PDA

View Full Version : 4E Warlock



kpenguin
2007-10-11, 11:52 PM
What does everyone think of this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071012a)? A increase of the power and versatility of invocations is a step in the right direction, I believe.

Generic PC
2007-10-12, 12:00 AM
Well... I like it. the hinted Pacts, and Boons for Souls, fits. i hope that they have a more "clericy" or more good oriented one too, but honestly, this is what i though a warlock would be. so far, 4e seems to be good. granted, we havent actually seem the magic system, which is the tip of the sword, as it were, for this forum. This is taking a step in that direction, and i honestly, with my gut instinct, like it.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-10-12, 12:07 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the pacts are along the good/evil axis of things. -or I'm dead wrong and all Warlocks are all kinds of evil. *shrug* In any case, having more versatility and whatnot sounds quite promising for a class that should have been great from the start. What I like most about this article is that it leads one to believe (even more so if we are of like minds) that primary casters will be taking a page from the Warlock in terms of reliable contributions to situations as opposed to being stingy with the spells do to vancian spells per day.

Jarlax
2007-10-12, 12:15 AM
WOO Corelock!! i wonder if they kept the sorcerer around?

this is a class that looks like its going to bridge the gap between divine and arcane casters. an arcane caster who gains spells from a divine source.

plus as far as powers go its not a wizard clone, its abilities seem pretty cool. banish foes, summon allies or let loose a few eldrich blasts. and the summoning thing seems to imply your not getting an animal companion, these allies are off screen, appear for a round to do X and then go back where they came from.

Edit: which is more or less how familiars worked in 3E

Human Paragon 3
2007-10-12, 12:18 AM
Like in Final Fantasy? Weird...

Starsinger
2007-10-12, 12:36 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the pacts are along the good/evil axis of things. -or I'm dead wrong and all Warlocks are all kinds of evil. *shrug* In any case, having more versatility and whatnot sounds quite promising for a class that should have been great from the start. What I like most about this article is that it leads one to believe (even more so if we are of like minds) that primary casters will be taking a page from the Warlock in terms of reliable contributions to situations as opposed to being stingy with the spells do to vancian spells per day.

Or Warlocks use the power of darkness to combat the darkness... I mean, like a good aligned necromancer or something, they use typically evil powers to fight evil.. of course if, like I hope, the alignment system is going away, Warlocks will be as morally ambiguous as most classes.

Person_Man
2007-10-12, 12:43 AM
WTF? No one I know ever claimed that Warlocks were powerful - quite the opposite, within 1 minute of reading the class anyone with basic math Skills can figure out that their average damage per round is among the lowest in the game. The ability to do it "all day" is meaningless in most campaigns, because few DMs run more then 4 encounters per game day, and even then casters can use wands, and non-casters will still have superior melee weapon or arrow damage.

However, it is nice to see that they're still committed to giving every class "all day" abilities. Hopefully, it will solve many of the balance problems inherent with Vancian casting.

Also, they've previously said that there are going to be eight core classes that fit into four categories. It looks like we have a complete lineup now:

Leader: Warlord, Cleric
Striker: Rogue, Ranger
Defender: Paladin, Fighter
Controller: Wizard, Warlock

Guy_Whozevl
2007-10-12, 12:44 AM
The issue of having Tieflings the main "Warlock race" kinda scares me. In 3.5, they have a Charisma penalty, detracting from their overall power as Warlocks (which I believe have DCs based on Charisma). In 4.0, we better see varient Tieflings with different attribute bonuses based on parentage (kinda like the FCI web enhancement for different half-fiends) or at least one without a penalty to Charisma. If I get that, I'm sold on the Warlock as a cool concept for play mechanics and roleplaying.

Lyinginbedmon
2007-10-12, 12:52 AM
Oh, that I could see the thing :smallannoyed:

Omniplex
2007-10-12, 12:59 AM
Looks like warlock killed and ate the flavor of the binder, while retaining it's mechanics. I heartily approve of making it the core witchy sort of class, but I fear they will only have access to foul and dark sources of their power. Maybe that will change with supplements? I like the idea of someone who makes pacts with angels or archons or lawful supernaturalish outsiders. Not sure I like the idea of getting boons for sending souls to their afterlives. who kills a person should have no say on where he goes, unless he kills the person with a spell that specifically damns them, I suppose. It will probably still have the problems of being significantly weaker than wizards, spell-wise, in exchange for having inexhaustible power. but it was never really a full caster kind of class anyway.

Machete
2007-10-12, 01:06 AM
"A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? "

Feral patron= sounds like Fey


I'm very happy about this.

Jarlax
2007-10-12, 01:14 AM
Not sure I like the idea of getting boons for sending souls to their afterlives. who kills a person should have no say on where he goes, unless he kills the person with a spell that specifically damns them, I suppose.

while i hate to make this connection, it will probably work like WOW warlocks, if the creature is killed while a certain spell or effect is place on the monster you get a bonus.


but I will say that the pacts provide direct benefits when you send an enemy you've marked to their afterlife reward

i read this as meaning you kill them and they go to whatever afterlife they are assigned based on alignment or whatever it is in 4E, not that you redirect their souls to your patrons.

Skyserpent
2007-10-12, 01:16 AM
frankly, I'd like to say "Hell Yes."

TheOOB
2007-10-12, 01:19 AM
Meh, I don't like it, I think they are shoving too much premade flavor into a base class, thats what prestige classes are for. Base classes should be as versatile and customizable as possible, and let the player decide about the flavor, making warlocks all use dark and chaotic forces kind of limits them.

I much more prefer how 3e did sorcerers, the base-line idea is that sorcerers have dragon blood, but really they way the class was built you could explain your ability via celestial/fiendish blood, heavy training, exposer to a powerful magical effect, being fey touched, or whatever.

I have no problems with a class that can use it's magic continuously (though it sounds like wizards and clerics will already be able to do this to a point), but instead of pairing up the wizard with a dark sorcerer with forbidden powers, why couldn't they just find another class that went about magic in a mechanically different way then wizards, without having to tell us where we get out powers from.

On another subject, I'm not entirely convinced we will only see 8 core classes, for example I have not personally read or heard anything saying that the bard is out(acually I've been told that the bard is something they are still working on), but it doesn't fit into person_mans projected classes, all of which we have pretty clear confirmation on. Then again, bard may be a prestige class, which is probably for the best, once again a class with such a mechanical and fluff focus shouldn't be a base class in the first place.

Orzel
2007-10-12, 01:38 AM
"A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? "

Feral patron= sounds like Fey


I'm very happy about this.

Me too. My guess is that you can choose a fey, devil, or "shadow creature" as your patron (demons don't care about mortal minions anymore). Then based on your patron the warlock may get more enchantments (fey), blasty powers (devil), or illusions and necromacy (shadow) and get special class features when you knock off an enemy.

Behold_the_Void
2007-10-12, 01:51 AM
Notice the reference to the Sorcerers, Bards, and Monks. I wonder if all those classes are still planned to be in it.

Overlard
2007-10-12, 05:07 AM
I like it. I like it a lot.

And I'm glad they're synergising the warlock and tiefling - they always went together in flavour, but not in mechanics. I never understood tieflings getting a negative to charisma anyway - it's not all about looks people! You may be less likely to believe/trust someone with small horns (diplomacy & bluff), but how that affects his ability to intimdate you, use magic devices or his force of personality in general, remains a mystery.

Ecalsneerg
2007-10-12, 05:17 AM
WTF? No one I know ever claimed that Warlocks were powerful - quite the opposite, within 1 minute of reading the class anyone with basic math Skills can figure out that their average damage per round is among the lowest in the game. The ability to do it "all day" is meaningless in most campaigns, because few DMs run more then 4 encounters per game day, and even then casters can use wands, and non-casters will still have superior melee weapon or arrow damage.
That's very true. Few DMs take the time to let non-casters excel for this very reason. Then cry about overpowered psionics. But meh.

Leader: Warlord, Cleric
Striker: Rogue, Ranger
Defender: Paladin, Fighter
Controller: Wizard, Warlock

See, this line-up wouuld be excpetional were it not for a class called 'Warlord'. Am I the only one that thinks that implies leader of an army, not an adventuring party?

Overlard
2007-10-12, 06:15 AM
See, this line-up wouuld be excpetional were it not for a class called 'Warlord'. Am I the only one that thinks that implies leader of an army, not an adventuring party?
To me it's like having a base class called "archmage", "master thief" or "general". They're all things that have to be earned, and someone calling themselves a warlord when a couple of goblins with broken clubs still present a legitimate threat is just asking for trouble.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-10-12, 06:36 AM
Up to a point, I'm okay with it. A Warlord is a marshal with a less wimpy name, really. And marshal stepped on bard's toes. So, warlord will likely be a new marshal.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-12, 07:49 AM
Leader: Warlord, Cleric
Striker: Rogue, Ranger
Defender: Paladin, Fighter
Controller: Wizard, Warlock

Wait a second - I can get that Barbarian may be subsumed in fighter or ranger, and druid into cleric, and sorcerer into warlock -- but whatever happened to the bard?

Morty
2007-10-12, 08:39 AM
Am I the only one who can see the legions of dark, brooding and sinister (TM) tiefling warlocks?
I never liked the Warlock and I doubt I ever will. However, this article gives hope that they'll get rid of this "inborn powers" rubbish.

Thinker
2007-10-12, 08:44 AM
Wait a second - I can get that Barbarian may be subsumed in fighter or ranger, and druid into cleric, and sorcerer into warlock -- but whatever happened to the bard?

A dandy who can sing? A rogue could do this quite well :smalltongue:

psychoticbarber
2007-10-12, 09:41 AM
A dandy who can sing? A rogue could do this quite well :smalltongue:

Personally I'm hoping it becomes Arcane Leader. Because I love Bards, and while it might make sense, "subset of rogue" just doesn't quite tickle my fancy.

WorthingSon
2007-10-12, 10:02 AM
Any chance I could get someone to post the text of the artical? I'm at work and the site is blocked. :smallfrown:

Belial_the_Leveler
2007-10-12, 10:14 AM
I generally disagree with either warlocks or wizards becoming "controllers"-where is the artillery-type character? I guess I'll have to homebrew my magister class in the 4th edition again...

Rex Blunder
2007-10-12, 10:21 AM
Notice the reference to the Sorcerers, Bards, and Monks. I wonder if all those classes are still planned to be in it.

But notice the context.


The warlock wasn't part of the adventuring party we originally pictured stepping out of the first 4th Edition Players Handbook. As you might expect, the original party included most all the incumbents, with sorcerers and bards alongside wizards and monks.

It sounds like this list of classes includes at least a few classes whose jobs are not safe in PHB1. We know wizards are in, but sorcerers, bards, and monks are on the bubble. In fact, this article strongly implies sorcerers are out.


Fast forward a couple of drafts into the future. We'd started understanding that our power-rich approach to the classes meant that we almost certainly wouldn't be launching with every class we might want to. Our understanding of the party roles indicates that the sorcerer and the wizard might very well be standing on each other's toes and pointy hats.

Remember that every core class not in PHB1 will probably be in PHB2 or 3. Monk, bard, probably sorcerer - probably a year or maybe two.

Fax Celestis
2007-10-12, 10:33 AM
"A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? "

Remember that cosmology thread? Sounds like the warlock binds to powers from the Shadowfell, the Abyss, or the Feywild.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-10-12, 10:39 AM
-and now I look like a chump for not connecting those adjacent dots. :smalltongue:

OX166
2007-10-12, 12:07 PM
To mr friendly...I beleive the warlord is suppose to replace the bard granting benefits to its members...hence the name...it not so much as a warlord in that it is a rank but rather the kind of guy you want to follow into battle because he'll have aura effects. (Hypothetical inference)

Draz74
2007-10-12, 12:30 PM
To mr friendly...I beleive the warlord is suppose to replace the bard granting benefits to its members...hence the name...it not so much as a warlord in that it is a rank but rather the kind of guy you want to follow into battle because he'll have aura effects. (Hypothetical inference)

Yeah ... I think a "Bard" will be a Warlord, with decent Intelligence and certain talent trees. Maybe with some multiclassing into Rogue or Wizard (depending on whether it's a casting-focused Bard). And Skill Focus: Perform. Voila, a 4E bard.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-12, 12:53 PM
Yeah ... I think a "Bard" will be a Warlord

So you don't think a bard base class will follow in PHB2?

Fax Celestis
2007-10-12, 01:23 PM
So you don't think a bard base class will follow in PHB2?

I do. I just don't think it'll look like the 3e Bard does. I think it'll look more like the Factotum.

Draz74
2007-10-12, 02:20 PM
So you don't think a bard base class will follow in PHB2?

Oh, it probably will ... I don't trust WotC to not duplicate (to an extent; see below) their 3.5 policy of making a very specific Base Class for every character archetype under the sun. :smallyuk:

It's looking like there will be no Druid in the PHB I, but that the Druid will arrive in a later PHB. Now, for the first year of 4E, the emphatic message will be, "it's OK. Druid was really just a nature priest anyway. You can just play a Cleric with the Animal, Plant, and Storm domains and you'll still be an OK Druid." (Or something like that; I'm making up the details.)

Then, as soon as the PHB II (or III or whatever) comes out, WotC will suddenly and forcefully reverse their tacit support for the attitude in the previous paragraph, and will start sending out the message, "To be a real Druid, you can't just be a nature-Cleric. You have to buy and use the new book." The same will happen with the Bard: you can use the (multiclass?) Warlord to simulate a decent Bard. But not as good as the real Bard in a later book.

That's what happened with the Swashbuckler. You could make a decent Fighter/Rogue/Duelist swashbuckler before Complete Warrior came out. But he wouldn't be as officially swash-buckley as the CW version, now, would he? So of course the new base class has to join the game.

Now, WotC seems to be moving away from this strategy, at least a little bit. After all, they've implied that there won't be a Swashbuckler class in 4E, because the new system of Talent Trees instead of class features will make the base classes more customizable, right?

So I think the problem will be greatly lessened -- with the exception of iconic concepts that have a lot of market power. WotC knows there are some base classes people are willing to give them money for, and the Druid and the Bard are two great examples.

Person_Man
2007-10-12, 08:07 PM
Wait a second - I can get that Barbarian may be subsumed in fighter or ranger, and druid into cleric, and sorcerer into warlock -- but whatever happened to the bard?

A common refrain has been that "Class A kills Class B and takes its stuff." For example, the Ranger is killing the Scout. Many people have speculated that the Warlord is going to be a Marshal/Dragon Shaman/Bard-ish party buff character. If you want to play a Bard, just play a multi-class Warlord/Wizard, and roleplay.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure that codex creep will take hold eventually, giving us the opportunity to play pretty much any class you can think of. The Bard is pretty popular, so I'm sure we'll see him in the first round of supplements.

Tren
2007-10-13, 09:19 AM
I rather like the idea of the Warlock as they've laid it out here. It seems to me this fills the role that the sorcerer failed at in 3.X, a primary arcane caster that differs in fluff and has practical differences in mechanics from the wizard (oooh I know fewer spells and can cast them more often!) And as for fluff, they're really pitching it as more of a binder/true name/pact sort of arcane caster, which I think is cool. It's not a new concept for D&D, but it's inclusion as more of a core mechanic makes a lot of sense in a world suffused with demons, devils, fey, and shadow creatures.

brian c
2007-10-13, 12:14 PM
WTF? No one I know ever claimed that Warlocks were powerful - quite the opposite, within 1 minute of reading the class anyone with basic math Skills can figure out that their average damage per round is among the lowest in the game. The ability to do it "all day" is meaningless in most campaigns, because few DMs run more then 4 encounters per game day, and even then casters can use wands, and non-casters will still have superior melee weapon or arrow damage.

However, it is nice to see that they're still committed to giving every class "all day" abilities. Hopefully, it will solve many of the balance problems inherent with Vancian casting.

Also, they've previously said that there are going to be eight core classes that fit into four categories. It looks like we have a complete lineup now:

Leader: Warlord, Cleric
Striker: Rogue, Ranger
Defender: Paladin, Fighter
Controller: Wizard, Warlock

Wait- what's warlord? I must have missed that

Somebloke
2007-10-13, 12:19 PM
A new class that buffs playes through morale means (or somesuch) rather than clerical powers. From what I've heard, it sounds like a blend of the bard, a fighter and the TOB Crusader...as a low-magic DM, I am definately intrigued.

Human Paragon 3
2007-10-14, 10:47 PM
Is there a link to source info on the Warlord?

Matthew
2007-10-14, 10:53 PM
Try the Enworld Unofficial 4e page. That usually sources its information; I don't recall off hand exactly where the Warlord was mentioned.

TheOOB
2007-10-14, 10:59 PM
I generally disagree with either warlocks or wizards becoming "controllers"-where is the artillery-type character? I guess I'll have to homebrew my magister class in the 4th edition again...

As WotC has mentioned, direct damage is one way of controlling the battlefield, just no the only way.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-15, 05:28 AM
As WotC has mentioned, direct damage is one way of controlling the battlefield, just no the only way.

That's a rather novel definition of "controlling"...

Dausuul
2007-10-15, 07:58 AM
That's a rather novel definition of "controlling"...

I think it's WotC's way of saying, "Look, we recognize that lots of people love to play wizards as battlefield controllers and we plan for them to continue in that role, but lots of people also love to play wizards as blasters. So we're going to pretend that blasting is a form of control, so that we can justify giving it to a Controller instead of, say, a Leader, to whom it is arguably more suited."

Person_Man
2007-10-15, 11:02 AM
As WotC has mentioned, direct damage is one way of controlling the battlefield, just no the only way.

Leader: Healing and Party buff
Defender: Meatshield and ToB-ishweapon maneuvers
Striker: Skills and extra damage
Controller: Battlefield control, summoning, and blasting.

I think its a pretty good division of labor, in theory. (In theory communism works - so we'll see if the game actually delivers what it promises. But that's another thread.).

Clerics and Warlords (most likely using Crusader-ish abilities) will make sure that you don't die, and will buff themselves (which is the primary Cleric tactic now anyway) and others.

Fighters and Paladins will have the highest hit points and AC so that they can stand in the way of enemies if a Controller hasn't bothered to summon something, and they can use cool weapon maneuvers.

Rogues and Rangers have more trained Skills and can deal the most raw damage each round (assuming they change how Power Attack/Leap Attack and iterative attacks work).

Wizards and Warlocks will use battlefield control (Entangle, Tentacles, Solid Fog), summoning/binding, and blasting/fireballs.


The trick, I think, is for each and every class to have powers that can be used at will, per encounter, and per day, and for these abilities to be balanced against the abilities of all other classes at the same level. If they do this well, 4E will be a great game. If they do it poorly, it will bomb.

Eldmor
2007-10-15, 11:16 AM
"A class that acquired scary powers by negotiating , pacts with shadowy, infenral, or feral patrons? "

Feral patron= sounds like Fey


I'm very happy about this.

Feyish warlocks endorsed by WotC? I've died and gone to Xd6 heaven.
Hopefully they get some invocations that don't scream "I've made pacts with dark forces." And with elves being more nature-friendly now, I can totally see one being a feyish warlock.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-15, 11:18 AM
Leader: Healing and Party buff
Defender: Meatshield and ToB-ishweapon maneuvers
Striker: Skills and extra damage
Controller: Battlefield control, summoning, and blasting.

No, you've just redefined them as cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard.

Logically, if "striker" means "doing large amounts of personal damage", then an arcane blaster is just as much a striker as a sneak-attacking rogue is.

I should hope that not every cleric has to be a "leader" just like not every cleric nowadays has to be a healbot.

Dausuul
2007-10-15, 11:55 AM
No, you've just redefined them as cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard.

Logically, if "striker" means "doing large amounts of personal damage", then an arcane blaster is just as much a striker as a sneak-attacking rogue is.

Not really. The impression I get is that Strikers are good at severely messing up a single high-value target. Blasting magic typically inflicts low to medium damage on a whole bunch of targets.

As far as I can tell, the Leader's job is to strengthen the party as a whole; the Defender's job is to hold the front line against the enemy; the Striker's job is to take out key targets; and the Controller's job is to define and shape the battlefield. None of these particularly screams "area-effect damage" to me. It might as well be the Controller who gets it.


I should hope that not every cleric has to be a "leader" just like not every cleric nowadays has to be a healbot.

The goal is to make sure that every cleric can be a Leader. No matter what else your character does, you can always fall back on that core capability. Doesn't mean it's all you can do, and it doesn't mean it's what you have to do.

Larrin
2007-10-15, 03:10 PM
As far as I can tell, the Leader's job is to strengthen the party as a whole; the Defender's job is to hold the front line against the enemy; the Striker's job is to take out key targets; and the Controller's job is to define and shape the battlefield. None of these particularly screams "area-effect damage" to me. It might as well be the Controller who gets it.
.

I think that a controllers "blasting" is similar to a leader,striker,defender simple hitting someone with a sword and not really using a speacial power....it lets wizards participate in the killing, because you don't alway have to be controlling things. Once you have the field set up to your liking you want to kick back and set some people on fire! Similarly, if a leader has everyone buffed and healed, they're probably going to have some simple damaging powers to use just for the sake of damaging.

Of course some people will just use blasting, (which one 'can' argue controls the field, making all enemies "slowed" is somewhat analageous to making all enemies "half-dead" though there definitely is more immediate advantage to the slowing, its a tough argument, and it will never satisfy everyone) and it'll probably work out.

Another solution is to have 'riders' on spells. what if fireball knockes foes down? thats blasting AND control. Or if they get set on fire and take penalties to some defence score...etc

Kurald Galain
2007-10-15, 03:40 PM
Not really. The impression I get is that Strikers are good at severely messing up a single high-value target. Blasting magic typically inflicts low to medium damage on a whole bunch of targets.
Only in 3E. It was significantly more in earlier editions, and judging by WOTC comments, it will be more effective in 4E.

If you take a leaf out of the MMORPG book (and I think they do), both rogues and casters are decent at DPS, although the latter can alternatively debuff.



None of these particularly screams "area-effect damage" to me. It might as well be the Controller who gets it.
Actually, "striker" screams "area-effect damage" to me, but that may just be what the word sounds like. Debuff sounds like a leader's job to me (crush enemy morale, stuff like that).

MrNexx
2007-10-15, 10:02 PM
That's a rather novel definition of "controlling"...

Damage is a very good way of controlling a battlefield.

You are attacked by 3 groups, working in concert... a large force of goblins, a large force of bugbears, and a single giant. They are approaching from different directions (goblins on one side of the pass, bugbears on the other, giant up the middle).

Now, your standard party (one cleric, one fighter, one rogue and one wizard) has a few ways they can handle this. Launching a single large area evocation is likely to remove 90% of the goblins in ONE action (the few that survived would be either outside the area of affect or be classed leaders). They would be permanently out of the combat, since they are dead. It would remove about half of the bugbears.

Sure, there are "battlefield control" spells which would temporarily remove some of them. It is possible that the wizard has a spell that can immediately remove the giant from combat. However, the fighter and cleric can engage him and do a decent job... engaging the cliffside goblinoids would be far more difficult, and can either be handled by temporary disables or through permanent disables.

Fireball is permanently disabling. Stinking Cloud is not.

Human Paragon 3
2007-10-15, 10:27 PM
I'll be happy if rogue gets some serious damage output, a "striker" if you will. In 3.x sneak attack is potent but pales in comparison to the damage output a real melee class can produce. When you think about it, really, why shouldn't a rogue be able to take out a BBEG with one precise strike? If you slit a guy's throat, he should be dead.

MrNexx
2007-10-15, 10:28 PM
I'll be happy if rogue gets some serious damage output, a "striker" if you will. In 3.x sneak attack is potent but pales in comparison to the damage output a real melee class can produce. When you think about it, really, why shouldn't a rogue be able to take out a BBEG with one precise strike? If you slit a guy's throat, he should be dead.

How do you get to the point of being able to slit a guy's throat? Gotta grapple them first.

Human Paragon 3
2007-10-15, 10:34 PM
How do you get to the point of being able to slit a guy's throat? Gotta grapple them first.

Unless they're asleep, or if you, say, throw your dagger into their neck. Or eye. Or if you just come up behind them and do it when they're unaware of you.

But here's something funny: in 3e you can't sneak attack while you're grappling, or at least not usually.

Draz74
2007-10-15, 10:38 PM
But here's something funny: in 3e you can't sneak attack while you're grappling, or at least not usually.

Makes perfect sense to me. I can't see a Rogue being particularly precise with his knife when someone is actively wrestling him.

In movies or whatnot, whenever some assassin-type deftly slices the throat of the person he is grappling, he is first handily winning the wrestling struggle. I.e. in D&D terms he has already "pinned" his grappled opponent. And I believe you can Sneak Attack an opponent that you are pinning, yes?

Tengu
2007-10-15, 10:39 PM
Damage is a very good way of controlling a battlefield.

You are attacked by 3 groups, working in concert... a large force of goblins, a large force of bugbears, and a single giant. They are approaching from different directions (goblins on one side of the pass, bugbears on the other, giant up the middle).

Now, your standard party (one cleric, one fighter, one rogue and one wizard) has a few ways they can handle this. Launching a single large area evocation is likely to remove 90% of the goblins in ONE action (the few that survived would be either outside the area of affect or be classed leaders). They would be permanently out of the combat, since they are dead. It would remove about half of the bugbears.

If something gets taken out by a single damage-dealing spell, then it probably didn't pose much of a challenge anyway. Those goblins would probably hit everyone in the party with natural twenties only, and deal negligible damage.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-15, 10:43 PM
When you think about it, really, why shouldn't a rogue be able to take out a BBEG with one precise strike?

For that matter, why shouldn't a barbarian be able to take out a BBEG with one mighty axe stroke? An axe shouldn't be any worse at killing a guy than a dagger. I'm hoping strikers don't end up better fighters than fighters.

Mike_G
2007-10-15, 10:48 PM
For that matter, why shouldn't a barbarian be able to take out a BBEG with one mighty axe stroke? An axe shouldn't be any worse at killing a guy than a dagger. I'm hoping strikers don't end up better fighters than fighters.

Well, killing a guy with an axe who's actively trying to defend himself is harder than planting a dagger between his unsuspecting shoulder blades. It's hard to drop someone if they are fighting you, pretty easy if you sneak up behind them.

I think the Striker is supposed to do a lot of damage to one enemy under certain circumstances, and the fighters are supposed to be able to handle lots of enemy and deal out decent damage every round.

MrNexx
2007-10-16, 04:32 PM
Unless they're asleep, or if you, say, throw your dagger into their neck. Or eye. Or if you just come up behind them and do it when they're unaware of you.

If they're asleep, you Coup de gras them, which does take into account your sneak attack damage. Because of the abstract nature of HP system, if you make a sneak attack like those, you do not necessarily accomplish what you intend. That's the reason for the lack of called shot rules.

boomwolf
2007-10-16, 04:38 PM
WOO Corelock!! i wonder if they kept the sorcerer around?

if they take out a core spellcaster it will be the wizard.
the sorcerer is too loved by the roleplayers. natural magic is so much more room for backstory then "well. there is this wizard school."

but i think druid is down, they will put him into the cleric.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-16, 04:47 PM
the sorcerer is too loved by the roleplayers. natural magic is so much more room for backstory then "well. there is this wizard school."

yes, there are no beloved stories about wizard schools... :smallwink:

Well, the name "wizard" is in, and the name "sorcerer" is out, as I understand... but the mechanics will probably be so different it will resemble the 3e version of neither.