4e: Wizards are not Strikers

[Solo]

Are you actually making it my fault that he only described what the Wizard did, and excluded any mention of what the rest of the players did?

I took the description at face value: An apt example of Batman overcoming all of the challenges facing the group. No need to mention anyone else, they were not necessary for the problem solving, because was all handled by spells.

I guess you must be outraged that only rogues get to detect and disable traps.

The entire party is useless while the rogue overcomes a challenge meant for the group.

[Temp.]

...the people who play that class and either deliberately chose it for its overpowered abilities or had gotten so used to being able to do overpowered things that they came to think of their level of power as "normal" invariably pitch a fit over it.
...Neither of which has anything to do with the main objections voiced in this thread against 4th edition. The argument here is that many of us prefer 3rd edition because there are more options available for a character to use.

The Wizard has lost versatility; they've lost options which were available in 3rd edition. The specific examples have already been beaten to death: Practical Illusions and Enchantments, Summons and many Transmutation abilities.
The Druid and all the spells and abilities attached to it have disappeared with no 4th edition equivalents.

Yes, these complaints are aimed at several specific classes, far fewer than exist in 3rd edition. So only a very small minority of classes have lost versatility and a large majority of classes ave gained a bit more than they had in 3.5. This doesn't mean that it was a minority of characters who lost versatility with 4th edition.

Character classes are available to all characters. Few full-casting classes actually break character concepts. An Abjurant Champion is no different fluff-wise than a Fighter. An Unseen Seer is no different from a Rogue. Why? Because like all Dungeons and Dragons characters, they rely on magic items. The only difference between the Gish builds and the non-casters is that spellbooks are included in the list of magic items usable by the character. The distinction between spellbooks and other magic items is entirely artificial. In my mind, non-magical characters using spellbooks to produce magical effects only seems natural in a high-magic setting.

The difference between Clerics and non-Clerics is similarly artificial. Clerics receive aid from divine sources, non-Clerics don't. The effects have nothing to do with the characters themselves, even fluff-wise; they originate and are resolved by external sources (the god/cause/whatever of the character).

There is no difference fluff-wise between using a spellbook or praying for divine assistance and performing a 4e ritual. There is a difference in the number of options that these two parallel actions open and the accessability of their effects; both differences favor 3rd edition. Versatility is obvious; I think everyone here accepts that 3.5 Fighter/Wizards have more options out of combat than 4.0 Fighters (or Fighters Multiclassed into Wizard). The rituals are easier for Gishes to perform in 3.5 than they are in 4.0: due to reducedcasting times, they can be used in nearly any situation. They are also much cheaper for a character to perform (few have significant casting costs).

Understand that this is not a gripe about power being lost. (Is it even being lost if the options are no longer available to anyone else?) It is a complaint that 4.0 has significantly fewer options and abilities available to characters than 3.5. I believe this is te common complaint presented by the 4e naysayers.

Edit:
I took the description at face value: An apt example of Batman overcoming all of the challenges facing the group. No need to mention anyone else, they were not necessary for the problem solving, because was all handled by spells.Why would he mention anyone else? IS's original statement had nothing to do with whether or not 3.5 leaves players bored and idle. It was about the removal of player options in the form of Wizard spells. Illiterate Scribe voiced his disproval and used that example to demonstrate that 3.5 spells provide options beyond the use directly stated in their spell descriptions. Bringing in an unsupported argument that the rest of his group was clearly inactive and frustrated does strike me as a bit odd.

[FoE]

I guess you must be outraged that only rogues get to detect and disable traps.

The entire party is useless while the rogue overcomes a challenge meant for the group.

Umm, yeah, that was a problem. You basically needed a rogue "just in case" or be prepared to lose a lot of hit points and bash in every door you came across. So now anyone can disarm traps or pick locks if they take the Thievery skill. Rogues just have it as a class skill.

But it wasn't AS big a problem as "sit back and let the wizard do it."

[Kompera]

I guess you must be outraged that only rogues get to detect and disable traps.

The entire party is useless while the rogue overcomes a challenge meant for the group.
I'd be outraged, if that was anything close to being factual.

But I've seen enough Batman posts describing how every challenge is able to be countered by the careful application of spell X in combination with spells Y and Z to believe that for a minute.

Detect a trap? Contingency. Disable a trap? Summoning spell. Perhaps "trigger" is a better description for the second example. But an open pit doesn't drop the players down it, and a fired arrow trap is sprung when the players pass by, so the end result is the same.

I'm sure I am no where near the optimizer you are, Solo. There are probably dozens of other options which I've forgotten or overlooked, of all levels and from a vast array of splat books which I do not own nor have ever even leafed through.

Edit: And I was ninjad, but in 4e it's no longer the case that only Rogues can detect/disable. Look, Ma! more options!

[Bearonet]

I guess you must be outraged that only rogues get to detect and disable traps.

The entire party is useless while the rogue overcomes a challenge meant for the group.

YES! Traps, "Trapfinding", the arbitrariness involved, and the whole way traps work are one of the WORST elements of D&D. Have you seen 4E traps? Soooo much of an improvement.

[Solo]

YES! Traps, "Trapfinding", the arbitrariness involved, and the whole way traps work are one of the WORST elements of D&D. Have you seen 4E traps? Soooo much of an improvement.

Please tell me they kill players in various nasty ways involving fire ants.

Please.

[FoE]

Please tell me they kill players in various nasty ways involving fire ants.

I honestly don't know how you could produce a trap involving fire ants; generally, any trap involving live animals is a no-go, since there are too many concerns around feeding, waste disposal, proper exercise, etc. These aren't really suitable for the "abandoned ruins" or "ancient crypt" type of dungeon. I suppose some kind of summoning spell could work ... but really, how are fire ants better than swinging blades or spiked pits? Most people don't even die from fire ant stings unless they have an existing allergy or are very young, like small infants.

Seems like you're overcomplicating matters for the sake of being needlessly dramatic. Really, the whole "fire ant" thing is more appropriate for the "sharks with laser beams" scenario — you know, the pit of death that you drop half-naked helpless captives into and then watch as they are torn to shreds? If you make it a small pit with sheer walls and an ant colony at the bottom, that could work ... But then again, why not use the myriad of other creatures available to the average evil overlord in Dungeons and Dragons? Toss your helpless hero in a pit of flesh-eating zombies and you're sure to hear him scream.

To be honest with you, the only time I would subject someone to the "fire ant death" is if a colony was conveniently nearby and I could stake the victim out in the dirt, or if my henchmen had shovels and they could quickly bury the intended victim up to his neck in sand. But even then, dehydration is more likely to kill the person than ants, and it robs you of the fun of watching said hero's death, unless you're eager to wait around for a long time. And then there's the possibility of him getting rescued.

[Solo]

Perhaps if they were particularly bad tempered fire ants?

[Rutee]

But then again, why not use the myriad of other creatures available to the average evil overlord in Dungeons and Dragons? Toss your helpless hero in a pit of flesh-eating zombies and you're sure to hear him scream.
Because it's funny is as good a reason as any.

Well that and long lasting torture. Do it in your inner sanctum if narrative causality isn't a factor at all. The screams can be like background music while you plot and construct your evil empire. If they're rescued, make sure a Seth Green-like minion or Trusted lieutenant asks "Why didn't you just shoot him!?"

[FoE]

Because it's funny is as good a reason as any.

Well that and it's long lasting torture. Do it in your inner sanctum if narrative causality isn't a factor at all. The screams can be like background music while you plot and construct your evil empire.

There's a book I'm reading called Shadowplay where the villain — a god-emperor type named Sulepis — does exactly just that. Well, slightly different, but you get the idea ...

What he does, see, is have this former lieutenant who betrayed him tortured to death. But because he wants to witness the proceedings but doesn't want to hang out in the torture chamber, he has the whole affair moved to his library so he can read while listening to his minion's screams as his flesh is flayed from his bones.

After a while it strikes him that the lieutenant's agonized howling sound sort of like music ... so he brings in musicians and has them play a concert, keeping in tempo with the torture going on in the background!

Sick puppy, that one. But what a sense of style! :smallbiggrin:

But you know, the whole "agonized screams" thing is very overrated. They're very distracting, really, and loud. Ever see that episode of Angel where he has to free Billy from the cage of fire? Case in point: Billy's guardian "wills" that he doesn't feel the flames, because quite frankly listening to his howls of pain got tiresome really fast. :smalltongue:

[Kompera]

There's a book I'm reading called Shadowplay where the villain — a god-emperor type named Sulepis — does exactly just that. Well, slightly different, but you get the idea ...

What he does, see, is have this former lieutenant who betrayed him tortured to death. But because he wants to witness the proceedings but doesn't want to hang out in the torture chamber, he has the whole affair moved to his library so he can read while listening to his minion's screams as his flesh is flayed from his bones.

After a while it strikes him that the lieutenant's agonized howling sound sort of like music ... so he brings in musicians and has them play a concert, keeping in tempo with the torture going on in the background!
Have you read any of the Michael Moorcock novels about Elric? Elric's entire race does the same thing, in spades. Rather than bringing in musicians to accompany torture screams, they have entire choirs of the tortured. I think it's a fair bet that Williams was inspired by Moorcock.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I'll use that build when I see it cited. You described the Wizard solving every problem, and you did not describe any of the other players doing anything at all, much less solving any problems. Looks a lot like the
batman Wizard to me.

Please please please, just read the requisite thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500)

Also, this is as opposed to 4e, where noone is doing much interesting problem solving.


If you want to think that in 4e all any character is capable of doing is "spam 2d6+attribute modifier at everything that they see", that's ok by me. But you asserting it does not make it so.

Yeah, OK, I grant you that - they can also occasionally do 6d10+attribute modifier, grant a bonus on their next save, or engage in an exciting skill challenge.


No, I did not. Be right more.


So, wanna address my point, or is it so wrong that you don't deign it with a reply?


Casting a spell is not creativity. Using a spell to do exactly what the spell description says it will do is not creativity, no more than swinging a sword is creativity. Both are simply exercises of class features.

See below. Time Hop, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/timeHop.htm) for example, doesn't have 'CAST SPELL - SOLVE PROBLEM' written on it in big capital letters, but are you seriously saying that it couldn't be used for such, with a little creativity?


Again, if you want to think that all creativity has been removed from the game, that's ok by me. But it doesn't make it so.

Likewise ...


With less spells there will be less options for spell casters. So what. In a game of imagination you'll need to exercise it more to overcome game challenges, rather than pulling out spell X for situation Y and calling it a day.


Er ... how? By dealing 2d6+int damage to the problem, over and over again?

Sounds like imagination to me.

Also, real game experience shows you that the spell list isn't a list of solutions to problems, that you just pop out at will - it's a set of tools, that, through imaginative use thereof, can solve problems. Reading the spell list will show you that.


What you're really crying about is the loss of the hundreds of spells which broke balance and made the game not as much fun for anyone not playing a full casting class.

Uh ... do you mind taking off your magical internet goggles so you can see what I'm doing?


And that's fine. But don't try to assert that your creativity is hampered by your character's spell list being smaller, because that is not a supportable position. That would be like saying that your Fighter's creativity is hampered because his sword broke, or your Rogue's creativity was hampered by the loss of his thieves tools, or your Cleric's creativity was impaired by the theft of his Holy Symbol. Creativity is separate from what your character can do. It comes from you, not your character.

OK. I'll say it again. Previously, I had an outlet to use certain skills and abilities in an interesting way. Now I don't - instead, I have fewer tools to do the job. You can be the best blacksmith in the world, but, if you don't have a smithy, then your

OH SHI-, he's defending an undefendable position!


When did Batman become a "specific build"? It is usually used as a description of the Wizard class, I thought.

'sup. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500)


Aye, it may be true, but oftentimes, combating a fallacy with further fallacies does not, necessarily, prove your point, take the quote below this for example.

Welcome to the wonderful world of critical thinking. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)


Here, is an Ad Hoc fallacy, you assume that, since wizards (Or any spellcasting class, really) was more 'versatile' or 'dynamic' that they took away that ability.

Magic had a capability to do interesting things; it was removed. Wizards have repeatedly said


But, simply because they were versatile from being broken.

No. Not really. This is broken. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell) This is broken. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/timeStop.htm)
This is ... uh ... not broken? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/woodShape.htm)


(Now, I'm not accusing you of using cheese, nor anyone else, I'm just saying...)

Thanks for rendering the first part of your statement absolutely meaningless by including that second part. Classy.

[Kompera]

Also, this is as opposed to 4e, where noone is doing much interesting problem solving.
I thought I had explained, carefully and in a fair amount of detail, that problem solving ability isn't attached to your character record sheet?

Why do you keep linking to TLN's Batman post? I've read it, but I don't understand why you think linking to it is some kind of talisman which precludes any explanation from you to be considered communicative. Here, go read this interesting document (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), perhaps then you'll understand what I mean. See how that works?

If you insist on believing that having a few hundred spells is what defines you as a problem solver, then there's not much point in us continuing this discussion. You're wrong in a way which evokes pity, but you'll never understand why and no one could ever convince you otherwise.

4e having fewer spells fixes broken stuff. 4e is also limited to its Core, and we can expect more spells to be published in future releases. But I hope that Overland Flight is never a possibility in 4e, or Polymorph, or a hundred or so other spells that gave Wizards a geometric power progression next to the linear power progression of non-casters. 4e seems to have done a good job at establishing balance. I'm sure there will be cracks in the facade in time, given the legion of players who will be looking for ways to optimize in 4e. But hopefully it'll never devolve into the idiocy of game design which was a 3.x Fighter trying to be useful in a group with a 3.x Wizard at any level above, say, 10th.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I thought I had explained, carefully and in a fair amount of detail, that problem solving ability isn't attached to your character record sheet?

You can be the best blacksmith in the world, but, if you don't have a smithy, then you're not going to be able to make stuff out of iron.


Why do you keep linking to TLN's Batman post? I've read it, but I don't understand why you think linking to it is some kind of talisman which precludes any explanation from you to be considered communicative. Here, go read this interesting document (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), perhaps then you'll understand what I mean. See how that works?


OK, I thought that I wouldn't have to spell it out for you, since the author of the thread says as much himself in the thread. TLN repeatedly emphasises the importance of working as a team - why on earth do you think that he recommends that you take haste, magic weapon, confusion, greater invisibility, and loads of other spells?


If you insist on believing that having a few hundred spells is what defines you as a problem solver, then there's not much point in us continuing this discussion.

Oh, so

[QUOTE]You're wrong in a way which evokes pity, but you'll never understand why and no one could ever convince you otherwise.


May I be inspiring of fear, too, that others could worry that such a one as I, who is like them, fell? Because then, I can be the Aristotelian model of a tragic hero.

TL;DR? Stop flaming.


4e having fewer spells fixes broken stuff. 4e is also limited to its Core, and we can expect more spells to be published in future releases. But I hope that Overland Flight is never a possibility in 4e,

The level 22 cleric power 'cloud chariot' says hi.


or Polymorph, or a hundred or so other spells that gave Wizards a geometric power progression next to the linear power progression of non-casters.

I've repeatedly stated that that's not what I'm looking for. Believe it or not, there are spells which are between 'magic missile' and 'polymorph any object'.

[Bearonet]

Scribe, can I just ask you what on earth you did to solve problems whenever you weren't playing a caster? I mean, you must've played a fighter/barbarian/whatever at some point. What did you do when "hit it" wasn't an option? Did you just sit around?

[Illiterate Scribe]

Scribe, can I just ask you what on earth you did to solve problems whenever you weren't playing a caster? I mean, you must've played a fighter/barbarian/whatever at some point. What did you do when "hit it" wasn't an option? Did you just sit around?

Hit significant things. Break vital parts of machinery. Use enormous and well-stocked portable holes full of thunderstones, alchemist's fire, ten foot poles, and an extensive knowledge of the hardness and object HP system to create Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson style machines.

[Bearonet]

Hit significant things. Break vital parts of machinery. Use enormous and well-stocked portable holes full of thunderstones, alchemist's fire, ten foot poles, and an extensive knowledge of the hardness and object HP system to create Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson style machines.

Since I don't think "Rube Goldberg machines based on metagame knowledge" would or should come up a lot in a game, well...

That's like two things. That's all you did to solve problems as a fighter?

[Skyserpent]

Since I don't think "Rube Goldberg machines based on metagame knowledge" would or should come up a lot in a game, well...

That's like two things. That's all you did to solve problems as a fighter?

well... I mean he IS called a Fighter....

he Fights things...

just... you know, not as well as Clerics Druids or Wizards...

[Kompera]

TL;DR? Stop flaming.
I'm not flaming you. I truly pity any person who feels that their character can't solve problems without a spell book. There were posts earlier in this thread which suggested non-spell alternatives to at least one of your spell solutions. Maybe more. If there weren't more, I'm sure some could be devised. Spells are not the sole outlet for imaginative approaches to game challenges, but I don't think I'll ever convince you of that.

Oh, you were linking to TLNs post because you wanted to point out team work! Thanks for elaborating. But I'm confused... If you, the caster are the sole problem solver, because you're the one with the hundreds of spells of course, then taking a few buffs to help the other members of your group feel better about their inability to solve problems isn't team work. It's condescension. Or are you saying that the rest of the group can solve problems, too? In which case you obviously don't need to be a caster to solve problems.

So which is it? Are casters the only problem solvers? Or can non-casters solve problems, too? Because you seem to have said both, even if most of what you've said is that 4e makes casters into non-problems solvers just like the poor wretches who aren't casters.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I can cram myself in the chest at the end of my bed and I'm 6 feet tall. It's not exactly an easy fit but I can do it, and if I could teleport myself around by cramming myself into it you can be sure I would.

And again, they don't define a chest at all. Or give a size limit or even suggestion. It's not my fault that WotC puts things like this in game. And it will prolly end up errated.


I never said that in the first place, so you will be waiting a while.
You know, there wouldn't even be any debate over Leomund's Secret Chest if they simply took some of the wording out of the second edition spell of the same name.

Namely that creatures in the chest suffocate when the chest goes *poof.*

[LurkerInPlayground]

Okay, letme get this straight...

A Dragon casts a spell to create a chest. It is collosal sized.

A human does the same. It is medium sized.

A pixie does the same. It is small-sized.

The pixie wants to have a larger sized chest. She first casts some sort of enlargement spell (assuming they exist) and then proceeds to create her chest. It is now medium (or larger) sized.

What? Shouldn't the mental strength of the spellcaster (not the spellcaster's sheer size) determine how large a chest they can have?
Dude. Like.
Rules of magic.
It's arbitrary like that.
Write a letter of complaint to your nearest supernatural agency.

[Justin_Bacon]

Oh, then you don't care about having the abilities on a theoretical level, you care about being better then someone else because they picked a different concept then you. So I hear I quit caring about your opinion on the matter.

This is about different ways of balancing the game:

(1) Spotlight Balance
(2) Combat Balance

Since its earliest incarnation, D&D has practiced spotlight balance: The rogue was simply not as good at combat as the fighter, but that was okay because the rogue got to shine in lots of non-combat scenarios. And so forth.

4th Edition had to abandon this type of balance because the non-combat portion of the game has been gutted. We know this was a conscious design decision, because months ago the designers at WotC were telling us that (for example, when Noonan stated that an NPC was only important for the 5 rounds during which it participated in combat). We can see that design decision when we look at how non-combat skills and non-combat skill uses were removed from the game. And we can see it in how the classes have all be balanced in terms of combat and only combat.

Combat balance is considerably easier to manage (because you can just crunch numbers to make everything work out). It's also absolutely essential if you're playing a tactical miniatures game.

Which, considering the dissociated mechanics and the gutting of non-combat support in the rule system, is pretty much all 4th Edition is.

Personally, I would have found it more interesting to go the other way: Nerf the wizard's combat prowess, but keep or enhance their non-combat utility flexibility.

But, of course, that wouldn't help them sell miniatures. Is that cynical? Maybe. But selling miniatures was clearly a huge design goal for WotC with the new edition.

[Charity]

OK Justin here is my take on 'spotlight balance'

The game is supposed to be enjoyable for all involved.
In order to be enjoyable one needs to be engaging with the game.
So in order for the game to be as enjoyable as possible to the group as a whole then each person needs to be involved as often as possible.

Spotlight balance fails at this, It assumes it is OK for the fighter to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the rogue does his thing, and the rogue to sit about while the fight goes down.
A system of balance that means the majority of the players are doing nothing (or nothing meaningful) most of the time is flawed.

[tumble check]

Justin is making a huge amount of sense, and just articulated something I've been trying to get out for the last few days.


Charity, we're not saying that 3.5e was balanced, but many of the drastic changes in 4e were unnecessary to simply achieve that balance. They were clearly made for other reasons as well.

[Kiara LeSabre]

OK Justin here is my take on 'spotlight balance'

The game is supposed to be enjoyable for all involved.
In order to be enjoyable one needs to be engaging with the game.
So in order for the game to be as enjoyable as possible to the group as a whole then each person needs to be involved as often as possible.

Spotlight balance fails at this, It assumes it is OK for the fighter to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the rogue does his thing, and the rogue to sit about while the fight goes down.
A system of balance that means the majority of the players are doing nothing (or nothing meaningful) most of the time is flawed.

Seconded.

It's like in Shadowrun when the lone decker in the group needs to go run the Matrix, and since there's really nothing for anyone else to do while that's going on ... "Uh ... we'll go out and grab some tacos."

Blah. Boring.

If my choice is between a game where each player takes turns being important and a game where the players consistently all work together as a team, my choice is really a no-brainer. All of my fondest memories of gaming are definitely from the latter category.

[AKA_Bait]

OK Justin here is my take on 'spotlight balance'

The game is supposed to be enjoyable for all involved.
In order to be enjoyable one needs to be engaging with the game.
So in order for the game to be as enjoyable as possible to the group as a whole then each person needs to be involved as often as possible.

Spotlight balance fails at this, It assumes it is OK for the fighter to sit around twiddling his thumbs while the rogue does his thing, and the rogue to sit about while the fight goes down.
A system of balance that means the majority of the players are doing nothing (or nothing meaningful) most of the time is flawed.

Must also agree with Charity here. One of the things I like best about 4e is that everyone needs to be involved pretty much all the time. In 3.x, because of the legnth of time each round of combat took and the fact that there were a good number of situations where one or two party members were the only useful ones, frequently one player could get up and go make a sandwich waiting for their turn to do something useful.

[Kompera]

This is about different ways of balancing the game:

(1) Spotlight Balance
(2) Combat Balance

Since its earliest incarnation, D&D has practiced spotlight balance: The rogue was simply not as good at combat as the fighter, but that was okay because the rogue got to shine in lots of non-combat scenarios. And so forth.

4th Edition had to abandon this type of balance because the non-combat portion of the game has been gutted. We know this was a conscious design decision, because months ago the designers at WotC were telling us that (for example, when Noonan stated that an NPC was only important for the 5 rounds during which it participated in combat). We can see that design decision when we look at how non-combat skills and non-combat skill uses were removed from the game. And we can see it in how the classes have all be balanced in terms of combat and only combat.
Disagree. You may infer that, but it was never stated, and I believe that it is a ridiculous inference. The NPC who is in combat for 5 rounds and then dies is just as important as he/she/it was in any prior edition. It's a dead foe, loot the corpse and continue. Or collect clues from the corpse and continue. Or whatever. But there is zero change in the combat/non-combat ratio as enforced in any way by the 4e rules. To say that the non-combat portion of the game has been "gutted" is a wonderful application of hyperbole, but it's not accurate in any degree.

{Scrubbed}


Combat balance is considerably easier to manage (because you can just crunch numbers to make everything work out). It's also absolutely essential if you're playing a tactical miniatures game.

Which, considering the dissociated mechanics and the gutting of non-combat support in the rule system, is pretty much all 4th Edition is.
Since you are incorrect about the "gutting" of non-combat within the 4e rules, you're also incorrect about 4e being a tactical miniatures game.
The combats play more like one of the several skirmish type games, as I've posted in the past. The streamlining of combat and the removal of record keeping make the feel of those combats to me seem very similar. But I don't mean that in a bad way, it's just an impression. The big difference being in the skirmish level games each person controls a team, and in D&D each person controls their character. But D&D is still D&D, each player is still trying to develop their own character's story within the framework of the campaign setting as described by the GM. You're still a party of adventurers looking for fame/fortune/revenge on the man who killed your father/the artifact of XYZZY/whatever. The game is the same, if you let it be.


Personally, I would have found it more interesting to go the other way: Nerf the wizard's combat prowess, but keep or enhance their non-combat utility flexibility.

But, of course, that wouldn't help them sell miniatures. Is that cynical? Maybe. But selling miniatures was clearly a huge design goal for WotC with the new edition.
Another statement which is also not able to be supported by any citing of fact. I've used miniatures while playing D&D since AD&D in every campaign, and in some campaigns before then depending on who was running it and their preferences. Did that make those editions vehicles for miniature sales? No. Did the combat examples at the back of the 3e PHB which showed examples of players moving using a square grid map make 3e a vehicle for miniature sales? No. (I was disappointed that those were not carried forward to the 3.5 PHB) Does the use of a square grid in 4e make that edition a vehicle for miniature sales? No.

I've got my miniatures already, and so does every other person I play D&D with. If WotC makes some really nice minis, one or more of us might buy some. But we're surely not forced to, and neither is anyone else. If people don't already own miniatures and don't care to purchase them, they can use the tokens from Monopoly to represent their characters, or pieces of paper, or coins, or dice. No one is going to be forced at gunpoint to buy a miniature, and any hysteria about 4e being a vehicle for miniature sales is quite inaccurate.

[EvilElitest]

Quoted for truth, justice and the intelligent way. What's the fun of running a smart character if they can't use their mind and power to solve problems laterally, or even be able to do stuff others can't?

eh, i thought you liked 4E? Anyways, your both right there

Now i will admit that wizards were overpowered, no argument there, but that certainly doesn't mean that the only solution is making them blasters. It feels like a throw back radical solution, and one that makes them seem very boring and generic
from
EE

[Justin_Bacon]

OK Justin here is my take on 'spotlight balance'

The game is supposed to be enjoyable for all involved.
In order to be enjoyable one needs to be engaging with the game.
So in order for the game to be as enjoyable as possible to the group as a whole then each person needs to be involved as often as possible.

Your premises are flawed.

(1) You assume that constant activity is required for an RPG to be entertaining. This isn't even true in video games (MGS4 reportedly has 90 minute cut-scenes); I don't see why it's necessarily true in RPGs.

At my gaming table, we are often entertained by what the other players are doing.

(2) You assume that everyone would prefer to constantly have a tiny slice of the participation pie rather than frequently sharing the spotlight, but sometimes getting the spotlight all to themselves. To continue using non-RPG counter-examples, you're assuming that everyone in a rock band wants to be playing and singing simultaneously all the time. The reality is that, while that's fun, it's also fun to occasionally sing or play a solo, too.

Free-for-alls are fun. But tag-team wrestling and relay races are fun, too.

Of course, I'm also bringing a background in improv theater to this discussion. And in improv theater the idea of taking turns is understood to be of the utmost importance.

Which is not to say that spotlight balance is the only way to go. But that doesn't change the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed and narrow-minded.


It's like in Shadowrun when the lone decker in the group needs to go run the Matrix, and since there's really nothing for anyone else to do while that's going on ... "Uh ... we'll go out and grab some tacos."

Shadowrun is not an example of spotlight balance, it's an example of spotlight imbalance.



We can see that design decision when we look at how non-combat skills and non-combat skill uses were removed from the game.
If you disagree, please point me to the rules changes in 4e which support your position. I'll wait patiently, I know you'll be a while.

Apparently I'm prescient, because I managed to do that before you even replied to my message.

{Scrubbed}

[Ka-ther Fangfoot]

Your premises are flawed.

(1) You assume that constant activity is required for an RPG to be entertaining. This isn't even true in video games (MGS4 reportedly has 90 minute cut-scenes); I don't see why it's necessarily true in RPGs.

Your Premise is flawed. Firstly, you assume that waiting for other people to do things is the same as watching a cut scene in a video game. I can tell you they are not.


(2) You assume that everyone would prefer to constantly have a tiny slice of the participation pie rather than frequently sharing the spotlight, but sometimes getting the spotlight all to themselves. To continue using non-RPG counter-examples, you're assuming that everyone in a rock band wants to be playing and singing simultaneously all the time. The reality is that, while that's fun, it's also fun to occasionally sing or play a solo, too.

This analogy is seriously flawed. You speak as though each person in a dnd party shared the spotlight equally in 3.5. This is patently false. The wizard, cleric, and druid easily stole the combat spotlight from the fighter, and the non-combat spotlight from everyone else, too.


Of course, I'm also bringing a background in improv theater to this discussion. And in improv theater the idea of taking turns is understood to be of the utmost importance.

Which is not to say that spotlight balance is the only way to go. But that doesn't change the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed and narrow-minded.

You have not demonstrated that spotlight balance worked in previous editions, and you will have trouble doing so since it did not work in 3.5.


Shadowrun is not an example of spotlight balance, it's an example of spotlight imbalance.

And so is 3.5, which is one of the things which 4ed was meant to, and hopefully has, rectified.


Apparently I'm prescient, because I managed to do that before you even replied to my message.

No, you did not. False information is not demonstration of anything. 4ed has not removed non-combat skills or non-combat skill uses. If anything it has added non-combat skill uses, what with skill challenges and all. You may dislike the removal of the encyclopedic skill list of 3.5, but that does not remove the fact that 4ed still has skills as a non-combat mechanic. Skills are even needed for the non-combat rituals, which is yet another non-combat use of skills.


Friendly Tip: {Scrubbed}.

Friendly tip: When posting to a messageboard, make sure you actually use correct information. :smallwink:

[Diamondeye]

I'm not flaming you. I truly pity any person who feels that their character can't solve problems without a spell book.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that a character can't solve a problem without a spellbook.

However, there's a lot of flippant posts around here that just take the addage that casters, especially wizards, were doing everything while everyone else was doing nothing. Even assuming that campaigns actually ended up playing that way, now we've got the opposite, where no problems, other than combat, can be solved with magic.

Flippant comments that are so prevalent here like "well no you might have to actually problem-solve" and "well now you might have to roleplay" are nonsense. Whether or not most or all problems could be solved with magic has no bearing on whether the caster's player is roleplaying, and using a spell to solve a problem is solving the problem and it's even creative problem solving when it's used in a way that isn't obvious from the spell description.

Forcing all problems to be solved through nonmegical means so the casters don't hog the spotlight is now just putting most of the spotlight on the rogue instead, and relieving the DM of his responsibility to manage the game to boot.

[Justin_Bacon]

Your Premise is flawed. Firstly, you assume that waiting for other people to do things is the same as watching a cut scene in a video game. I can tell you they are not.

You understanding of logic is flawed. You are talking about an analogous example I gave, not the premise.


This analogy is seriously flawed. You speak as though each person in a dnd party shared the spotlight equally in 3.5. This is patently false. The wizard, cleric, and druid easily stole the combat spotlight from the fighter, and the non-combat spotlight from everyone else, too.

This was not my experience (http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080531) prior to high level play.


No, you did not. False information is not demonstration of anything. 4ed has not removed non-combat skills or non-combat skill uses.

Point me to where the Use Rope skill uses were moved to. Craft? Profession? Perform?

Appraise and Decipher Script may have simply gotten tucked away somewhere, but I can't find those, either.


Friendly tip: When posting to a messageboard, make sure you actually use correct information. :smallwink:

You need to learn how to follow your own advice.

[Kompera]

Apparently I'm prescient, because I managed to do that before you even replied to my message.

Friendly Tip:{Scrubbed}.
I've read the thread, thanks very much.

You are not prescient, and you have not pointed to any rules in 4e and said anything resembling "This rule here, this is the one that forces me to fight everything and prevents me from role playing!"


Point me to where the Use Rope skill uses were moved to. Craft? Profession? Perform?

Appraise and Decipher Script may have simply gotten tucked away somewhere, but I can't find those, either.
So they are gone. So what? Ambidexterity went away between 3.0 and 3.5, and many other things changed also. Those changes didn't make 3.5 any more or less a role playing game, and didn't force anyone to spend all their time in combat and not interacting with NPCs out of combat.

Friendly Tip: Stop using "friendly tips". They are neither.

[Charity]

Your premises are flawed.
They are based on my experiences and are entirely my subjective take on your 'spotlight balance' I did mention that in the fist line of my post. Which try as you will, you will not convince me that my understanding of my own experiences is flawed and your take on them is somehow far more insightful.


(1) You assume that constant activity is required for an RPG to be entertaining. This isn't even true in video games (MGS4 reportedly has 90 minute cut-scenes); I don't see why it's necessarily true in RPGs.

At my gaming table, we are often entertained by what the other players are doing.
No I don't believe I said that, you are extrapolating what I said to suit your position.
If I had a 90 minute cut scene in a game I, like just about anyone I know would skip it, if I want to see a movie I will go to the cinema and watch a decently directed one.
You state that you cannot see why it is necessary, that does not automatically prove it is unnecessary, I think you will find an awful lot of people will find long periods of inactivity to be deeply unsatisfactory in their RPG's


(2) You assume that everyone would prefer to constantly have a tiny slice of the participation pie rather than frequently sharing the spotlight, but sometimes getting the spotlight all to themselves. To continue using non-RPG counter-examples, you're assuming that everyone in a rock band wants to be playing and singing simultaneously all the time. The reality is that, while that's fun, it's also fun to occasionally sing or play a solo, too.
No, again you dramatically exaggerate to suit your own ends.
But, to use your own analogy and methods, nobody wants to hear a 30 minute drum solo in every damn song.


{Scrubbed}.
{Scrubbed}

[Aquillion]

I honestly don't know how you could produce a trap involving fire ants; generally, any trap involving live animals is a no-go, since there are too many concerns around feeding, waste disposal, proper exercise, etc.Ah, no, you misunderstand the nature of the trap. It works like this: You have your vat of ants, probably up in the ceiling. Then, when the PCs set the trap off, the vat opens... and lights the ants on fire.

Once these burning ants have been given time to fall all over the PCs, the second part of the trap goes off, animating them all at once into a ravenous burning zombie-ant horde. This saves on care and feeding, of course, because there's no need for them to be kept alive in the first place.

...do they make Acidborn Ants? I can't help but feel that those would be another useful addition. Or perhaps zombie giant ants that are, themselves, hosts to a swarm of smaller monstrous ants...

[Justin_Bacon]

So they are gone. So what?

You implied they weren't and Ka-ther Fangfoot explicitly said they weren't. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.


You are not prescient, and you have not pointed to any rules in 4e and said anything resembling "This rule here, this is the one that forces me to fight everything and prevents me from role playing!"

I never said there was such a rule.


No, again you dramatically exaggerate to suit your own ends. But, to use your own analogy and methods, nobody wants to hear a 30 minute drum solo in every damn song.

That's a false dichotomy: You're demanding that either there be no drum solos or that all drum solos by 30 minutes in length and part of every song.

My argument is the exact opposite of that: There is a rather vast -- and frequently rewarding -- middle ground between your absurd extremes.

[Nu]

Mmm...I actually prefer 4E's noncombat portion to 3.5's. 3.5's was just useless about 90% of the time and the rules did an absolutely terrible job at defining how things worked. Basically, it relied on the DM, and this is more or less what 4E has done as well--except it got rid of all the terrible 'rules' that made you think that the game was somewhat balanced.

It replaced that with ACTUAL balance.

With the exception of the skill challenge, which is basically better than the entirety of 3.5's non-combat rules.

As for controlling wizard...well, play-testing shows that the Orb Specialist wizard is an absolute beast as far as battlefield control goes with the right power/feat selection. Not as good as the 3.5 Batman, of course, but that goes without saying.

Just a blaster? Only if you build it that way.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please stop the flaming, and that includes passive-aggressive sniping, poorly veiled attacks on each other, and claiming that others haven't read the thread.

[Charity]

I appologise Roland old bean, I shall impose a self ban on this thread, and learn to count to ten.

[JaxGaret]

Just a quick note: what does one use, other than spells, to creatively solve problems?

Skills.

Magic in 3e completely superseded/overshadowed skill usage, to an extent that made many a skillmonkey Rogue player outright envy the caster's player who was stealing his or her spotlight on a routine basis.

In 4e, skills have come back to a place of usefulness and perhaps even prominence, and every class has both useful skills and powers to apply to situations in a creative manner.

[Rockphed]

Furthermore, the first 2 chapters of the 4th edition DMG are devoted to how much time to plan for a session, what to do if you have limited time to prepare, and how to keep the game running, including a tangents about how to say, "yes!" Having read this last page of this thread before I actually managed to read those chapters, I thought on Mr Bacon's claim that spotlight balance is possible to create by the RAW. My conclusion is that spotlight balance must be created and maintained by the DM, as no two gaming groups are the same.

A large portion of the first chapter was devoted to describing the various types of players. The list* was as follows: Actor, Explorer, Instigator, Powergamer, Slayer, Storyteller, Thinker and Watcher. Though most players fit multiple profiles depending on their situation, this list seems comprehensive(meaning I can't think of any types not included.) It is these player types that Mr Wyatt says need spotlight balance, not the character classes. An Actor doesn't care very much about the absolute power of their character, that is almost entirely the purview of slayers and powergamers. On the other hand, Instigators and Thinkers are both more likely to be enticed by tactical problems, and Watchers don't really care about getting involved, just watching others do things and being able to claim association.

*Actors like to act out their character. Explorers gather information about the world. Instigators come up with hairbrained schemes that work only slightly more often than they fail. Powergamers optimize their characters to the max. Slayers optimise, but do so with an eye to getting on with the killing. Storytellers follow the narrative imperative. Thinkers like to think over all the options. Watchers like to sit back and watch. The best line in the first chapter was
BE SURE THAT THE INSTIGATOR DOESN'T . . .
* Get the rest of the group killed.
* Attack the other PCs or their allies.