PDA

View Full Version : Artificers in 4e



felinoel
2010-08-11, 11:27 PM
The tinkerer build.

What is the point of kidnapping an elemental spirit and forcing it into a shell if it won't move itself? I have to spend my own move actions in order to make a sentient-esque construct do anything?! Why? :smallconfused:

nightwyrm
2010-08-11, 11:41 PM
In game explanation, you're using action to give them orders.

Out of game explanation, summoner builds playing half a dozen creatures and hogging all the game time was a problem in 3e and this is the approach they decided to use to fix it in 4e.

edit: In general, almost all of 4e's weird quirks and non-intuitive rules are a reaction to a problem that presented itself in 3e.

felinoel
2010-08-11, 11:55 PM
In game explanation, you're using action to give them orders.

Out of game explanation, summoner builds playing half a dozen creatures and hogging all the game time was a problem in 3e and this is the approach they decided to use to fix it in 4e.

edit: In general, almost all of 4e's weird quirks and non-intuitive rules are a reaction to a problem that presented itself in 3e.So you are saying that these sentient-esque constructs can in fact think for theirselves?

Gralamin
2010-08-11, 11:58 PM
So you are saying that these sentient-esque constructs can in fact think for theirselves?

Most of the later summoning powers (Of which, artificers have none) have an "Instinctive Action" associated with them, so they will do something if you don't order them around. It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to extend this concept to all summons.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 12:01 AM
Most of the later summoning powers (Of which, artificers have none) have an "Instinctive Action" associated with them, so they will do something if you don't order them around. It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to extend this concept to all summons.

But then what is the point of kidnapping elemental spirits and forcing them to reside in a shell?

kieza
2010-08-12, 12:38 AM
Because the spirit provides a motive force, even if it won't do anything without instruction? Or it provides unusual powers related to its element? (Fire = Flaming fists, Air = Lightning, etc.) Because it's easier than simply enchanting something to move? There are lots of reasons to have a spirit bound into something besides making it think.

I have a feeling your complaint is based on the 3.5 elemental binding rules. Things changed between 3.5 and 4e, okay? It's better from a balance standpoint if you can't have a horde of minions that each get a full turn. You can still have fun explaining to your friends that yes, your iron guardian is animated by a spirit of earth, no, it didn't volunteer, and no, you don't care.

If it really gets you down that they don't take actions on their own...say that they could, if they wanted to, but you've bound them to only obey direct orders so that they can't harm you. Seriously, just come up with a cool rationale and run with it.

Tengu_temp
2010-08-12, 12:45 AM
Ranger's animal companion works the same way. It's just the way 4e does things.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 12:47 AM
Because the spirit provides a motive force, even if it won't do anything without instruction?Might as well be controlling it myself, no need for the kidnapping
Or it provides unusual powers related to its element? (Fire = Flaming fists, Air = Lightning, etc.)It does not
Because it's easier than simply enchanting something to move?Is it though?
There are lots of reasons to have a spirit bound into something besides making it think.None of them are implemented though


I have a feeling your complaint is based on the 3.5 elemental binding rules. Things changed between 3.5 and 4e, okay? It's better from a balance standpoint if you can't have a horde of minions that each get a full turn. You can still have fun explaining to your friends that yes, your iron guardian is animated by a spirit of earth, no, it didn't volunteer, and no, you don't care.No my complaint is based on how worked up I was to make something to rival someone with undead followers or mind controlled followers to find out that it does not rival them at all


If it really gets you down that they don't take actions on their own...say that they could, if they wanted to, but you've bound them to only obey direct orders so that they can't harm you. Seriously, just come up with a cool rationale and run with it.Nah I give up, I am going with the buff build of the artificer, sigh

Ranger's animal companion works the same way. It's just the way 4e does things.Mind controlled followers and undead followers work that way too? So going up against some lich king will be easy since all of them can only get one move for anyone per round?

Aroka
2010-08-12, 01:18 AM
Mind controlled followers and undead followers work that way too? So going up against some lich king will be easy since all of them can only get one move for anyone per round?

You appear to be talking about NPCs. That's missing the entire point - NPCs and their powers don't work like PCs and their powers, because the point of balance is completely different.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 01:33 AM
You appear to be talking about NPCs. That's missing the entire point - NPCs and their powers don't work like PCs and their powers, because the point of balance is completely different.That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

kieza
2010-08-12, 01:35 AM
You're missing the separation between fluff and mechanics. This is the way it works. Any PC summon requires you to spend actions to order it around (with the exception of Instinctive abilities), whether it's a ranger pet, a wizard summon, a druid summon, or an artificer creation. If WotC gets around to releasing a necromancer or a "mind-control" class, they will almost certainly work the exact same way. There are not different systems for rangers' pets, summoned creatures, and artificers' creations, because there doesn't need to be.

The only difference between "styles" of summon is the powers available to that "style." Well, that and the description: wizards summon magical beings physically. Druids summon beasts of the forest physically. Artificers call up a spirit and bind it into an object. But regardless of how it's described, they all work in basically the same way. All of them have the same duration and the same general stat-block. All of them have to be ordered around in order to act. You don't like that your artificer summons can't act on their own? You have 3 options: Don't play an artificer, find some artificer powers which have the Instinctive option, or talk your DM into making you some powers.

Aroka
2010-08-12, 01:41 AM
That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

Why? What says PCs and NPCs have to use the same mechanics? PCs get less hit points per level than NPCs, they get more powers, etc. That's how it works, because it gives better play balance. A NPC villain's minions aren't abilities (like a PC's minions), but rather monsters.

It's fair because it's mechanically balanced, and it makes perfect sense. As was already mentioned, this is one of the fixes that pre-empts 3.5 style action economy abuse, where a conjurer wizard is a better tank than a fighter.

This is like complaining that a 3.5 villain has more minions than it would have through a Leadership feat. It just doesn't make sense.


Anyway, if you're so set on a minion that can act on its own, there's an incredibly easy solution: get your DM to add a NPC/creature/monster to the group. It's very easy - the follower's XP value is just deducted from the XP total of every fight you get in.

kieza
2010-08-12, 01:50 AM
Look at it this way: a lich king or thrallherd, or for that matter a wizard or druid or whatever who can give their summons their own initiative, is dangerous--a threat that must be dealt with--partly because he is able to so far exceed the limitations normally placed upon a necromancer or simple enchanter. He is a fair foe for an entire group of players. Someone who can just call up one or two summons and has to order them around in detail is a normal (leader) monster, or maybe an elite. 4e is not like 3.5, where a summoner was an entire party in one character.

The problem with giving players the ability to summon completely independent creatures is this: if each of those creatures has an entire set of actions and is rougly as effective as a PC, whoever summons one is roughly as effective as two PCs now. If they can summon more than one, it gets worse. In order for summoning to be balanced, the summoner has to give up something roughly as powerful as the summon. 4e handles it by making the summoner spend his actions to let the summon act.

Now, I've had a player in my group make roughly the same complaint as you. The solution I came up with was to give him a ritual which summoned an ally. Not a completely subservient creature, an actual, independent creature which he could bargain with for services. If he summoned one and got it to work with him, I played it as an NPC.

Edit: By the way, to answer your original question: what's the point of summoning a wolf or a fire elemental against its will if it can't act on it's own? You might as well train as a fighter and hit things yourself if you have to spend your actions.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 01:55 AM
You're missing the separation between fluff and mechanics. This is the way it works. Any PC summon requires you to spend actions to order it around (with the exception of Instinctive abilities), whether it's a ranger pet, a wizard summon, a druid summon, or an artificer creation. If WotC gets around to releasing a necromancer or a "mind-control" class, they will almost certainly work the exact same way. There are not different systems for rangers' pets, summoned creatures, and artificers' creations, because there doesn't need to be.

The only difference between "styles" of summon is the powers available to that "style." Well, that and the description: wizards summon magical beings physically. Druids summon beasts of the forest physically. Artificers call up a spirit and bind it into an object. But regardless of how it's described, they all work in basically the same way. All of them have the same duration and the same general stat-block. All of them have to be ordered around in order to act. You don't like that your artificer summons can't act on their own? You have 3 options: Don't play an artificer, find some artificer powers which have the Instinctive option, or talk your DM into making you some powers.That is all well and good but it is unfair to make some people follow those rules and allow others to do what they want?


Why? What says PCs and NPCs have to use the same mechanics?The only thing that differentiates the two is that the DM runs onw while the player runs the other, essentially a PC and NPC are the same thing, at least in their universe, why do NPCs get to be gods when they have the same stats as the ungod-like PC?
PCs get less hit points per level than NPCs, they get more powers, etc. That's how it works, because it gives better play balance.I wouldn't call it balance myself...
A NPC villain's minions aren't abilities (like a PC's minions), but rather monsters.True, but when the NPC controls the minions like any PC would try to, it should be treated the same


It's fair because it's mechanically balanced, and it makes perfect sense. As was already mentioned, this is one of the fixes that pre-empts 3.5 style action economy abuse, where a conjurer wizard is a better tank than a fighter.How does allowing one NPC do something causing it to be a god while a PC does the same thing and becomes unable to at the very least dodge incoming enemies fair?


This is like complaining that a 3.5 villain has more minions than it would have through a Leadership feat. It just doesn't make sense.Only slightly but kinda pushing it there



Anyway, if you're so set on a minion that can act on its own, there's an incredibly easy solution: get your DM to add a NPC/creature/monster to the group. It's very easy - the follower's XP value is just deducted from the XP total of every fight you get in.What I am set on is fair and balanced gameplay, if not everything is balanced then I might as well be playing 3.5

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-12, 02:04 AM
This is my stock answer whenever my players ask a question like this.

Are you saying you're a better artificer than your character? Are you saying you know more about artificing? When was the last time you artifice'd something? When was the last time you kidnapped an elemental spirit?

Oh you're not an artificer and you've never kidnapped an elemental spirit and forced it into a shell? Then I don't think you should be talking about what an artificer can or can't do!


Silliness aside, it's magic. Don't think too hard about how magic works because, by definition, it's something that doesn't work logically.

Leolo
2010-08-12, 02:04 AM
To be fair intristic Actions are not the only way to let your creatures act and act by yourself.

Ranger and their beast companion for example have powers to do this. Wizards can use minor actions to let summons move.

Mounts can gave additional attacks or add damage.

Tengu_temp
2010-08-12, 02:13 AM
What I am set on is fair and balanced gameplay, if not everything is balanced then I might as well be playing 3.5

You do realize that balance and NPCs and PCs working under the same rules is not the same thing, right? 4e is a gamist system, which means that game balance is a high priority, at the cost of some mechanical elements not making a lot of sense from a realistic perspective.

Makiru
2010-08-12, 02:29 AM
That is all well and good but it is unfair to make some people follow those rules and allow others to do what they want?

The only thing that differentiates the two is that the DM runs onw while the player runs the other, essentially a PC and NPC are the same thing, at least in their universe, why do NPCs get to be gods when they have the same stats as the ungod-like PC?I wouldn't call it balance myself...True, but when the NPC controls the minions like any PC would try to, it should be treated the same

How does allowing one NPC do something causing it to be a god while a PC does the same thing and becomes unable to at the very least dodge incoming enemies fair?

What I am set on is fair and balanced gameplay, if not everything is balanced then I might as well be playing 3.5

There's a very simple answer to this that you basically gave yourself without knowing. Think about how long the average PC is going to be around. The entire campaign, gods willing, right?

How long is a single NPC going to be present in the campaign? Probably only about five rounds, maybe a few fights if they're reoccurring villains or the BBEG. NPCs get to have their high HP and silly powers because they usually aren't going to be around long enough to unbalance things down the line and need to provide a challenging encounter. PCs, on the other foot, are balanced to not horribly break things like action economy and damage caps because of their longevity and make the game interesting and fun instead of a "Save-or-Die" affair like 3.5.

tl;dr: NPCs get less screen time, so they get more goodies to make that time awesome.

Zombimode
2010-08-12, 02:39 AM
Silliness aside, it's magic. Don't think too hard about how magic works because, by definition, it's something that doesn't work logically.

Please learn what "logic" means. Logic only makes sure that you dont arrive at false conclusions from true premises.

The following syllogism is an example for a logical correct conclusion:

A -> B
B -> C
--
A -> C

Now, if we say that the elements of this syllogism would have the following meanings:

A: cats
B: dogs
C: fish

The syllogism now reads as follows:

All cats are dogs
All dogs are fish
--
Thus all cats are also fish

This is still a completely valid syllogism. There is no mistake in the logic. Only the premises are false (well, I think they are...).

Bottom line: magic is neither logical nor illogical (because only assertions can be either). What magic might do is to screw with the logical value of certain premises (so magic could make that all cats are indeed also fish).

1of3
2010-08-12, 02:58 AM
Also note that long term creations of undead or any of the dragonhouses' toys would be in the purview of rituals. Your spells as an artificer are ad hoc tricks to get things done. Surely, they will not be as effiicient as a day long and very expensive ritual.

Sure, there are no such rituals printed at the moment. But here is fair ruling: To make a minion pay the same costs you would pay for a slave of comparable training. Your advantage as an artificer being that elemental binding is legal in most civilized countries.

Leolo
2010-08-12, 03:27 AM
How does allowing one NPC do something causing it to be a god while a PC does the same thing and becomes unable to at the very least dodge incoming enemies fair?

The point is: While 4E is a gamistic rule set it has a very narrative way to describe the world.

The powers of the players and the npc are not all that those could do. They are only the options that are available at a given moment within the story of the adventure. Retraining is a good example. You do not forget how to throw a fireball if you retrain it. But you do not do it any longer, at least within this part of the story. The same narrative approach is used for npc powers. They are not what the npc could do at all. Only the options that might be used within the current fight. The powers of players and npc are not different fluffwise - they are only described differently by the game mechanics because they have different parts within the story.

A NPC necromancer does use commands to let his undead minions act the same way PC do it.
And a PC artificers summons does act without his commands (even without intrinstic actions) the same way the undead minions do.

But the rule mechanics work different. The necromancers effort to command his minions is calculated by not making him a solo - and therefore limiting his actions and general power by this decision. The reason for this is that it is a better way to provide a more exciting fight as part of your adventure if you can gave the monsters flexible powers and still let them be balanced.

A artificers summons actions are calculated by static benefits that comes into play without taking an extra action. (For example a Obedient Servant does damage a nearby opponent even if you do not let it attack as long as your defender is marking it, or the wizards summons opportunity attacks or intrinstic nature)

So even if you do have to use actions to command summons they do not standing still until you do so. The things your summons do as an "attack" on your command are just much better than those actions they could do on their own.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-08-12, 03:49 AM
The only thing that differentiates the two is that the DM runs onw while the player runs the other, essentially a PC and NPC are the same thing, at least in their universe, why do NPCs get to be gods when they have the same stats as the ungod-like PC?I wouldn't call it balance myself...True, but when the NPC controls the minions like any PC would try to, it should be treated the same

....

Have you been playing 4e at all? There is a pretty definite line between what a PC does and what an NPC does.

This is not some contest between the dungeon master and YOU. The NPC's don't need to be balanced compared to player classes because you will never PLAY an npc. All that matters is that when the NPCs are thrown at the player, it is challenging and fun.

It is the worst when players ask about this kind of stuff at the table. "What, he can use mage hand from THAT FAR AWAY! But the mage hand descriptor says blah blah blah..."

When I want to make a level 5 fighter npc, I don't grab a character sheet and work out what powers I want at each level. Those days are gone. Instead I find out what HP a level 5 solider should have, what defenses, augment these depending on how I stat him out, and give him a couple powers which I think would help build a fun monster. If I decide that tide of iron needs to do 2[W] and be an encounter ability, I change it. PC fighter class be damned.

And if my players want to complain because I tried to make an encounter more fun, and that I should have just stuck by the rules and gone with a less fun encounter, well I don't really know what to say to them.

pasko77
2010-08-12, 03:54 AM
That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

welcome to 4th edition.

Kurald Galain
2010-08-12, 04:35 AM
That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?
It doesn't have to.

For instance, the rogue's sneak attack ability represents hitting a monster in a vital spot for massive damage. 3E takes this to the realistic conclusion that since skeleton warriors don't have a vital spot, you therefore can't sneak attack them. 4E instead decides that it wouldn't be fun nor balanced for the rogue to be more-or-less useless in a fight with skeleton warriors, and therefore sneak attack works on them.

Certain abilities would be unbalanced in the hands of PCs. An enemy enchanter can have an at-will minor action dominate attack, for example. PCs don't get this, ever. Conversely, a moderate-to-high level PC has way more abilities and powers than any monster you'll ever meet. This is to make the DM's life easier: if you want to give an enemy a fireball attack, you don' thave to look up what exactly the PC fireball attack does; you just decide what you want your enemy to do, and he does that.

Tengu_temp
2010-08-12, 04:37 AM
It's like World of Warcraft!

FelixG
2010-08-12, 05:02 AM
It's like World of Warcraft!

World of warcraft is my dynamic than 4e :P

Badgerish
2010-08-12, 05:28 AM
One thing that hasn't been mentioned: Companion Characters (DMG2)

If you really want a semi-permanent ally (a construct for artificers, an animal or plant for druids, a summoned monster for wizards/sorcs, a divine assistant for clerics, a hireling/follower for anyone), these can be made using the "companion character" rules from DMG2.

These qualify/justify adding an NPC to the party to assist them. However, as it's an extra thing and it's actively helping, it makes the fights easier, therefore it makes the fight worth less XP (thus the GM will probably make the fights harder to compensate)


Importantly, this option is open to any class, it's not a class-feature/spell-choice like it was in 3.5

nightwyrm
2010-08-12, 09:17 AM
This NPC =/= PC thing isn't a 4e thing. Every edition except for 3e has NPCs and PCs working by different rules. Even in 3e where they tried to shoehorn them both into working with the same rules, NPCs have been allowed to break the rules if they needed to.

For example, NPC necromancers can raise and control armies of undead that PCs just isn't able to. Artifacts are always stuff made by long dead NPCs that no PCs are able to make even if they became lv 20 wizards etc.

FelixG
2010-08-12, 09:24 AM
This NPC =/= PC thing isn't a 4e thing. Every edition except for 3e has NPCs and PCs working by different rules. Even in 3e where they tried to shoehorn them both into working with the same rules, NPCs have been allowed to break the rules if they needed to.

For example, NPC necromancers can raise and control armies of undead that PCs just isn't able to. Artifacts are always stuff made by long dead NPCs that no PCs are able to make even if they became lv 20 wizards etc.

A properly built dread necromancer can control millions of HD of undead... I know i have done it XD

nightwyrm
2010-08-12, 09:32 AM
A properly built dread necromancer can control millions of HD of undead... I know i have done it XD

I forgot about the DN, yet they have had wizard/cleric necromancer BBEGs way before DNs came out in a splat.

Boci
2010-08-12, 09:54 AM
I forgot about the DN, yet they have had wizard/cleric necromancer BBEGs way before DNs came out in a splat.

Thats just use of rule 0, which is a bit different.

Calemyr
2010-08-12, 10:09 AM
There's one other aspect that should be pointed out: Balance does not always mean equality. PCs have far more offense than they have defense, for instance, which makes PC vs PC fights generally brutal but short and usually not all that satisfying. NPCs, however, tend to have more defense than offense, meaning that they take longer to kill but don't have as many opportunities to kill you in one shot. This creates an epic battle where both sides get to showboat for the crowd quite a bit more, resulting in a more satisfying combat. Also note that most NPC enemies generally have a LOT fewer modes of attack than an equivalent PC, but get to use them more often (i.e. encounter and daily moves can often be restored if a certain requirement is satisfied). And that's not counting the Minion class of NPCs who only have 1 HP no matter their level or power. PCs and NPCs have virtually nothing in common when it comes to combat.

The point of PC balance, however, is to make all of the PCs equal in effectiveness, but not identical in gameplay. Allowing one player to have more action points per turn than another ruins this balance. Instead, you gain the ability to spend those actions points controlling a creature that is usually quite powerful, likely with abilities different from your own, often of a different archetype than you, and ultimately expendable. Plus you gain the ability to be in two places at once, allowing you to act from either location at any given time. You gain some serious tactical advantage with a summon, but your action points remain static and must be divided between the two.

As for the Artificer itself, most if not all constructs are defined as being animated by an elemental spirit, not controlled by it. Golems in particular have been described since at least 3e as having no independant thought, yet requiring an elemental spirit in order to move and attack.

If you want to be "logical" on the matter, you have to ask yourself "why does it move in the first place"? The very act of walking is a complex series of calculations and movements that challenge even modern robotics experts, who have computers aiding the process. And that's just walking a flat surface, slopes and stairs and other obstacles make this significantly more difficult. This is the most basic task a construct has. How does it decide friend from foe before attacking? Pick a target? Determine the optimal path for reaching that target? Decide which method to use on that target? Manage the exacting manuevers to accomplish the attack (even punching someone requires a huge amount of calculation and animation to attempt effectively)? An artificer has no computers to do the work, can't limit their constructs to do a task mechanically, can't necessarily afford too much proactiveness in a construct, and needs to be able to direct them remotely (preferably by voice command).

Enter the elemental spirit concept, which removes all the difficulties of animation and instruction handling, but they are only handling the basic functions instead of directing its actions. This makes them controlable yet easy to use at the same time, an absolute requirement for a tinkering artificer.

If you want to look at it another way, summoning in 4e is the equivalent to Pokemon: you cease to be an active participant in the battle, but you are still needed to yell "Iron Golem! Use Slam Attack!" in order to fight effectively. Or is that super effectively?

Dragosai
2010-08-12, 10:47 AM
So summoning Artificers just got the short end of the stick that is pretty much it. The reasons are very clear;

1) The designers wanted very badly to not fall into two traps of 3.x, the first trap being the army in a pocket, the second having class powers make other class(s) features pointless.

2) It was the designers first shot at summoning rules in 4th ED and they err too far on the side of caution.

So really for the Artificers you can play the non-summon build, which is quite good, or you can house rule some better summons for them.

Oh yeah to the OP and the whole sentient thing, yeah the elementals used for making stuff in Eberron is just fluff, it has nothing to do with mechanics. Sky ships are powered by fire elemental but still require someone to "steer" the ship by telling the elemental what to do. An elemental is more of just a power source, not a "life" giving source bestowing sentience into constructs. Again that is just how the wacky day to day "magic" integrated into society that takes place in Eberron works/is explained.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 11:19 AM
Look at it this way: a lich king or thrallherd, or for that matter a wizard or druid or whatever who can give their summons their own initiative, is dangerous--a threat that must be dealt with--partly because he is able to so far exceed the limitations normally placed upon a necromancer or simple enchanter. He is a fair foe for an entire group of players. Someone who can just call up one or two summons and has to order them around in detail is a normal (leader) monster, or maybe an elite. 4e is not like 3.5, where a summoner was an entire party in one character.

The problem with giving players the ability to summon completely independent creatures is this: if each of those creatures has an entire set of actions and is rougly as effective as a PC, whoever summons one is roughly as effective as two PCs now. If they can summon more than one, it gets worse. In order for summoning to be balanced, the summoner has to give up something roughly as powerful as the summon. 4e handles it by making the summoner spend his actions to let the summon act.This would be fine and all if the construct was anywhere near as effective as a PC, but they are not, not even close, you can't even make them attack based off of what the rules say, though it is implied that they might be, if they had an arm or something to attack with


Now, I've had a player in my group make roughly the same complaint as you. The solution I came up with was to give him a ritual which summoned an ally. Not a completely subservient creature, an actual, independent creature which he could bargain with for services. If he summoned one and got it to work with him, I played it as an NPC.Not the same, I want a construct that I contructed, my 3.5 Blighter's undead animal companion was a result of several animals and my Craft (taxidermy) skill, it is no fun unless you make it yourself


Edit: By the way, to answer your original question: what's the point of summoning a wolf or a fire elemental against its will if it can't act on it's own? You might as well train as a fighter and hit things yourself if you have to spend your actions.The question has not yet been answered, the question was why bother kidnapping an elemental spirit when it does absolutely nothing, I have to move it myself, the spirit does nothing


This is my stock answer whenever my players ask a question like this.

Are you saying you're a better artificer than your character? Are you saying you know more about artificing? When was the last time you artifice'd something? When was the last time you kidnapped an elemental spirit?

Oh you're not an artificer and you've never kidnapped an elemental spirit and forced it into a shell? Then I don't think you should be talking about what an artificer can or can't do!Why would I, or the Artificer for that matter, kidnap an elemental spirit for it to just sit there in a shell while I and not the elemental spirit, command the shell? It is sitting there doing nothing?
I am not talking about what an artificer can or can't do, I am asking what the purpose is of the purposeless task of kidnapping and confining


Silliness aside, it's magic. Don't think too hard about how magic works because, by definition, it's something that doesn't work logically.Not the Artificer, they are supposed to be the technologically inclined class from what I have read so one could easily assume their 'magic' is supposed to make sense?


To be fair intristic Actions are not the only way to let your creatures act and act by yourself.

Ranger and their beast companion for example have powers to do this. Wizards can use minor actions to let summons move.

Mounts can gave additional attacks or add damage.That doesn't seem very fair to me? Why would you consider that being fair? :smallconfused:


You do realize that balance and NPCs and PCs working under the same rules is not the same thing, right? 4e is a gamist system, which means that game balance is a high priority, at the cost of some mechanical elements not making a lot of sense from a realistic perspective.They worked the same in 3.5? How was I supposed to know that for some odd reason NPCs work differently? Does this affect gameplay? I could only assume it does... can a level 5 NPC be defeated by 5 level 1 PCs? The way you talk I could only assume no?


There's a very simple answer to this that you basically gave yourself without knowing. Think about how long the average PC is going to be around. The entire campaign, gods willing, right?

How long is a single NPC going to be present in the campaign? Probably only about five rounds, maybe a few fights if they're reoccurring villains or the BBEG. NPCs get to have their high HP and silly powers because they usually aren't going to be around long enough to unbalance things down the line and need to provide a challenging encounter. PCs, on the other foot, are balanced to not horribly break things like action economy and damage caps because of their longevity and make the game interesting and fun instead of a "Save-or-Die" affair like 3.5.

tl;dr: NPCs get less screen time, so they get more goodies to make that time awesome.But then how will people make characters based off of monster races? I do not see how this 4e is superior to 3.5, I know lots of people who greatly enjoyed choosing a race from the MM, they must be sadly disappointed now


Also note that long term creations of undead or any of the dragonhouses' toys would be in the purview of rituals. Your spells as an artificer are ad hoc tricks to get things done. Surely, they will not be as effiicient as a day long and very expensive ritual.

Sure, there are no such rituals printed at the moment. But here is fair ruling: To make a minion pay the same costs you would pay for a slave of comparable training. Your advantage as an artificer being that elemental binding is legal in most civilized countries.So then you say instead of binding worthless elemental spirits who can't do anything I should make my artificer evil and bind human spirits to things? Interesting idea... I am sure I could figure out a way to not do this evil-y though Full Metal Alchemist comes to mind with this lol


The point is: While 4E is a gamistic rule set it has a very narrative way to describe the world.

The powers of the players and the npc are not all that those could do. They are only the options that are available at a given moment within the story of the adventure. Retraining is a good example. You do not forget how to throw a fireball if you retrain it. But you do not do it any longer, at least within this part of the story. The same narrative approach is used for npc powers. They are not what the npc could do at all. Only the options that might be used within the current fight. The powers of players and npc are not different fluffwise - they are only described differently by the game mechanics because they have different parts within the story.

A NPC necromancer does use commands to let his undead minions act the same way PC do it.
And a PC artificers summons does act without his commands (even without intrinstic actions) the same way the undead minions do.Not according to the rules? The rules state that an Artificer's construct can do nothing whatsoever without its Artificer spending an action?


But the rule mechanics work different. The necromancers effort to command his minions is calculated by not making him a solo - and therefore limiting his actions and general power by this decision. The reason for this is that it is a better way to provide a more exciting fight as part of your adventure if you can gave the monsters flexible powers and still let them be balanced.You mean the reason for this is for the players to see this and think to theirselves that ooooh, that would be fun to make my next character be like, and then crush their dreams of a fun character because for some reason NPCs are more powerful than PCs when people are supposed to be people regardless of who commands them


A artificers summons actions are calculated by static benefits that comes into play without taking an extra action. (For example a Obedient Servant does damage a nearby opponent even if you do not let it attack as long as your defender is marking it, or the wizards summons opportunity attacks or intrinstic nature)An Artificer's summons will sit next to a nearby opponent and do nothing until the Artificer spends an action on it for it to attack back or flee or anything at all, it does not defend itself, it is an empty shell housing a poor, defenseless elemental spirit who has no need to be there because it cannot do anything


So even if you do have to use actions to command summons they do not standing still until you do so. The things your summons do as an "attack" on your command are just much better than those actions they could do on their own.I don't know where you get your info but according to these rules this statement is incorrect.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 11:23 AM
The question has not yet been answered, the question was why bother kidnapping an elemental spirit when it does absolutely nothing, I have to move it myself, the spirit does nothing
I'm pretty sure trying to get a suit of armor to move without an elemental spirit inside would be a little more difficult than spending a Move Action with one inside :smalltongue:

If you're trying to reconstruct Magical Problem Solvers and Army-in-Pocket style characters in 4E, you're doomed to failure. They violate core concepts of 4E ("teamwork over generalists" and "action economy") and just don't have a place in the game. If you absolutely must play one of these two archetypes to have fun, then 4E just isn't for you.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-08-12, 11:35 AM
An Artificer's summons will sit next to a nearby opponent and do nothing until the Artificer spends an action on it for it to attack back or flee or anything at all, it does not defend itself, it is an empty shell housing a poor, defenseless elemental spirit who has no need to be there because it cannot do anything

I don't know where you get your info but according to these rules this statement is incorrect.

I don't know much about Artificers, but I opened up the CB and took a look at one of their summoning powers. Here you go:


Obedient Servant

Effect: You create a medium obedient servant in an unoccupied squre within range. The servant has speed 6. Any marked enemy that starts its turn adjacent to the obedient servant takes damage equal to your wisdom modifier. You can give the servant the following commands:
Standard action: Stuff
Opportunity Attack: Stuff

See the bolded stuff? Thats something your summon does without your control. That is what he was talking about.

As a side note: I find this thread hilarious in that when 4e came out, the naysayers were complaining that the PC's were the center of the universe and all NPCs were less powerful blah blah blah. And now the OP of this thread complains about exactly the opposite.

And listen: Monster races have never been more easy to duplicate. Seriously, all it takes is a little ingenuity and a look in the back of the monster manual where they have all the entry's. Want to play a mindflayer but it isn't in the book? +2 dex and +2 int seems about right, with a small bonus to grab checks and Arcana, and some power which involves brain sucking.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 11:47 AM
....

Have you been playing 4e at all? There is a pretty definite line between what a PC does and what an NPC does.Nope, I mean I tried it once but could not stand how dumbed down it was, it made the gameplay less fun :smallfrown:


This is not some contest between the dungeon master and YOU. The NPC's don't need to be balanced compared to player classes because you will never PLAY an npc. All that matters is that when the NPCs are thrown at the player, it is challenging and fun. I would certainly hope it isn't some contest between the DM and me, that would seem a bit schizophrenic or something?! :smallconfused:


It is the worst when players ask about this kind of stuff at the table. "What, he can use mage hand from THAT FAR AWAY! But the mage hand descriptor says blah blah blah..." Yes, if only 4e followed its own rules then the DM wouldn't have to lie for it with some stupid excuse of maybe it being a better Mage Hand spell, just to get that player to then try to learn it and break the game, sigh, if only 4e followed its own rules


When I want to make a level 5 fighter npc, I don't grab a character sheet and work out what powers I want at each level. Those days are gone. Instead I find out what HP a level 5 solider should have, what defenses, augment these depending on how I stat him out, and give him a couple powers which I think would help build a fun monster. If I decide that tide of iron needs to do 2[W] and be an encounter ability, I change it. PC fighter class be damned.I prefer to follow the rules, broken though they may be


And if my players want to complain because I tried to make an encounter more fun, and that I should have just stuck by the rules and gone with a less fun encounter, well I don't really know what to say to them.True, too bad the game is so broken that it forces you to break the rules


welcome to 4th edition.Sigh, I tried to stay away for as long as I could after I had high hopes when it was released and played a game, but my players bought a 4e campaign book by mistake and why would they even need a campaign book? Well in 4e you are FORCED to buy campaign books because otherwise you won't be able to break the rules the just right amount so that it doesn't seem one-sided too much on either side.


It doesn't have to.

For instance, the rogue's sneak attack ability represents hitting a monster in a vital spot for massive damage. 3E takes this to the realistic conclusion that since skeleton warriors don't have a vital spot, you therefore can't sneak attack them. 4E instead decides that it wouldn't be fun nor balanced for the rogue to be more-or-less useless in a fight with skeleton warriors, and therefore sneak attack works on them.{/quote]NO EFFING WAY?!?! They got rid of that?! This is just terrible? How do you sneak attack a skeleton?! The 'uselessness' of the rogue is what made them think on their feet!? Now they will just use the same attack over and over, what is next? No one is immune or resistant to anything? We wouldn't want fire mages to be 'useless' in certain battles, let's just remove that then and make all elements do equal damage!

[quote]Certain abilities would be unbalanced in the hands of PCs. An enemy enchanter can have an at-will minor action dominate attack, for example. PCs don't get this, ever. Conversely, a moderate-to-high level PC has way more abilities and powers than any monster you'll ever meet. This is to make the DM's life easier: if you want to give an enemy a fireball attack, you don' thave to look up what exactly the PC fireball attack does; you just decide what you want your enemy to do, and he does that.It wouldn't be unbalanced if the NPC never had it
Easy maybe, not so much fun though


One thing that hasn't been mentioned: Companion Characters (DMG2)No no, it has been mentioned


If you really want a semi-permanent ally (a construct for artificers, an animal or plant for druids, a summoned monster for wizards/sorcs, a divine assistant for clerics, a hireling/follower for anyone), these can be made using the "companion character" rules from DMG2.I'm thinking maybe a steampunk-y hat, or pocketwatch or hmmmm... idk


These qualify/justify adding an NPC to the party to assist them. However, as it's an extra thing and it's actively helping, it makes the fights easier, therefore it makes the fight worth less XP (thus the GM will probably make the fights harder to compensate)How could a hat or pocketwatch help in fights?


Importantly, this option is open to any class, it's not a class-feature/spell-choice like it was in 3.5Intriguing, but wouldn't getting one require me to give something up? Like maybe a feat? That would impede my alchemy...


This NPC =/= PC thing isn't a 4e thing. Every edition except for 3e has NPCs and PCs working by different rules. Even in 3e where they tried to shoehorn them both into working with the same rules, NPCs have been allowed to break the rules if they needed to.No not really, at least not as much as seen in 4e, the thing is the DM always can break the rules, but I didn't see rule breaking being featured in any 3.X Monster Manual?


For example, NPC necromancers can raise and control armies of undead that PCs just isn't able to.Are you sure? I could have sworn I was in a long term campaign which ended with one of my party members running off to build an army of the undead, and then we had to go find and kill him to protect some town...


Artifacts are always stuff made by long dead NPCs that no PCs are able to make even if they became lv 20 wizards etc.That is because you think the level cap is 20, it is not, the games I ran had level caps into deity levels, which were moderately confusing but the two times it happened I was sure to have the Deities and Demigods book handy to explain them whenever


A properly built dread necromancer can control millions of HD of undead... I know i have done it XDToo true


There's one other aspect that should be pointed out: Balance does not always mean equality.When you have players clamoring for the Monster Manual for PC races, it does mean equality


PCs have far more offense than they have defense, for instance, which makes PC vs PC fights generally brutal but short and usually not all that satisfying.lol, one time, in 3.5 I had this winged druid with a ring of invisibility up against an archer, turned the ring on, flew to his quiver, wood shaped them into an elephant, invis turns off and he concedes. That was not really brutal but was much fun for me and indeed short


NPCs, however, tend to have more defense than offense, meaning that they take longer to kill but don't have as many opportunities to kill you in one shot. This creates an epic battle where both sides get to showboat for the crowd quite a bit more, resulting in a more satisfying combat. Also note that most NPC enemies generally have a LOT fewer modes of attack than an equivalent PC, but get to use them more often (i.e. encounter and daily moves can often be restored if a certain requirement is satisfied). And that's not counting the Minion class of NPCs who only have 1 HP no matter their level or power. PCs and NPCs have virtually nothing in common when it comes to combat.So they do this to force you to buy their campaign books because you will never be able to guess how much rule breaking is enough?


The point of PC balance, however, is to make all of the PCs equal in effectiveness, but not identical in gameplay. Allowing one player to have more action points per turn than another ruins this balance. Instead, you gain the ability to spend those actions points controlling a creature that is usually quite powerfulUnless I somehow forged a robot (the Warforged), this statement is untrue, the best my character would be able to do is make my lantern run a suicide attempt at an enemy to try to deal plain fire damage maybe?


likely with abilities different from your own,Ah yes, no abilities whatsoever, that is indeed different than my own


often of a different archetype than you,Lamp... yes my archetype is most certainly not lamp.


and ultimately expendable.Well after a while, replacing all those lamps will get expensive?


Plus you gain the ability to be in two places at once, allowing you to act from either location at any given time. You gain some serious tactical advantage with a summon, but your action points remain static and must be divided between the two.Ah yes, the serious tactical advantage of either have yourself getting surrounded and attacked and doing nothing about it, or your lamp. Only one of you gets to move, you likely would choose yourself but oh yes, what a serious tactical advantage it is to have to spend more components, lamps, and wasted turns to make more constructs of lamps to get surrounded and slaughtered while you fear the same and thus must make your move for you, losing another lamp, oh what serious tactical advantages indeed


As for the Artificer itself, most if not all constructs are defined as being animated by an elemental spirit, not controlled by it. Golems in particular have been described since at least 3e as having no independant thought, yet requiring an elemental spirit in order to move and attack.

If you want to be "logical" on the matter, you have to ask yourself "why does it move in the first place"? The very act of walking is a complex series of calculations and movements that challenge even modern robotics experts, who have computers aiding the process. And that's just walking a flat surface, slopes and stairs and other obstacles make this significantly more difficult. This is the most basic task a construct has. How does it decide friend from foe before attacking? Pick a target? Determine the optimal path for reaching that target? Decide which method to use on that target? Manage the exacting manuevers to accomplish the attack (even punching someone requires a huge amount of calculation and animation to attempt effectively)? An artificer has no computers to do the work, can't limit their constructs to do a task mechanically, can't necessarily afford too much proactiveness in a construct, and needs to be able to direct them remotely (preferably by voice command).

Enter the elemental spirit concept, which removes all the difficulties of animation and instruction handling, but they are only handling the basic functions instead of directing its actions. This makes them controlable yet easy to use at the same time, an absolute requirement for a tinkering artificer. Hmm, finally a reason for the senseless kidnapping and imprisonment


If you want to look at it another way, summoning in 4e is the equivalent to Pokemon: you cease to be an active participant in the battle, but you are still needed to yell "Iron Golem! Use Slam Attack!" in order to fight effectively. Or is that super effectively?Yes but Pokemon are not only useful, they generally only attack the ones in battle, not the one controlling the battle as well

Reverent-One
2010-08-12, 11:53 AM
When you have players clamoring for the Monster Manual for PC races, it does mean equality

The monster manual DOES include stats to use monster races for PCs.

And it's not that NPCs "break the rules", it's that they use different rules than the ones for PCs.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 11:54 AM
So summoning Artificers just got the short end of the stick that is pretty much it. The reasons are very clear;

1) The designers wanted very badly to not fall into two traps of 3.x, the first trap being the army in a pocket, the second having class powers make other class(s) features pointless.

2) It was the designers first shot at summoning rules in 4th ED and they err too far on the side of caution.

So really for the Artificers you can play the non-summon build, which is quite good, or you can house rule some better summons for them.It is the DM's party NPC so I figured might as well go for the buffing build anyways


Oh yeah to the OP and the whole sentient thing, yeah the elementals used for making stuff in Eberron is just fluff, it has nothing to do with mechanics. Sky ships are powered by fire elemental but still require someone to "steer" the ship by telling the elemental what to do. An elemental is more of just a power source, not a "life" giving source bestowing sentience into constructs. Again that is just how the wacky day to day "magic" integrated into society that takes place in Eberron works/is explained.Hmmm I see, I never was too into Eberron, I only looked into it for the Alchemist PrC/PP


I'm pretty sure trying to get a suit of armor to move without an elemental spirit inside would be a little more difficult than spending a Move Action with one inside :smalltongue:Someone already said that


If you're trying to reconstruct Magical Problem Solvers and Army-in-Pocket style characters in 4E, you're doomed to failure. They violate core concepts of 4E ("teamwork over generalists" and "action economy") and just don't have a place in the game. If you absolutely must play one of these two archetypes to have fun, then 4E just isn't for you.My problem is not that, it is that NPCs get to do it and so my players will want to do it too and I have to lie about why they can't


I don't know much about Artificers, but I opened up the CB and took a look at one of their summoning powers. Here you go:

See the bolded stuff? Thats something your summon does without your control. That is what he was talking about.Ah I see, must have overlooked that, that is very odd though how it can move then without my input but not any other time?


As a side note: I find this thread hilarious in that when 4e came out, the naysayers were complaining that the PC's were the center of the universe and all NPCs were less powerful blah blah blah. And now the OP of this thread complains about exactly the opposite.Not exactly, what I am complaining about is the lack of balance, you will not be able to make your own campaign without buying a campaign book that has the rules breaking previously playtested


And listen: Monster races have never been more easy to duplicate. Seriously, all it takes is a little ingenuity and a look in the back of the monster manual where they have all the entry's. Want to play a mindflayer but it isn't in the book? +2 dex and +2 int seems about right, with a small bonus to grab checks and Arcana, and some power which involves brain sucking.When each monster had its player stats right there, then it was easier to duplicate

felinoel
2010-08-12, 11:55 AM
The monster manual DOES include stats to use monster races for PCs.

And it's not that NPCs "break the rules", it's that they use different rules than the ones for PCs.First of all, awesome avatar, secondly, different rules for NPCs in the eyes of the PC is breaking the rules

felinoel
2010-08-12, 11:58 AM
I'm thinking maybe a steampunk-y hat, or pocketwatch or hmmmm... idkNo no! Wings! My construct ally thing will be wings, I always prefer battling in three dimensions and as an alchemist I can let gravity do all the work with concoction slinging, now I just gotta find the rules on flight...

Reverent-One
2010-08-12, 12:00 PM
First of all, awesome avatar, secondly, different rules for NPCs in the eyes of the PC is breaking the rules

No, it's not. Psionics spellcasters and normal spellcasters in 3.5 had different rules, and that was fine. NPCs have different rules than PCs because they are not PCs.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 12:06 PM
No, it's not. Psionics spellcasters and normal spellcasters in 3.5 had different rules, and that was fine. NPCs have different rules than PCs because they are not PCs.Psionics were way too confusing for the players to know the difference and spellcasters were too varied, as far as they knew it was just a different class of spellcaster which was why this spellcaster was able to do that.

Effing tied up enemy spellcaster teleporting away, could have sworn we gagged her...

Reverent-One
2010-08-12, 12:10 PM
Psionics were way too confusing for the players to know the difference and spellcasters were too varied, as far as they knew it was just a different class of spellcaster which was why this spellcaster was able to do that.


Then as far as the 4e players know, NPCs are just using a different class/set of powers.

Leolo
2010-08-12, 12:14 PM
So even if you do have to use actions to command summons they do not standing still until you do so. The things your summons do as an "attack" on your command are just much better than those actions they could do on their own.


I don't know where you get your info but according to these rules this statement is incorrect.

No, it is not. The summons do something without that you spend an action.

For example a flameheart defender marks a target or vanish in a explosion, a obediant servant does damage and like a relentless harrier it can take opportunity attacks. All of them counts as allies and can flank or can take extra attacks granted by the warlord. All can move with minor actions.

That might not look impressive (although it could be powerful with the right leader in your group), and as said above: If you command a summon it will do much better things. But nevertheless the statement above was true - summons does not stand on their place and do nothing. All Summons have abilities that are usefull if you do not use a special command.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-12, 12:23 PM
First of all, awesome avatar, secondly, different rules for NPCs in the eyes of the PC is breaking the rules
I mean, if they want to be NPCs, let them be.

"OK, you have 1 Healing Surge and about 3 powers. And you can't level up, because you don't have a class. But you can command as many minions as you can create - here's the Ritual you use to do it."

I think you'll find that your players will prefer to be PCs than 0th Level NPCs :smallamused:

Faleldir
2010-08-12, 12:35 PM
When each monster had its player stats right there, then it was easier to duplicate

But no one wanted to play a monster race anyway because they had LA and RHD. What's the point of having a million options if most of them suck? You're using an argument that was also used to defend FATAL.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-08-12, 12:44 PM
Not exactly, what I am complaining about is the lack of balance, you will not be able to make your own campaign without buying a campaign book that has the rules breaking previously playtested


I have literally no idea what you are talking about.

Making a balanced encounter in 4e is the simplest thing. Way easier than in 3.5.

Dragosai
2010-08-12, 01:29 PM
{Scrubbed}

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-12, 01:30 PM
Why would I, or the Artificer for that matter, kidnap an elemental spirit for it to just sit there in a shell while I and not the elemental spirit, command the shell? It is sitting there doing nothing?
I am not talking about what an artificer can or can't do, I am asking what the purpose is of the purposeless task of kidnapping and confining


What an Artificer can or can't do is exactly what you're talking about, or am I missing something?

1. Artificer creates his artifice by kidnapping a spirit and confining it in a shell.
2. The artificer class as the rulebook presents it, is limited by having still having to give commands to the object. He is also limited by having to kidnap and confine the spirit before the object will work.
3a. You're saying that the artificer took a purposeless step in kidnapping and confining the spirit, when the book is telling you that he needed to take that step because that's how artificing works.
3b. You're saying that the artificer doesn't need to give commands (possibly magically) to the object for it to work, when the book is telling you that he does because that's how artificing works.

Aren't you assuming to know more about being an artificer than the artificer himself?



Not the Artificer, they are supposed to be the technologically inclined class from what I have read so one could easily assume their 'magic' is supposed to make sense?

This would be an incorrect assumption, since artificers work by infusing things with magic, their power source is Arcane, and nothing in our real life sciences address the mechanical applications of elemental spirits. :smallwink:

elpollo
2010-08-12, 01:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

BlckDv
2010-08-12, 01:59 PM
First of all, awesome avatar, secondly, different rules for NPCs in the eyes of the PC is breaking the rules

In the eyes of the PC? Why does a character in the game have any idea that their are rules? I'll assume you meant the players, and in that case the players must have only played d20 based games or a small handful of others.

Pre 3.0 AD&D and most other RPGs I have played do not try to be simulationist enough to put the same box of creation and power rules around the PCs and the NPCs/Monsters. Most of these games are quite happy to point this out up front and very clearly, some erring towards narative, and some like 4e erring towards gamist balance issues, so that any player who actually bothered to read the rules would know this and not be shocked that an NPC Paladin of Orcus has a necrotic damage close burst, instead of asking where that feat was for their PC.

4e does a WAAAAY better job than many other RPGs at giving you clear, easy to understand, and consistent rules for how to build NPCs. The DMG has very good guidelines on their HP, defenses, and powers, and the downloadable Adventure Tools allows you to build monsters all day long and have the computer do all the math for you if using the DMG charts is too hard.

You don't need any Campaign books; the Core DMG, which you should expect to need to own to run a game, gives you the rules clearly and in an easy to follow format to make monsters, traps, and dangerous environments so that you can prove you are not 'cheating" if you need to... but frankly if you as DM need to prove to your players you are not cheating, I think your game has deeper issues.

felinoel
2010-08-12, 02:19 PM
Then as far as the 4e players know, NPCs are just using a different class/set of powers.Except when they want to do the cool thing they just saw too


No, it is not. The summons do something without that you spend an action.Yes yes someone already corrected me on that, that if their new horrible existence as a worthless lamp is in peril then and ONLY then, they can defend
I mean, if they want to be NPCs, let them be.

"OK, you have 1 Healing Surge and about 3 powers. And you can't level up, because you don't have a class. But you can command as many minions as you can create - here's the Ritual you use to do it."

I think you'll find that your players will prefer to be PCs than 0th Level NPCs :smallamused:They won't listen to the bad differences, only the good differences
But no one wanted to play a monster race anyway because they had LA and RHD. What's the point of having a million options if most of them suck? You're using an argument that was also used to defend FATAL.No, EVERYONE wanted to play a monster race, I particularly liked the winged ones because fighting is so much easier in three dimensions, LAs were a godsend
{Scrubbed}Thanks

felinoel
2010-08-12, 02:34 PM
{Scrubbed}

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-12, 02:47 PM
A rogue's sneak attack is the opposite of magic? You cannot say a wizard did it when there was no wizardry involved?From this long post I see that you agree with me on how dumbed down 4e is, thank you

Oh, I get it. This was an edition war post all along.

Good call, elpollo. >_>

cupkeyk
2010-08-12, 02:50 PM
What I find strange is that tye OP wants to overrun the DM.

I was in a 3.5 campaign with a summoner druid and myself a batman wizard and we were fightinmg encounters 6 levels higher than us.

Now we are playing a 4e and the game is vastly more playable because the druid is a lingering frost rogue and I am a polearm control fighter. WE LIKE IT BECAUSE ITS HARDER.

*scratch*

I thought that was why 4e was designed as a progression to 3.5. And now there is someone who wants the old trample stomp stomp maniacal laugh system. Then play 3.5. I like 4e because its a team effort and we had to think. Overrunning your opponents with summons is not as much fun after game 3. Nor is coma-mancering. Nor is scry and sniping.

What you are looking for is a different game.

elpollo
2010-08-12, 03:04 PM
For one, every class is exactly the same

They really aren't. Have you looked at any of them? I like to use strikers for my example at this point, as they illustrate the point well.

So, strikers. Their point is to deal damage. Do they all have the same mechanic? No. Rogues have to backstab and flank, rangers have their quarry and multiple attack powers, warlocks have their curse (ok, similar in mechanics to the quarry) and are secondary controllers, avengers are incredibly accurate when targetting one opponent, assassins use sneaky tactics and preparation to pile up the shroud damage, sorcerors simply have powerful blasts, monks make a small secondary hit after the first...

That's one role. Each class has different mechanics to achieve their role. Each class is (surprisingly) different.



in 3.X they were most definitely not awful and you may think they are if you wish but I doubt you can persuade me otherwise

I said some of the rules were awful, not the classes (although I really should have - are you saying that a dread necromancer with his pile of undead is equal in power to a fighter focused on swinging a sword? And this isn't even the extreme ends of the scale). I might not be able to convince you, but you create a 3.5 fighter and I can guarantee that someone else (maybe even me, who knows) can create a build to wipe the floor with you.



What the eff is an animated lamp going to do that is such a problem? The lich king gets two to fourty-two turns to everyone else's one? That really isn't fair?

You know, you can just ask "What is an animated lamp blah blah blah?" rather than saying "What the eff?"?

The lich is a challenge to be overcome. If one of the players equals the challenge in power, four or five players (or even two) will destroy it. Then you scale the challenge up, and the players get scaled up, until you get bored of buying half a million skeleton miniatures for the one fight. It's fair because none of the players have that much power and thus don't dwarf the others (except they easily do in 3.5). Also, with 42 minioins you might as well get some swarms in instead, as it will really speed up combat.



Interesting and varied encounters yes, but 'balanced,' no

Interesting and varied, yes. Balanced, yes. I've been in a few 4e campaigns, and the best was run by a newbie DM (not just new to DMing, but also new to 4e and to roleplaying games). The first two or three sessions had monsters from the Monster Manual. After that we never saw a monster from that book again. He created incredibly fun and challenging enemies to fight, and we were pushed to our limits without us being destroyed. 4e was great in this respect.



By taking spell specialization?

Which isn't available to the fighter. You said the whole "It's not fair because the NPCs have options that the players don't" thing. I gave an example of that being the case in 3.X. You then supported that argument. Having different options available doesn't mean it's unbalanced - it means that you've got different options.



As was said before, the elemental binding thing is an Eberron thing, please stop repeating previous posts

It doesn't need to be exclusive to Eberron. I really like the imagery, as do many others. It can be applicable in any game.



Unneeded effort

Are you saying me saying that was unneeded, or giving the players the option is unneeded? What if a 3.5 player said to you "I want to play an incarnation of death, where anyone who touches me dies without a save, because I'm made of death"? Do you allow that? Of course not.



I don't know what you were playing but it certainly was not 3.X?

Is that a question or a statement?

Ok, example. Make me a CR19 embodiment of lust and envy for 3.5 which is an appropriate challenge for 5 level 19 characters. Then we get a 4e DM to create the same for a 4e group. Who's is going to be more balanced/made more quickly? I'm betting on the 4e one.



A rogue's sneak attack is the opposite of magic? You cannot say a wizard did it when there was no wizardry involved?

Ok, then he severs the spine with his sneak attack - skeleton down. With a zombie the magic requires the brain to animate, so you destroy the brain - zombie down. No magic involved (sans the whole existance of undead), and you've just sneak attacked an undead.



From this long post I see that you agree with me on how dumbed down 4e is, thank you

So... needless complexity is a good thing? I disagree with your use of "dumbed down" - it implies that it's done because only intelligent people can play 3.5, rather than because the rules were stupid.

Leolo
2010-08-12, 03:13 PM
Yes yes someone already corrected me on that, that if their new horrible existence as a worthless lamp is in peril then and ONLY then, they can defend

Where is the connection to reality? This sentence does have nothing to do with the rules. Or with my statement that you have quoted.

And many of your other statements does not have either. For example you have said that a wizard could not move if he wants to move his summon, too.

This is simple untrue.

Roland St. Jude
2010-08-12, 04:08 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Okay, that's about enough of that.