren't as good in others.
That's the cost. That's also where 3.5 screwed up. Magic didn't take enough of a character's resources.



What cost?

Pre 3.x, yeah there's a cost to magic namely in terms of resources(a.k.a knock takes up one of your only 5 2nd level slots) but when a wand of knock is dirt cheap, that's not a cost.

As for rituals, I think people tend to ignore them since frankly, at early levels, (1-5), they're expensive but by the time you hit late heroic, early paragon, cost is no longer factor.

The initial cost for most rituals is steep but for repeated use it is downright pennies in terms of cost and the fact that most rituals scale with the skill check result means that even that level 5 ritual such as Object Reading is STILL good to go.

What the ritual system doesnt allow for is last minute "oh wait, I have a scroll that invalidates this scenario and it only tames me 1 acton to cast".

There's probably a ritual that CAN do the same thing but a scroll takes 5 minutes (an encounter) so that a PC actually has to prepare ahead of time.

My group kind of likes using rituals during combat so we have simply state that the ritual user is out of combat for that encounter (and said person gets to roll the monster attack rolls)

Then again, my group sees ritual expenses as a party cost...That Object reading that revealed the last person to use that crossbow that led to the mastermind helps the entire party and as such, the expenses would be shared.

[PinkysBrain]

Just curious, at what level can you do some real illusions with 4e? Say create a convincing illusion of a dragon. Also at what levels can you create some long lasting walls and clouds during combat?

[Kurald Galain]

Just curious, at what level can you do some real illusions with 4e? Say create a convincing illusion of a dragon.
Never.

You can create the illusion of a dragon at level 12 (by paying 500 gp and taking 10 minutes). However, this illusion will never be convincing, at least not to anything that's a credible threat to you, because everyone gets a check to disbelieve it automatically when they first see it, and every time they interact with it, and automatically succeed at this check when touching it. Also, the illusion cannot move far away from its starting location, and its (re)actions must be preprogrammed, up to a maximum of 6 if you're really high level.


Also at what levels can you create some long lasting walls and clouds during combat?
Cloud at level 6, illusory wall at level 10, real wall at level 15. It depends on what you mean by long-lasting, though. The cloud and illusion last up to five minutes (or until combat is over, technically) as long as you spend a minor action on it each turn; the real wall (of ice) lasts an hour and requires no upkeep actions, but can be chopped through in a matter of seconds. The level-22 wall of force can likewise be punched through in a short amount of time.

This is for wizards; several other classes have similar effects. (edit) Interestingly, zones disappear immediately when the caster moves out of range (usually 50 feet) or passes unconscious, but walls have no such provision.

[AllisterH]

Just curious, at what level can you do some real illusions with 4e? Say create a convincing illusion of a dragon. Also at what levels can you create some long lasting walls and clouds during combat?


It actually depends on what you're going for.

If you got 10 minutes ahead of time,(5 with a scroll), you can create a illusory Large dragon that lasts 24 hours.Basically subject to the same restriction as you would expect (anyone that interacts closely with the dragon would notice something off - but say a scenario where your scout found a goblin encampment and you want to sow some chaos, an illusionary dragon flying overhead would do the trick).

As for walls and clouds - that's actually separated into two systems so to speak.

Wall of fog (level 6) and the other standbys exist but to maintain it, you have to sacrifice a minor action and it ends after 5 minutes/encounter.

For a permanent Wall, you're looking at Arcane Barrier (level 12 ritual) or Earthen Ramparts (Level 6)

[Renchard]

Let's see...

-Break down the door: 4e can too
-Teleport: 4e can too
-Scry: 4e can too
-Commune: 4e can too

So there's a bunch of stuff that 4e can do as well. Now let's look at the others.
-Using a charm spell on the guard and the going invisible are little more than ways to invalidate encounters. I will freely admit that 4e assumes that if a DM puts work into an encounter, it's because he actually wants it to mean something, rather than just be bypassed.
-Destroying the fortress with a spell, I don't even know where to start. You say it's a GOOD thing to make hours and hours of work go to waste by removing an ENTIRE ADVENTURE with a single spell? And not even a very imaginative spell-casting at that.

So this entire list breaks down into two categories: stuff 4e can also do, and stuff that crumples up hours of the DM's time and tosses it into the trash can. If you like the latter, then more power to you...but some people don't intend to waste their friends' time so blatantly and casually.

I may have needed to make more liberal use of :smallbiggrin:, but I wanted my tongue be so far in cheek it came out the other side.

I'll never DM 3.5 again, for precisely all the reasons you mentioned.

[jseah]

What the ritual system doesnt allow for is last minute "oh wait, I have a scroll that invalidates this scenario and it only tames me 1 acton to cast".

There's probably a ritual that CAN do the same thing but a scroll takes 5 minutes (an encounter) so that a PC actually has to prepare ahead of time.
I might like to point out that rituals have weak effects for their cost. If I wanted to build a stone wall, using rituals to do it is... subpar.

Some of them are useful only when spammable 20 times in a row. (the divination and scrying ones)
Or when used quickly. (Knock, don't want to be caught by patrols)

The cost of using a divination ritual 20 times is exorbitant for the miserly amount of information you get. (anyone up for 20 questions?)

There needs to be character options for speeding up rituals and lowering their cost. (maybe a daily that allows you to cast a ritual in two or three rounds instead of 5 mins)
(or an encounter that duplicates a low level ritual for free)
And most of the rituals need to be buffed.

It would be simpler to port 3.5's dominate person/monster into a Daily or a Divination / Scrying ritual into an Encounter. And perhaps a stronger Mage Hand as an At-Will.
I would certainly like to see the At-will, Encounter, Daily mechanic be used for something that isn't direct combat.

[Kurald Galain]

I might like to point out that rituals have weak effects for their cost. If I wanted to build a stone wall, using rituals to do it is... subpar.
This, oh so very much.

I've been playing a wizard for twelve levels now who has even bought numerous rituals (aside from the free ones wizards get), and despite me actively looking for situations to use them in, the only two that are ever useful are Hand of Fate and Tenser's Floating Disk.

(edit) but Arcane Barrier seems to actually work. Sure, it costs 1000 gp to put up and only covers two squares, but it has a huge bonus over the strength check needed to bypass it: you roll intelligence+15 once after chanting for 10 minutes, and your opponent gets to roll strength+0. However, he does get to roll every five seconds, if he wants. This means that (assuming equal assistence on both parties) you have a 75% chance of rolling so well that he simply can't cross, but a 25% chance that he'll be able to punch through in less than a minute, by rolling a die every round until he gets a 20. It won't work on phasing or teleporting enemies, but otherwise it's at least decent.

[AllisterH]

Well, here's where I will agree with you on one aspect.

Scrying rituals are NOT worth the cost IMO at any level. Change the duration on the skill check to minutes or 10s of minutes instead of rounds and I would actually go with them now. (Hours are right out as that would be way too strong)

(Conversely, the anti-scrying rituals are really strong compared to their 3.x versions)

As for their effectiveness of the other rituals, I tend to find them quite strong enough. For example, Earthen Ramparts can create a 10' ft high, 10' ft long wall in 10 minutes (5 by a scroll). Every 10 pts on the check, you can create another such wall within 50 feet of you so at a minimum, you're looking at a 20ft long wall, 10' high in 10 minutes

That's not powerful magic? How long do you think it would take to do this by MUNDANE means for one person?

Ouch, I think 3.x has spoiled us on what powerful magic is :smallsmile:

re: Wall of Ice
Actually, the 4e version seems to be stronger....3.x wall of ice lasted 1 min per level and only had 3 HP per inch of thickness and thickness was 1 inch per caster level.

What the ritual won't allow is for a 20th level wizard to create a wall of ice that has a total surface area of 200. The 4e ritual is locked at a fixed size of up to 60 feet and 30 feet high.

[Tyndmyr]

Magic accomplishes far more than just breaking down doors and entering. In 3.5 at least. You can avoid battles with magic.

You can also avoid battles without magic.

A great many magical effects can be duplicated by mundane means. And hey, it's not as if you only have access to magic if you're a full caster...most classes in 3.5 had innate access to some form of magic, either via casting, or via use magic device.

And hey, there are a great many magical items out there. Even the guy with twenty levels of fighter can have magical gear, a belt full of potions, and so forth.

If your only option is "kick down the door", either your DM is railroading you, or you aren't even trying to be creative.

[AllisterH]

Arcane Barrier

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the Strength DC of the barrier is your Arcane check + 5 which is basically your int mod + skill training (and really, arcane is that good, you mgiht as well throw in skill focus) for a total of int + 13....I don't remember there being an automatic success if you roll a 20 for ability and skill checks so why would you keep rolling?

[Kurald Galain]

re: Wall of Ice
Actually, the 4e version seems to be stronger....3.x wall of ice lasted 1 min per level and only had 3 HP per inch of thickness and thickness was 1 inch per caster level.
On the one hand, the 4E wall of ice lasts longer - on the other hand, 3E also has wall of iron and wall of stone, both of which are permanent.

Regarding hardness, the 3E version starts at 42 HP and goes up from there (3 per level, but takes half damage from most attacks, so effectively 6) whereas the 4E version is set at 50. Also, the latter is not immune to crits, and the rules are unclear as to whether you can coup-de-grace it for max damage. Wall of iron and wall of stone have so much more resilience that it's not even a contest.


I don't remember there being an automatic success if you roll a 20 for ability and skill checks so why would you keep rolling?
There's no automatic success, but (exempting skill focus, which is a pretty awful feat really) the caster has about a 25% chance of rolling low enough that a 20 is a regular success. If it is, then you would keep rolling because the rules let you reroll every turn until you get high enough. This chance becomes much higher if your ritual caster is not a wizard but, say, a cleric or invoker.

[CorvidMP]

Just curious, at what level can you do some real illusions with 4e? Say create a convincing illusion of a dragon. Also at what levels can you create some long lasting walls and clouds during combat?


Never.

You can create the illusion of a dragon at level 12 (by paying 500 gp and taking 10 minutes). However, this illusion will never be convincing, at least not to anything that's a credible threat to you....

Actually arcane power has an entire illusionist build for wizards, tons of illusion based powers. Not sure about walls and clouds but i think their are few more of those as well.

I understand you may not have known that, since its not one of the core books and all. But thats exactly why you shouldn't use blanket terms like "never' if your not up to date on your research :smallwink:

This may be one of the big problems in debates like this most of us are very familiar with 3e both its problems and its strengths, damn things been around for ages and most of have played it...alot, but alot of people who didn't like 4e haven't taken a look beyond the core release. Makes discussion of the systems difficult.

[jseah]

This may be one of the big problems in debates like this most of us are very familiar with 3e both its problems and its strengths, damn things been around for ages and most of have played it...alot, but alot of people who didn't like 4e haven't taken a look beyond the core release. Makes discussion of the systems difficult.
Actually, that is very true. I should take a look at classes with alternate mechanics. The problem is, of course, getting the books when I don't like the system.

[Aron Times]

Everyone needs to remember that the makers of 4E know that it is a game and built it accordingly. Games have to be fun for all involved, including the noncasters and the DM. The insane power level of spells in 3.5 created a lot of problems for the DM since a single spell could potentially bypass a carefully crafted encounter.

Note that when I say, "encounter", I am also thinking of noncombat encounters. For example, infiltrating the BBEG's masquerade ball is a noncombat encounter that provides a lot of roleplaying opportunities. For example, the party could call in some favors to get a legitimate invitation to the event, they could bluff the guards into letting them in, or they could sneak in without alerting anyone to their presence.

If the wizard uses Scry and Die to take out the BBEG and then escape, he just bypassed all that. All of the DM's hard work has been in vain. If the party is going to use magic to bypass all of his encounters, he might as well not design any or worse, he might fight fire with fire, the game degenerating into godmoding by the party's casters and the DM's NPCs.

This is why it's much easier (and more fun) to DM 4E than 3.5. The 4E DM knows that heroic characters have limited access to flight and teleportation and can plan accordingly. He could, for example, craft an encounter which involves crossing a river under a hail of enemy arrows, or one where the party has to liberate a prison camp and get the prisoners safely out of enemy territory.

By the paragon tier, geographical distances are less of an obstacle thanks to reliable long-distance teleportation; at this point, the cost of Linked Portal becomes insignificant, allowing the party to cross vast distances in the blink of an eye. Thus, paragon characters have much greater reach than heroic ones, which means the DM can now pit them against global threats.

And finally, in the epic tier, even planar boundaries are not much of a problem due to reliable planar travel, flight, and long-distance teleportation. The DM's encounters now encompass BBEGs with multiverse-spanning reach. He can even use three-dimensional combat and know that the party can handle it.

Note the steady and predictable increase in power between the three tiers. This is not the case in 3.5. A level 5 wizard can cast Fly, which bypasses difficult terrain and wreaks havoc on earthbound foes. The DM might as well pit the party against difficult terrain or earthbound foes, or he could fight fire with fire, leading to the abovementioned godmoding, as the wizard and the DM enter an arms races that inevitably leads to the DM giving up or declaring that rocks fall and everybody dies.

Wow, that was long.

[Mando Knight]

The 4E DM knows that heroic characters have limited access to flight and teleportation and can plan accordingly.

Long-range teleportation? Yes. Short-range teleportation, however, happens to be one of WotC's new fetishes. For almost every martial power that allows a character to shift, there's an arcane or divine power that would let him teleport.

[Artanis]

I may have needed to make more liberal use of :smallbiggrin:, but I wanted my tongue be so far in cheek it came out the other side.

I'll never DM 3.5 again, for precisely all the reasons you mentioned.

My apologies. I tend to take things a little too literally sometimes :smallredface:

[Oracle_Hunter]

Long-range teleportation? Yes. Short-range teleportation, however, happens to be one of WotC's new fetishes. For almost every martial power that allows a character to shift, there's an arcane or divine power that would let him teleport.
True, but we're (largely) talking about Line of Sight Teleportation of no more than 10 squares (and usually 5 or less).

There is a great difference between Dimension Door taking you anywhere you can visualize within 400+40LV feet (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dimensionDoor.htm) and 10 squares within LOS.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually arcane power has an entire illusionist build for wizards, tons of illusion based powers.
...none of which let you make a convincing illusion of a dragon, so I suggest you take your own "advice" to heart. The only epic illusion that lasts more than two or three rounds lets you create twelve medium creatures that disappear when touched, which is more-or-less the equivalent of 3E's Mirror Image.


Everyone needs to remember that the makers of 4E know that it is a game and built it accordingly.
That's a good point.


And finally, in the epic tier, even planar boundaries are not much of a problem due to reliable planar travel, flight, and long-distance teleportation.
Well, except that reliable flight is not an option for most classes, even at epic. Other than by equipping everyone with rare items, the more likely situation is that one or two of the party members will be able to fly for up to five minutes per day.

[PinkysBrain]

which is more-or-less the equivalent of 3E's Mirror Image.
I guess you meant minor there.

[CorvidMP]

...none of which let you make a convincing illusion of a dragon, so I suggest you take your own "advice" to heart. The only epic illusion that lasts more than two or three rounds lets you create twelve medium creatures that disappear when touched, which is more-or-less the equivalent of 3E's Mirror Image.


Actually between the illusion at will, numerous illusion encounter powers, and several illusion dailies with on going effects all of which specify the enemy is attacked by "an imaginary monster" or horror or some such, there is nothing to say each doesnt represent you dirrecting the same illusory dragon to repeatedly attack.

Just because it doesn't work the way your used to doesn't mean it still doesn't work.
Frankly i always though it was odd you kept track of an imaginary beasties as if they were real, visions and hallucinations always seemed like they'd be a bit more abstract to me anyway.

[CorvidMP]

Not that i've had that many hallucinations myself,
at least not as far the PD i work for is concerned :eek:

[AllisterH]

1. The original cmplain that Wall of Ice in 4e was "weak". It is equivalent in terms of strength when compared to the 3e version. What 4e doesn't have is the equivalent to Wall of Iron/Stone.

2. The interaction limitation with illusions in 4e is the same limitation of the 3e programmed image/major image illusions as they all run off the Silent Image spell which has the "will disbelief saving throw. a.k.a everytime you interact with it, you get a saving throw" or are you saying that this isn'th ow you ran Illusions pre 4e? The big difference is that high level critters are more likely to succeed on their insight check compared to the success chance of a high level critter that has a weak WILL save.

3. Fly for 10 hours = Overland Flight ritual available at level 20. Initial cost = 25k +5 k component cost but allows for you and all allies within 25' of you.

Of course, Flight IS available by mid to late heroic. Just actually get a mount which 4e explicitly designed for. Griffin at level 7 or Hippogriffin at level 5. What the designers didn't want apparently was for players to be superheroes too early in the game. As much as 4e gets called on being "too modern", the fact that flying on a griffin/giant eagle SHOULD be more iconic to fantasy than the superhero style FLY spell gets ignored I find.

4. Skill Focus is one of the better feats for a wizard with regard to Arcana. So many rituals key off arcana and even powers as well that I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to maximize it. Especially with the addition of skill powers.

[PinkysBrain]

Frankly i always though it was odd you kept track of an imaginary beasties as if they were real, visions and hallucinations always seemed like they'd be a bit more abstract to me anyway.
To me that seems a rather strange thing to associate with illusions, personally I think of stuff like Pepper's Ghost and Fata Morganas.

[CorvidMP]

To me that seems a rather strange thing to associate with illusions, personally I think of stuff like Pepper's Ghost and Fata Morganas.

Illusions that did damage were allways explained as mind affecting, at least that i can remember, otherwise it'd just be holograms- all the appearance but no real affect. Which is fun and usefull and all but rarely combat effective

[Kurald Galain]

1. The original cmplain that Wall of Ice in 4e was "weak".
No, the original question was when a 4E character can make long-lasting walls. Part of the answer was that wall of ice is easy to bypass. It's nice (but not great) in combat, but for e.g. stopping people from chasing you, look elsewhere.



2. The interaction limitation with illusions in 4e is the same limitation of the 3e
Not at all. In 3E you don't get a check when you first see it, and get one check only if you "study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion." In 4E you get a free check immediately, plus an additional check every time you interact, plus a free pass if you touch it. That's much more limited on three counts. Also, Silent Image doesn't cost ten minutes to cast, and has a wider area of effect, and can be changed at runtime, and is available eleven levels earlier. This is not even a contest.


3. Fly for 10 hours = Overland Flight ritual available at level 20.
Overland flight has the notable restriction that if you do anything while flying, you crash. That makes it useless in combat, and is not what I call "reliable flight". Getting a flying mount does work, of course, and I would expect many paragon characters to use flying mounts (thus obviating the need for overland flight, really) but note that if your winged mount gets proned, immobilized, stunned, or killed, you fall.


4. Skill Focus is one of the better feats for a wizard with regard to Arcana.
Heh. Absolutely not. Even with PHB only it's a poor feat for nearly every class (excepting rogues, mostly), and with the advent of Arcane Power this feat is not anywhere close to worth taking for a wizard. No regular powers key off arcana, I'm not sure where you got that from but it's not in my handbooks. For rituals it's important that you have it trained, only rarely what your check is. When you can spend a feat for +4 initiative, or enlarge spell, or a familiar, or several other great options, getting a mere +3 to some skill just pales in comparison.

(edit) go check the six Wizard Guides on the WOTC charop boards and see how many give a good rating to skill focus; the answer is none of them.

[AllisterH]

Given the fact that char-op boards are focused on DPR, you're surprised that the skill focus feat for arcana which is best used for non DPR spells a.k.a the ritual system, gets ignored?


re: Flight
Again, you seem intent on only flight that is combat safe and only can be affected by magic. Magic SHOULD come at a cost and flying all day during combat with no limitation other than magic countering it is unbalanced. Man up and take a griffin.

Of course, there's paragon paths that allow for flight IIRC.

re: Walls

If you're just interested in a wall to delay prsuers, then Earthen Ramparts is as good a choice as any.

[jseah]

<...> flying all day during combat with no limitation <...>
How about flying for 5 minutes during one combat (without needing maintenance). Surely that's worth about a Daily utility.

[Kylarra]

It is admittedly rather weaksauce (combatwise), but druids get Black Harbinger which allows them to wildshape into a raven for 1 encounter as a utility 6 daily.

[AllisterH]

I actually have no problem with a Combat Flight ritual/power at mid EPIC that doesn't require concentration (and again, I should note I agree with you jseah, scrying rituals suck monkey balls)

I just have an issue with the imagery of superhero flight at anything other than very high levels of D&D.

Especially without wings.....

As weird as it sounds, even though I've been playing since 1e, the image of flying wizards without either a broom or a mount has NEVER sat well with me. It has become "accepted" in D&D as common but this always truck me as so much more superheroic

Hell, even Stephen Strange requires the Cloak of levitation to actually FLY unaided.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Roleplaying D&D was more freeform. Skills didn't exist. You just roleplayed a lie and the DM decided whether the lie was plausible. No bluff check.

By that philosophy magic was simply a specialized provision that allowed players to do things that would otherwise be considered unreasonable. It's one thing to roleplay a lie. But it's quite another for a player to decide that he turns an NPC into a frog.

4e inverts the notion of a magic system as a limiter as opposed to being a specially provisioned enabler. Especially since there's no notion or "researching" new rituals mentioned in the core.

And this is where 4e fails. They missed a wonderful opportunity to make rituals interesting. Even if rituals are strictly non-combat, there's still a lot they can do where a Wizard becomes a feared opponent because of a specially provisioned ability to force roleplaying into specific directions.

It depresses me that Control Weather is now officially druid thing. Because that's a wonderful example of what I'm trying to illustrate. It's not a direct threat to the monster in a dungeon or the players. But an NPC or a player can suddenly take it into his head that he'll cause a drought over a farming community. Or make a vital mountain pass impossible to traverse. Or make things difficult for an invading army. This has all sorts of incredibly cool roleplaying consequences.

Another example of this sort of thing would be Gate in its pre-third edition conception. You can call any powerful being (or an emissary thereof) from another plane of existence, provided that you have enough knowledge of it (e.g. by a wizard learning "True Names"). Said creature may or may not revenge itself upon you for the spellcaster's temerity. This thing isn't automatically assumed to be at your beck and call. You've got to make deals with it. The DM decides the exact goals and motivations of this being. This gives the Wizard access to a powerful market of bargains without directly increasing his power in combat.

That Wizard never rolled a die to "hit" or do damage. But he gets empowered in a very subtle and constructive way. He's not powerful because of his prowess in combat. That's just the minor perk. It's that a high-leveled Wizard can stack the deck or play things on his own terms.

I'll also complain that 3e's spells needed more attention and effort. Given that Fly didn't use to have an in-built Featherfall feature. In short, 3e magic didn't have enough backfiring or careful consideration of problems like giving players access to monster-only features through Polymorph.

But that's a separate discussion.

[Kurald Galain]

GIf you're just interested in a wall to delay prsuers, then Earthen Ramparts is as good a choice as any.
...because surely they won't catch up to you during the ten minutes it take to cast? :smallbiggrin:

[Sir Homeslice]

Given the fact that char-op boards are focused on DPR, you're surprised that the skill focus feat for arcana which is best used for non DPR spells a.k.a the ritual system, gets ignored?

Sorry, but you are utterly wrong (take this entire post with a grain of salt including the previous message, I haven't been sleeping very well at all lately). I know quite a few charoppers and they couldn't give a rat's hairy ass about DPR wank topics. Notice how I phrased that. Charop likes to mention DPR specifically because in something like D&D, DPR is one of the things you can reliably math out for a character and have it be more or less a good meter. Sure you can speculate about the usefulness of how incredibly leadery a bard/warlord can be, or how disturbingly sticky x defender class has potential for, but DPR is easily, if not monotonously calculated, whereas everything else has common grounds but depend on the DM and how mericul/terrible they are.

Also, pretty much every topic that flaunts DPR in my opinion should be moved to a subforum titled "Pointless number masturbation."

And really, Skill Focus isn't that useful, unless you have a specific goal when springing for that extra +3 to a skill, like the Sage of Ages' Utility Arcana trick, or my current Bard's ginormous diplomacy/bluff check to fit a concept. If you're just using Arcana for generally casting Rituals or detecting magic, your normal Arcana is well off enough that you don't need to drop a feat on Skill Focus.


If you're just interested in a wall to delay prsuers, then Earthen Ramparts is as good a choice as any.
argh no

it takes forever and a half to cast earthen ramparts, and I doubt you're being chased by slowly hopping corpses.

[Bhu]

I rented the 4E books today and started reading when I thought "This seems very video game-y" has this happened to anyone? Does anyone else feel like this?

My initial thought the moment I saw it was "hey they're marketing to WoW players". This has not changed.


Wait...where the hell can you rent gaming books?

[Vic_Sage]

My initial thought the moment I saw it was "hey they're marketing to WoW players". This has not changed.
Except it's nothing like WoW

[PinkysBrain]

Illusions that did damage were allways explained as mind affecting, at least that i can remember, otherwise it'd just be holograms- all the appearance but no real affect. Which is fun and usefull and all but rarely combat effective
Not combat effective? A well timed/designed illusion ends an encounter against intelligent opponents (in 3e). Simply by being convincing, the promise of future effects is enough even if it is a false one ... you don't need immediate ones.

Hell, in 3e an illusiory wall can sometimes be even more effective than a real one ... since the opponents might not even try to interact with it (what's the point? It takes them ages to punch through it). While you can still just decide to walk through it when the right time arrives (of course at that point they might decide to poke a hand through it just to make sure, but it has already served it's purpose).

Slow hitpoing slugging combined with buff/debuff patterns and line dancing is what is the bread and butter of MMORPG combat in instances ... I'm not saying that 4e encounters always end up playing out like that, just a lot more often. This is why I think it's close in spirit to WoW (the epitome of MMORPGs).

PS. I enjoy playing MMORPGs occasionally, I'm sure I could enjoy 4e too.

[The New Bruceski]

Wait...where the hell can you rent gaming books?

It's this new chain that's sprung up around the world, like Netflix for books. What was it called, Bibliary? Libroteque? Something like that.

[AllisterH]

Closest videogame analogue to 4e are strategy RPGs like the japanese tactical RPGs such as Disgaea, Fire Emblem and old 90s era squad based RPGs such as Fallout Tactics and Jagged Alliance.

Real time RPGS such as WoW are a really bad analogue....

[Zen Master]

Did I already mention this? No one knows .......

But ... I think the real (real) reason for 4E is that with the new rule set, if will be far easier to adapt for computer games - and with a greater degree of exactitude.

What WoTC are doing is, they are preparing for the future, and for grabbing a slice of the MMO pie.

[Draco Dracul]

Did I already mention this? No one knows .......

But ... I think the real (real) reason for 4E is that with the new rule set, if will be far easier to adapt for computer games - and with a greater degree of exactitude.

What WoTC are doing is, they are preparing for the future, and for grabbing a slice of the MMO pie.

They kind of already made an MMO, and many, many video games. Several of these where quite successful.

[Mando Knight]

They kind of already made an MMO, and many, many video games. Several of these where quite successful.

Yes, but most of these depended on heavy houseruling. NWN2 (the one I'm most familiar with) doesn't have mechanics for charging, lost a massive number of spells, doesn't allow you to choose how many points you put into Power Attack, and drastically shortened the range and area of many spells. A 4e-based game won't have as many of those problems, especially if they decide to switch to a fully turn-and-grid based system for the video game versions. (or use a houseruled better-geometry version)

Of course, just like NWN2 killed the time needed for a full rest, a 4e game will probably axe the length for an extended rest, make short rests based on a timed delay, and drop the ritual casting time to a few seconds.

Personally, I'd like to have a few hotbars with picture representations of powers, coupled with a menu-selection mode, and with a toggled hotkey/automatic use system for things like OAs and interrupts. Having multiple ways of accessing the same ability tends to be the most me-friendly.

[Indon]

People use the term 'balance' to refer to it.

Ie, "that feat is imbalanced, because it is something every character should take".

Weapon Expertise (or some other *Expertise) in 4e is an example of such an imbalance. It is so good that not taking it (at least by mid/late-heroic) is almost guaranteed to be a bad idea. If you haven't taken it by level 16, you are almost certainly screwing up.
A fair point, I concede.

I guess what I don't agree with is that this should be considered as important as the other forms of balance. Without some choices being to some degree better than others, it seems like expertise of the system is not significantly rewarded. Of course, in 4E this isn't the case precisely because it's not balanced in that way, but nonetheless.

I'd like to see an example of a game which has this sort of balance.


Except it's nothing like WoW

It's a role-oriented group PvE combat game.

Though, in terms of powers, 4E NPC's are actually more like WoW PC's, since WoW abilities all have varied cooldowns while 4E PCs only have three cooldown settings (global, per-fight, per-'dungeon').

Also, WoW classes use a much wider variety of ability use mechanics, to include the Rage-based system for the Fighter, the Energy-based system for the Rogue, and the runic system for the Deathknight.

...Okay, so it isn't very much like WoW. WoW's mechanics would probably make for a much more mechanically diverse tabletop RPG (though it would need a skill system grafted into it).

[Oracle_Hunter]

Without some choices being to some degree better than others, it seems like expertise of the system is not significantly rewarded.
Why is System Mastery something that should be rewarded in an RPG? Isn't System Competency (i.e. being able to play without error or constant reference to sourcebooks) enough?

I ask this broadly, since I actually can't think of a system that intentionally rewards System Mastery aside from 3.0/3.5. Previously, the only way you could benefit is by taking advantage of unintentional loopholes in the RAW (e.g. Dart Fighters in AD&D) - a practice that was (at the time) largely discouraged.

[Indon]

Why is System Mastery something that should be rewarded in an RPG? Isn't System Competency (i.e. being able to play without error or constant reference to sourcebooks) enough?
Well, looking around on this forum, it's quite obviously a source of fun.

Honestly, I don't think 3.x intentionally rewards system mastery - they just have so much material that it incidentally rewards system mastery extensively.

I'm only concerned about intentionally building a game to shut out that feature, however incidentally it may emerge from the system.

[Tyndmyr]

They kind of already made an MMO, and many, many video games. Several of these where quite successful.

Not the MMO, though...the one that we all stopped playing after a month, and which routinely sends us emails begging us to come back and play for free.

[oxybe]

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html
under the section "Revision or New Edition?"

During the design of 3.0, one of the things that we realized was a huge strength of D&D is a concept we called "mastery." Mastery, in this context, is the idea that an avid fan of the game is going to really delve into the rules to understand how they work. We actually designed 3.0 with mastery in mind. For example, we created subsystems that worked like other systems, so that if you knew how one worked, you'd find the other one easier to understand. But I digress.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, looking around on this forum, it's quite obviously a source of fun.

Honestly, I don't think 3.x intentionally rewards system mastery - they just have so much material that it incidentally rewards system mastery extensively.

I'm only concerned about intentionally building a game to shut out that feature, however incidentally it may emerge from the system.
I did single out 3.x. because I recall reading one of the designers mention they had added "build traps" specifically to reward System Mastery.

Of course I can't find the article now but I'm sure someone will source it properly.

Also: the funny thing about System Mastery is that the only other games where it is rewarded are video games, tabletop wargames, and boardgames. In all of these systems there are optimal choices and strategies that can only be determined through careful analysis of the rules and their interactions.

The irony, considering the thread subject, is obvious :smalltongue:

EDIT: Ha! Source Ninja'd :smallbiggrin:

[oxybe]

Ninja-ing: it's more likely then you think.

[Not Five]

Acromos, I don't think that's so. I think 4e would be a bitch to make into a computer game, for two reasons.

First, interrupts. How on earth are you going to handle immediate actions as an expendable resource?

Second, and this is more of an issue, exception-based design. Everyone, and most things, have some way to break the rules--and that's not really conducive to a digital framework.

[Indon]

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html
under the section "Revision or New Edition?"


Anyway, the changes in 3.5 are so pervasive, and some of them so subtle, that any mastery people had achieved is gone. "Oh come on, Monte," one might reply, "the changes aren't that bad." I'm not even talking about "good" or "bad" here. The problem is that there are just enough changes that a player has to question everything. Even if fireball didn't really change, after you've had to re-learn how wall of force, flame arrow, and polymorph work, how can you be sure? Welcome to the game sessions where you've got to look everything up again. With 3.0, it was our plan to get people past that stage as quickly as possible. Obviously, 3.5 demonstrates that plan is no longer in motion and that mastery has been abandoned as a goal. With 3.5 coming out this quickly with this level of change, you can be sure that in three years, 4th Edition will have as many or more. And the cycle of learning and relearning will simply continue.

So, uh, yeah, wasn't intentional in 3.5, and that's not really what the article's talking about anyway.


First, interrupts. How on earth are you going to handle immediate actions as an expendable resource?
Toggled passive abilities.


Second, and this is more of an issue, exception-based design. Everyone, and most things, have some way to break the rules--and that's not really conducive to a digital framework.

Considering that 'the rules' in 4th Edition is the Powers system, who 'breaks' that ruleset?

[Theodoric]

Considering that 'the rules' in 4th Edition is the Powers system, who 'breaks' that ruleset?
DMs do it at times for narrative purposes etc?

[Mando Knight]

Acromos, I don't think that's so. I think 4e would be a bitch to make into a computer game, for two reasons.

First, interrupts. How on earth are you going to handle immediate actions as an expendable resource?

Second, and this is more of an issue, exception-based design. Everyone, and most things, have some way to break the rules--and that's not really conducive to a digital framework.

Those were both also concerns in 3.0 and 3.5-based games. Like I said in a couple posts up, a system that allows for (customizable) automatic and (context-sensitive) hotkey-based immediate actions would work well.

[Tyndmyr]

Already mentioned this a bit, you'd end up having to use something similar to the stacking and stops found in MTGO. Im quite comfortable with such systems, but I imagine those without a programming background, or familiarity with another stack-using system would find them a bit awkward.

This is a concern in both rulesets, true, but it's probably a more common occurrence in 4.0, since in 3.x, the only terribly common free action that happens out of turn sequence is talking, and this can be handled by simply not having it part of the turn stack whatsoever. Yes, there are specific, complex builds that may heavily use free actions in 3.x, but as stated earlier, these would be quite unusual.

[Mando Knight]

This is a concern in both rulesets, true, but it's probably a more common occurrence in 4.0, since in 3.x, the only terribly common free action that happens out of turn sequence is talking, and this can be handled by simply not having it part of the turn stack whatsoever. Yes, there are specific, complex builds that may heavily use free actions in 3.x, but as stated earlier, these would be quite unusual.

NWN2 "solved" this problem by making even Free/Swift Action abilities take up the entire round, same as movement and attacks (as far as I could tell). This led to being unable to 5ft-step out of reach to use a spell, inability to charge, weakening of Divine Might (which is one of the Paladin's most useful feats in NWN2...), etc. It also took away a quarter of the Paladin class without changing the basics of the Druid or Wizard. :smallfrown:

[Tyndmyr]

That's just...incredibly bad design on someone's part. Free actions on your turn are not difficult at all. It's only when you're interrupting other player turns to do them that it's mechanically complicated.

[Mando Knight]

That's just...incredibly bad design on someone's part. Free actions on your turn are not difficult at all. It's only when you're interrupting other player turns to do them that it's mechanically complicated.

Well, it's how it seemed to work on the user-end, which is quite annoying considering that the turn required to activate Divine Might could have also been used for a Power Attack strike to deal extra damage. (PA is activated by a toggle button on the interface, as are a number of other not-time-dependent abilities...)

[SmartAlec]

I can't see a WoW-style PvE encounter using 4th Edition based-mechanics working at all, and here's why.

'Dungeon boss' 5-man WoW Boss encounters last for a fair while. Between 2 to 3 minutes is common, if you've got a group equipped for that level. That's 20 to 30 D&D rounds. (I'm not going to touch the 10-man and up encounters here.) In order to make WoW bosses challenging and compensate for their often-predictable AI, they're usually immune to almost anything interesting you can do, except damage. They follow a set pattern, so knowing the strategy is quite important. And in WoW, the vast majority of your abilities are going to be ready to be used again in a matter of seconds.

How is a 4th Edition party going to be able to be fun to play in this situation? Most of the 'fun' in WoW gameplay, the hallmark of a good player, is how well you can balance the various abilities you have to get an efficient rolling power rotation going. In 4th Edition, even assuming that a party's managed to save all their daily powers for the end fight, they're not going to have many interesting things left to do by the 15th round or so (and that's me being generous). That means that for anything between a quarter to half or more of the fight, the party's just left with standard attacks and at-wills.

That means these fights are either going to be a lot duller as a result, or a lot shorter out of necessity, than WoW boss encounters are.

It's like fighting a boss at level 10, in WoW. Except for 4th Edition, it's like that all the time, as you exchange your powers out for more powerful versions. You don't gain an ability and then have it continually upgraded as you level up, as in WoW.

Thankfully, 4th Ed is rarely that dull, because players can try to pull off some out-of-the-box stuff, or the DM can spice it up with some left-field play. But in an MMO environment with just an AI behind it, I tell you - 4th Ed rules would need a severe overhaul if they plan to use them to make a dungeoneering PvE experience any fun.

This is why I doubt any claims that WOTC was 'planning for the future' by making 4th Ed easy to turn into an MMO. But even if you do think that, don't worry, folks. It's not going to work.

[oxybe]

your quote just states that monte (who was not part of the 3.5 design process) believes that the previous system mastery gained during 3.0 was no longer of use and that mastery as a goal abandoned since the changes were pervasive enough that you had to relearn the system at each update, but .

there is nothing i could find about the 3.5 designers & system mastery, but monte himself states that during the creation of 3.0, he wanted system mastery to matter.

[Tyndmyr]

Well...should system mastery matter, and to what degree?

As long as there are meaningful choices for characters, system mastery will *always* matter somewhat, but obviously there are varying levels of this....and the sheer volume of choices will probably somewhat correspond to it. That tradeoff alone might make system mastery acceptable to some.

However, for others, system mastery might keep them interested in a game much longer than they otherwise would play it. I can't help but notice that the same fields in which system mastery is common are the areas of gameplay in which the same game is played for many years. Surely, the continued discovery of new details hidden within the rules is an attraction for it's own sake for some.

[CorvidMP]

You know as long as the topic of the whole "it reminds me of a viseo game" thing has been brought up I'd like to address something i see as a common missconception- the idea that defender marks are an "agro mechanic" and a direct rip off from MMO tanks.

While it is certainly true mmo's learned of a need for melee tanks to have a way to actually keep monsters from charging off and smearing the caster all over the dungeon, and invented agro as a way to MAKE monsters focus on the tank, in the abscence of a DM doing it out of a sense of role play.

4e edition certainly built upon/borrowed from this lesson, allowing for melee chars to be something more than week sauce dps or trip monkeys, and frankly i don't have a problem with it. It has one important aspect differentiating it from agro, it doesn't make you attack anyone (important methinks in a real roleplaying game like DnD that there allways be choice involved), it just makes defenders really dangerous to ignore, which i think is just brilliant move. They shouldn't have any kind of magical mind controling insults i agree, its silly in the context of DnD, but making a fighter dangerous to turn your back on? Thats pretty kick arse.

[Kurald Galain]

I did single out 3.x. because I recall reading one of the designers mention they had added "build traps" specifically to reward System Mastery.
While I recall this quote, I do not believe it is true. It feels more like the designer, when interviewed afterwards and asked about his mistakes, gave the cat-like response of "I meant to do that, honest!"

Overall, any sufficiently complex system will allow for system mastery to make your character more effective. If this is a problem (and it doesn't have to be) then it's countered by a good DM, or using a system that is much more rules-light than any edition of D&D.

[Mando Knight]

You know as long as the topic of the whole "it reminds me of a viseo game" thing has been brought up I'd like to address something i see as a common missconception- the idea that defender marks are an "agro mechanic" and a direct rip off from MMO tanks.

While it is certainly true mmo's learned of a need for melee tanks to have a way to actually keep monsters from charging off and smearing the caster all over the dungeon, and invented agro as a way to MAKE monsters focus on the tank, in the abscence of a DM doing it out of a sense of role play.

4e edition certainly built upon/borrowed from this lesson, allowing for melee chars to be something more than week sauce dps or trip monkeys, and frankly i don't have a problem with it. It has one important aspect differentiating it from agro, it doesn't make you attack anyone (important methinks in a real roleplaying game like DnD that there allways be choice involved), it just makes defenders really dangerous to ignore, which i think is just brilliant move. They shouldn't have any kind of magical mind controling insults i agree, its silly in the context of DnD, but making a fighter dangerous to turn your back on? Thats pretty kick arse.

The thing is, marking doesn't work exactly like (what I know of) aggro. Aggro causes the monsters to go after the opponent that deals the largest amount of damage to them.

Marks work to prevent aggro, by forcing the monster's refocused attacks to become ineffective (or stopping the monster from refocusing the attacks), or by punishing the monster more for attacking someone else. Yes, it causes an artificial increase in the marking character's "aggro," but the Defenders' main job is to stop the guys that try to kill the squishies. "Aggro control" is only part of the mark. A Defender's mark tends to have a retributive effect that will punish anything that tries to ignore it.

Rather than "mind-control" to make monsters focus on the Defender (i.e. some kind of "aggro vacuum" ability) that may in fact be entirely illusory (such as a taunt without a sufficient threat to back it up), a Defender marks to let the opponent that it will die if it attacks anyone else.

[CorvidMP]

That was my point....i think you just argumentitively agreed with me which makes my head hurt a bit :smallamused:

[Artanis]

The thing is, marking doesn't work exactly like (what I know of) aggro.

To give info related to this...

Aggro is basically just a list of scores that the monster keeps. Pretty much anything you do - such as damage, healing, etc. - adds points, and whoever has the most points gets attacked. Some abilities mess with the list, with Taunts being the most well-known example (either altering the list or making monsters ignore it for a few seconds). That's the long and the short of aggro.

So basically, aggro works due to the monsters being stupid.

Marks, on the other hand, work due to the monster being smart. It doesn't have to attack the Defender. It can still attack whatever it can get to. The monster, however, knows that doing so won't work very well, and is liable to hurt them quite a bit. In 4e, the Defender makes them freely choose to attack them because it's the smart thing to do.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Also: the funny thing about System Mastery is that the only other games where it is rewarded are video games, tabletop wargames, and boardgames. In all of these systems there are optimal choices and strategies that can only be determined through careful analysis of the rules and their interactions.

The irony, considering the thread subject, is obvious :smalltongue:

It's an irony that hasn't escaped me.

I always find it hilarious when 3.x fans complain that 4e is like a videogame, when the whole concept of characters having "builds" rather than a simple class, and the consequent popularity of character optimisation - both elements that make system mastery more important to a player than roleplaying, is straight out of the playstyle of things like Diablo 2.

[jseah]

I actually have no problem with a Combat Flight ritual/power at mid EPIC that doesn't require concentration (and again, I should note I agree with you jseah, scrying rituals suck monkey balls)

I just have an issue with the imagery of superhero flight at anything other than very high levels of D&D.

Especially without wings.....
So make a broom a focus or something similar.

Here's a lower level version that serves a similar tactical purpose:
Greater Floating Disk
Creates a Disk of Force holding up X number of pounds. Stays in the same 5ft square but moves up and down at 20ft per round at caster's direction (move action). Lasts 5 minutes, no concentration needed.

There we go, if that had a casting time of 1 standard, it'll be a combat application of Floating Disk. And without the whole "superhero" flight thing.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It's an irony that hasn't escaped me.

I always find it hilarious when 3.x fans complain that 4e is like a videogame, when the whole concept of characters having "builds" rather than a simple class, and the consequent popularity of character optimisation - both elements that make system mastery more important to a player than roleplaying, is straight out of the playstyle of things like Diablo 2.

Actually, I'd say the concept of a "build" came about before Diablo 2, during the latter half of 2e (not only because 3e and D2 came out the same year, so the number of 3e players who got their playstyle from D2 is most likely dwarfed by those who came in from 2e) . In 1e and early 2e, a build is a useless concept--class abilities? What class abilities? You have weapon specialization, school specialization, and choice of sphere, and that's pretty much it (though of course I'm overgeneralizing a bit); if your party needed a healer, or a ranged weapon user, or a blaster, you'd pick a cleric with the healing sphere, a fighter with longbow spec, or an invoker, respectively, but that's fairly obvious stuff.

When you introduce kits, however, that let you customize classes beyond the norm, plus the dreaded Player's Options books, you introduce a much broader range of choices, and now players have an incentive to start optimizing more heavily. If the only choices for your fighter's style were THF, TWF, and S&B, and now suddenly you can be a barbarian instead, you might want to sit down and look at what gives the best damage, the best AC, etc.

Most of the reason it looks like 3e introduced the entire "build" concept is due to the fact that we're on the internet. On the 2e side, there are most likely many 2e players (I know of at least a handful) who would tell their party members "You know, you should probably switch out your longsword spec for darts; you can get more attacks that way" or "THF? You're kidding, right? S&B is the way to go!" On the 3e side, when you're posting a build, no one cares that you've come up with "Joe Schmoe, this really cool prince who's trying to save his kingdom from the forces of darkness..." from a rules standpoint because flavor and mechanics are mostly independent; the only relevant part to people helping you with the mechanics is that you want to build Joe Schmoe for good AC and S&B.

So I find the idea that 2e = ignores system mastery and 3e = needs system mastery to be misguided. It's just as easy to optimize in 2e, you just have less control over every single aspect of your character than in 3e; it's just as easy to play an "organically"-build character in 3e, you just have different good builds than in 2e.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Actually, I'd say the concept of a "build" came about before Diablo 2, during the latter half of 2e (not only because 3e and D2 came out the same year, so the number of 3e players who got their playstyle from D2 is most likely dwarfed by those who came in from 2e) . In 1e and early 2e, a build is a useless concept--class abilities? What class abilities? You have weapon specialization, school specialization, and choice of sphere, and that's pretty much it (though of course I'm overgeneralizing a bit); if your party needed a healer, or a ranged weapon user, or a blaster, you'd pick a cleric with the healing sphere, a fighter with longbow spec, or an invoker, respectively, but that's fairly obvious stuff.

When you introduce kits, however, that let you customize classes beyond the norm, plus the dreaded Player's Options books, you introduce a much broader range of choices, and now players have an incentive to start optimizing more heavily. If the only choices for your fighter's style were THF, TWF, and S&B, and now suddenly you can be a barbarian instead, you might want to sit down and look at what gives the best damage, the best AC, etc.
IIRC, you picked a kit at 1st level and that was it; it gained abilities like a second class, or somesuch.

And Player's Options? No such thing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisContinuity) :smalltongue:

No, I cannot agree that 2E had anything similar to the "build" concepts found in 3.X. There was little opportunity to "blend" abilities together to form cohesive constructs like you see now; dip classes and feats allow for sufficient customization to make a "build" a reasonable concept.

Heck, I was confused when folks started talking about "builds" going up to Level 20 in 3.0. I mean, you were playing a first level character - why would you bother thinking about what mechanical choices you were going to make 19 levels later?

Of course, builds are now a central element in WotC D&D and many video games. Not all RPGs, mind you; as far as I know, nobody is talking about "builds" for nWoD Vampire :smalltongue:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

IIRC, you picked a kit at 1st level and that was it; it gained abilities like a second class, or somesuch.

That doesn't change the fact that picking a kit is an optimization consideration; yes, you only pick it once, but it continues to affect your character for the rest of your career.


No, I cannot agree that 2E had anything similar to the "build" concepts found in 3.X. There was little opportunity to "blend" abilities together to form cohesive constructs like you see now; dip classes and feats allow for sufficient customization to make a "build" a reasonable concept.

Dip classes and feats aren't the only source of a build, they just happen to be the most convenient source of customization in 3e. Even playing a barbarian fighter going S&B is a build--a fairly simple and straightforward one, but definitely a cohesive character that influences your fighting style and capabilities. And even then, it's rare that a single feat or class level dip "makes" your build (a feat tree, perhaps, but then that's practically a kit), as even a straightforward ubercharger requires or makes good use of a whole bunch of feats on top of Power Attack and even a Lion Totem barbarian dip doesn't define your build in any way.


Heck, I was confused when folks started talking about "builds" going up to Level 20 in 3.0. I mean, you were playing a first level character - why would you bother thinking about what mechanical choices you were going to make 19 levels later?

You mean you've never thought about what your character's going to be able to do in the future? You've never thought "Hey, our campaign's only going to level 6, so I can play an elf fighter|mage because I'll never hit the level limit!" or something along those lines? Besides, the reason builds are given out to 20th level is so players can map out what they'll do after it (i.e. the "what the heck do I do after Mystic Theurge" issu); most of the time the only builds that are useless before level 20 are the theoretical ones trying to max out something, most builds being viable from at least 10-ish on out.

[Oracle_Hunter]

You mean you've never thought about what your character's going to be able to do in the future? You've never thought "Hey, our campaign's only going to level 6, so I can play an elf fighter|mage because I'll never hit the level limit!" or something along those lines? Besides, the reason builds are given out to 20th level is so players can map out what they'll do after it (i.e. the "what the heck do I do after Mystic Theurge" issu); most of the time the only builds that are useless before level 20 are the theoretical ones trying to max out something, most builds being viable from at least 10-ish on out.
No, not really.

Mostly it was "man, I hope we find a spellbook in the next dungeon. Having more spells would be awesome" or "should I, the Half-Elf Wizard/Fighter, wear armor for the next encounter?"

This was because I had no significant mechanical decisions to make, ever. At most, a Fighter might think "hmm, to specialize or not to specialize" but that was usually motivated with whether he had an awesome weapon that he planned on using for the foreseeable future.

Now, what I did think about was "should I retire after I build my fortress? What kind of fortress will I use?" and similar, IC, long-term goals.

And, IMHO, a "build" that has little player initiative after level 1 is not a build in the traditional sense. I mean, how can you even call that "optimization?" Might as well say choosing a polearm to use against cavalry is optimization then; as a term to describe changes in game philosophy, it loses all meaning.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

No, not really.

Mostly it was "man, I hope we find a spellbook in the next dungeon. Having more spells would be awesome" or "should I, the Half-Elf Wizard/Fighter, wear armor for the next encounter?"

And you never thought "Hmm, this spellbook has a lot of fire spells, I should probably seek out some wizard's tomb/friendly NPC wizard/etc. to diversify my repertoire" or "What's better, armor or a protective spell"? These are all short-term build questions, to be sure, but unless you have a concept dependent on certain mechanics (a fire wizard who uses all fire spells, for instance) any long-term optimization is essentially character building.


This was because I had no significant mechanical decisions to make, ever. At most, a Fighter might think "hmm, to specialize or not to specialize" but that was usually motivated with whether he had an awesome weapon that he planned on using for the foreseeable future.

And building your character around a particular weapon is indeed a character build--sure, you can't pick up feats or PrCs focused around the weapon, but you have weapon spec, you have kits, you have your friendly neighborhood PC wizard to enchant a weapon for you, and so on.


And, IMHO, a "build" that has little player initiative after level 1 is not a build in the traditional sense. I mean, how can you even call that "optimization?" Might as well say choosing a polearm to use against cavalry is optimization then; as a term to describe changes in game philosophy, it loses all meaning.

Why wouldn't that be a build? You can make a 3e charger build by starting off as a Lion Totem barbarian who takes Power Attack and wields a two-handed weapon--you can literally take nothing else related to charging, pick up all Skill Focus feats and go straight barbarian, but it's a concrete fighting style, it's relatively optimized, and it does what you want it to do; sure, it'll suck compared to an ubercharger with Shock Trooper and a few levels in some good PrCs, but it's still a build focused around your level 1 decisions.

2e builds are the same way: you may be using the same combat style and tactics at level 10 that you did at level 1, but that doesn't change the fact that you optimized your character as much as you could towards a particular combat style and that you've done your best to realize it mechanically.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Why wouldn't that be a build? You can make a 3e charger build by starting off as a Lion Totem barbarian who takes Power Attack and wields a two-handed weapon--you can literally take nothing else related to charging, pick up all Skill Focus feats and go straight barbarian, but it's a concrete fighting style, it's relatively optimized, and it does what you want it to do; sure, it'll suck compared to an ubercharger with Shock Trooper and a few levels in some good PrCs, but it's still a build focused around your level 1 decisions.

2e builds are the same way: you may be using the same combat style and tactics at level 10 that you did at level 1, but that doesn't change the fact that you optimized your character as much as you could towards a particular combat style and that you've done your best to realize it mechanically.
Right. If that's how you're defining "builds" then any game where you have a character sheet uses builds.

Seriously. Can you name one RPG which has a mechanic for character building which does not uses builds under this definition? :smallconfused:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Right. If that's how you're defining "builds" then any game where you have a character sheet uses builds.

Seriously. Can you name one RPG which has a mechanic for character building which does not uses builds under this definition? :smallconfused:

My point is that all a build is, is preplanned optimization, nothing more--your initial point was that you'd never plot out character advancement in advance in 2e whereas that's all people talk about for 3e.

Let's say you play a barbarian, and after rushing into combat and bashing people's heads for a while you think "Hey, I can get bonuses for charging!" and start charging all during combat instead of just to get into combat. Then after several levels you discover the wonders of Power Attack and take that, because more damage is cool. And so on and so forth. That's one way to do a character, and what you seem to be arguing 2e characters are like--no significant decisions ahead of time, just making decisions as they come.

If instead you sit down and say "Okay, I want to play someone who charges up and smashes peoples' faces in. How do I do that?" you might find that Lion Totem barbarian does that very well. You want high damage, so you plan to pick up the Power Attack/Shock Trooper tree. That's all a character build is, preplanning your character, yet apparently for you planning kits and specialization to support a particular character aren't meaningful choices and this kind of optimization didn't come about until those dirty rotten 3e Diablo players thought it up.

All I'm trying to say here is that (A) the idea that system mastery is nonexistent in 2e but absolutely essential in 3e is a false one, (B) you can optimize a character build sans flavor and add RPing later just as well in 2e as in 3e, and (C) this whole characterization of 2e as the RPer's edition and 3e as the powergamer's edition is spurious.

[Oracle_Hunter]

My point is that all a build is, is preplanned optimization, nothing more--your initial point was that you'd never plot out character advancement in advance in 2e whereas that's all people talk about for 3e.

Let's say you play a barbarian, and after rushing into combat and bashing people's heads for a while you think "Hey, I can get bonuses for charging!" and start charging all during combat instead of just to get into combat. Then after several levels you discover the wonders of Power Attack and take that, because more damage is cool. And so on and so forth. That's one way to do a character, and what you seem to be arguing 2e characters are like--no significant decisions ahead of time, just making decisions as they come.

If instead you sit down and say "Okay, I want to play someone who charges up and smashes peoples' faces in. How do I do that?" you might find that Lion Totem barbarian does that very well. You want high damage, so you plan to pick up the Power Attack/Shock Trooper tree. That's all a character build is, preplanning your character, yet apparently for you planning kits and specialization to support a particular character aren't meaningful choices and this kind of optimization didn't come about until those dirty rotten 3e Diablo players thought it up.
And I say that your definition boils down to "if you make a decision with its consequences in mind, it's a build/optimization." Which is hardly a useful definition.

The central reason that you cannot make a build in 2E is that the scope of player choice is nearly non-existent.
At first level in 2E you may be allowed to choose the following:

- Ability Score allocation
- Race
- Class
- Kit
- Weapon Proficiencies
- Non-Weapon Proficiencies
- Equipment

Any or all of these operate under significant limits, controlled by the DM.

From then on, the only mechanical choices you get to make about your character are:

- New Weapon Proficiencies
- New Non-Weapon Proficiencies

Everything else, from spell lists to magical items, are solely in the hands of the DM. Magic items are difficult (or impossible) to buy or create; spells must not only be found, but also learned (with a good chance of failure); and any other mechanical benefits must be found and justified on an ad hoc basis. There is very little scope for the player to direct the mechanical scope of his character - heck, even mundane equipment isn't always within the reach of your standard PC, what with heavy armors costing amounts of gold that low-level PCs can only dream of finding.

Compare this with any WotC D&D. Each level you get the option to, not only learn new skills, but often how much of a given skill to learn (and, with publicly known static DCs, this is a potent source of optimization) - and that's the tip of the iceberg. With the 3.X. class system, every level brought the possibility of gaining new abilities from any class you wanted, and often new spells of your choosing (by RAW). Later, you could guide your character to Prestige Classes, or to qualify for fancy feat chains - gaining new powers based on your own direction.

Here, the scope of player agency is enormous. It is reasonable to plan a WotC D&D character from 1 to 30, choosing everything from feats to magical items. The sheer number of mechanical permutations available boggles the mind; a fine number-cruncher and system masterer could easily eke out tremendous benefits from careful choice here.

In TSR D&D? You have no way to know, nor even the capability of choosing, most of the mechanical features of your future character. And even when you can choose, there is little extra mechanical benefit from whatever "optimization" you choose to practice. Aside from exploiting clear loopholes (Dart Fighters, I'm looking at you), it is neither practical, nor desirable, to spend much time wondering about the mechanical choices you have to make. They just don't matter that much.
Calling 2E's meager player choices "optimization" removes all meaning from the word. There is a world of difference from building an "ubercharger" in 3.X and deciding to specialize in Long Sword in 2E.

And that's my final word on the matter. As is usual when dealing with 2E matters, I await the word of Matthew to affirm or give lie to my statements; but I am rather confident that neither he, nor anyone else, would agree with your definitions.

[Tyndmyr]

It's an irony that hasn't escaped me.

I always find it hilarious when 3.x fans complain that 4e is like a videogame, when the whole concept of characters having "builds" rather than a simple class, and the consequent popularity of character optimisation - both elements that make system mastery more important to a player than roleplaying, is straight out of the playstyle of things like Diablo 2.

I'm pretty sure that optimizing D&D builds predates diablo 2.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Calling 2E's meager player choices "optimization" removes all meaning from the word. There is a world of difference from building an "ubercharger" in 3.X and deciding to specialize in Long Sword in 2E.

And that's my final word on the matter. As is usual when dealing with 2E matters, I await the word of Matthew to affirm or give lie to my statements; but I am rather confident that neither he, nor anyone else, would agree with your definitions.

For my final word on the matter, let me try to summarize my point further since it seems I haven't done a good job of explaining it.


I always find it hilarious when 3.x fans complain that 4e is like a videogame, when the whole concept of characters having "builds" rather than a simple class, and the consequent popularity of character optimisation - both elements that make system mastery more important to a player than roleplaying, is straight out of the playstyle of things like Diablo 2.

Your claim here is twofold: The only choice you have in 2e is choosing a class, and that the idea of building a character in advance comes from Diablo.

Regarding the first: You're ignoring class features such as weapon spec, spell selection for casters, kits, racial advantages, etc.
Yes, you can't just buy items like it's assumed you can in 3e; however, you can have one made (by PCs or NPCs) or specifically go looking for it or otherwise acquire it--unless you're suggesting that a DM whose player said "I want to be a barbarian from the North with a cold theme, could I find a weapon that does cold damage at some point?" should go out of their way to deny their request.
Yes, ability scores aren't as easily arranged or increased as in 3e, but you can choose a race that gets benefits to those scores, you can get buffs from the party casters, you can search for items as above, and so on.
Yes, you can't just pick spells up at the drop of a hat, but you can search for scrolls, or keep trying to roll for a given spell at level-up, or seek out similar spells, or whatever.
Yes, you don't really get all that much in the way of class abilities, but you can multiclass and dual class in varying combinations as well, getting the most out of demihumans without hitting level caps.

The idea that once you pick your class there's nothing you can do about your character, and that any customization beyond that is completely new to 3e, is simply false.

Regarding the second, Diablo 2 came out in 2000; 3e came out in 2000. What do you think the likelihood is that every single person who makes builds in 3e got the idea from Diablo 2? I know I, for one, didn't; I started playing with 2e in '98 and continued through up to 3e and the present. In that entire span, I'd never played any Diablo games and until this year never actually seen it being played, yet my group and I planned out the builds for almost every character we made, yes, even though there's so little choice in the 2e mechanics.

Moreover, where do you think the Diablo 2 designers got their ideas from? Perhaps D&D, the primary source for "borrowing" fantasy game mechanics since its creation? They grabbed item sets, classes, weapon speeds, and leveled class abilities, so the ability to build characters would logically transfer over as well.

And to simplify it even further: Claiming that this newfangled "character building" stuff was ripped off of Diablo 2 for 3e and that 2e never had something so crass is just as bad as claiming that this newfangled "character roles" stuff was ripped off of WoW for 4e and that 3e never had something so crass .

[AllisterH]

And I say that your definition boils down to "if you make a decision with its consequences in mind, it's a build/optimization." Which is hardly a useful definition.

The central reason that you cannot make a build in 2E is that the scope of player choice is nearly non-existent.
At first level in 2E you may be allowed to choose the following:

- Ability Score allocation
- Race
- Class
- Kit
- Weapon Proficiencies
- Non-Weapon Proficiencies
- Equipment

Any or all of these operate under significant limits, controlled by the DM.

From then on, the only mechanical choices you get to make about your character are:

- New Weapon Proficiencies
- New Non-Weapon Proficiencies

Everything else, from spell lists to magical items, are solely in the hands of the DM. Magic items are difficult (or impossible) to buy or create; spells must not only be found, but also learned (with a good chance of failure); and any other mechanical benefits must be found and justified on an ad hoc basis. There is very little scope for the player to direct the mechanical scope of his character - heck, even mundane equipment isn't always within the reach of your standard PC, what with heavy armors costing amounts of gold that low-level PCs can only dream of finding.

Compare this with any WotC D&D. Each level you get the option to, not only learn new skills, but often how much of a given skill to learn (and, with publicly known static DCs, this is a potent source of optimization) - and that's the tip of the iceberg. With the 3.X. class system, every level brought the possibility of gaining new abilities from any class you wanted, and often new spells of your choosing (by RAW). Later, you could guide your character to Prestige Classes, or to qualify for fancy feat chains - gaining new powers based on your own direction.

Here, the scope of player agency is enormous. It is reasonable to plan a WotC D&D character from 1 to 30, choosing everything from feats to magical items. The sheer number of mechanical permutations available boggles the mind; a fine number-cruncher and system masterer could easily eke out tremendous benefits from careful choice here.

In TSR D&D? You have no way to know, nor even the capability of choosing, most of the mechanical features of your future character. And even when you can choose, there is little extra mechanical benefit from whatever "optimization" you choose to practice. Aside from exploiting clear loopholes (Dart Fighters, I'm looking at you), it is neither practical, nor desirable, to spend much time wondering about the mechanical choices you have to make. They just don't matter that much.
Calling 2E's meager player choices "optimization" removes all meaning from the word. There is a world of difference from building an "ubercharger" in 3.X and deciding to specialize in Long Sword in 2E.

And that's my final word on the matter. As is usual when dealing with 2E matters, I await the word of Matthew to affirm or give lie to my statements; but I am rather confident that neither he, nor anyone else, would agree with your definitions.


I'm definitely with you here.....I'm astonished anyone thinks pre 3.x we had "builds".

At best, character creation optimization was the only true player choice...

(It's that lack of player control over things like spells and magic items that allow for them to be not broken in pre 3.x but a headache in 3.x A player couldn't count on finding a specific spell or item and thus couldn't "build" around said concept.)

[nightwyrm]

I must confess that I've never heard of the term "build" being applied to D&D characters while I was playing 2nd ed. Sure, you place your stats (if you're using a stat gen method that allows it) to min/max your bonuses, and you choose your race, class (and maybe kits), and proficiencies to get the character you want. But to actually plan out a character advancement from level 1 to 20 was meaningless. There was no 2ed equivalent of the chain-tripper, the ubercharger, the batman wizard etc. Even when not taking into account the very high likelihood of your character dying at any point in the game, there was simply too many things that the players had no control over for him to do any sort of long-range planning. You could ask your DM (or go questing) for items or spells etc. but even then the availability of anything enhancing your character was solely in the hands of the DM.