PDA

View Full Version : This is the problem with fourth edition



Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 10:31 AM
This is the problem with fourth edition:

Swift arrow: you fire an arrow from your bow, aimed straight at the opponent's vital spots. Dex vs AC, 3d6 physical damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Flame bolt: a magical bolt of fire appears, and launches at your enemy. Int vs Reflex, 3d6 fire damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Mind blast: you create a horrid dream to assault your enemy's ego. Wis vs Will, 3d6 pyschic damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Alchemical acid: you toss a vial of seething acid right in your enemy's face! Dex vs Reflex, 3d6 acid damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Summon monster I: a mighty woodland beast appears at your side, and attacks your foe. Cha vs AC, 3d6 claw damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Major image: an illusion of your choice appears and strikes at somebody. Con vs Will, 3d6 illusory damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Divine might: you call upon the power of your god to become very strong and hit somebody. Str vs Fortitude, 3d6 radiant damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Weather control: a storm gathers overhead and lightning strikes at your command. Int vs Reflex, 3d6 lightning damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Shapeshift: suddenly, and briefly, you turn into an unstoppable clawed monstrosity. Str vs AC, 3d6 biting damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.
Foresight: you divine the moment of your foe's weakness, and attack precisely at that point. Cha vs Fortitude, 3d6 piercing damage, plus a minor status effect for six seconds.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 10:33 AM
...Hmm...So...is there a point to this, or d'you just want to spit out some venom? You don't even give fundaments to the post, so it's totally pointless.

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 10:34 AM
What, you mean having a whole bunch of stuff do almost exactly the same thing (with the occasional descriptor change) and using "fluff" to make it pretend like it's a unique ability?

That's crazy talk... well, except for the fact that I've been saying for months that this was exactly how the previewed portions of the system appeared to me.

Edea
2008-06-02, 10:35 AM
Might have something to do with "plus a minor status effect for six seconds" :smalltongue:.

Swordguy
2008-06-02, 10:36 AM
On the plus side...it's balanced. :smalltongue:

Bob the Urgh
2008-06-02, 10:37 AM
what, you don't like 3d6?

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 10:39 AM
Might have something to do with "plus a minor status effect for six seconds" :smalltongue:.

Actually, they all read as:


Fluff description. Attribute vs. Defense, 3d6 Type damage, plus Effect for six seconds.

An untrained monkey can make up new "unique" powers by substituting in the parameters above.

The Necroswanso
2008-06-02, 10:40 AM
So, what? It looks like most spells in 3.5.

Solo
2008-06-02, 10:45 AM
So, what? It looks like most spells in 3.5.

Fireball, Dispel Magic, Fly, Haste, Stinking Cloud, and Explosive Runes are clearly almost carbon copies of each other.

Dervag
2008-06-02, 10:49 AM
Actually, they all read as:


Fluff description. Attribute vs. Defense, 3d6 Type damage, plus Effect for six seconds.

An untrained monkey can make up new "unique" powers by substituting in the parameters above.I don't see the problem either.

I mean, what do you want? Do you want some classes to be doing 3d6 damage while others do 2d6 or 5d6? That gets unbalanced fast.

All these attacks do roughly equal statistical damage to some kind of opponent, but they target different strengths of the monster and require different abilities- to use Swift Arrow you must be agile and will have trouble with an armored opponent; to use Mind Blast you must be wise and will have trouble affecting an opponent with great power of mind.

Would it be unreasonable to have some of those powers do, say, 2d8+2 or 4d4 damage? No. Is it unreasonable to have them all do 3d6? Not really.

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 10:51 AM
I don't see the problem either.

I mean, what do you want? Do you want some classes to be doing 3d6 damage while others do 2d6 or 5d6? That gets unbalanced fast.

How about more or less damage paired with less or more "effect" accordingly? Something that offers powers to have some kind of variety, rather than just being minor variations of each other.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 10:52 AM
Okay, I cracked a smile, and yeah, I see where this is coming from.

By the way:

Wish: You really wish to see that monster's death - so you attack it with a decisive blow! Strength vs. Fort, 3[W] + Str damage, enemy knocked prone

Miracle: A piano falls from the sky and hits your enemy. Cha vs. Reflex, 3d6 + Cha slapstick damage, enemy is stunned until the end of your next turn.

Lapak
2008-06-02, 10:55 AM
Might have something to do with "plus a minor status effect for six seconds" :smalltongue:.This. The exact term of the effect is pretty important to creating different flavor for different classes. I obviously don't have the books yet, but if one minor effect is, say, being unable to shift this turn and the other is a penalty to damage and another is minor ongoing damage, those are flavored quite differently despite having a similar overall impact.

valadil
2008-06-02, 11:18 AM
I don't see the problem either.

I mean, what do you want? Do you want some classes to be doing 3d6 damage while others do 2d6 or 5d6? That gets unbalanced fast.


I want to see more interesting effects that balance with each other. For instance, if haste adds an extra attack to full attack actions, the extra damage the melees will deal out should be balanced with a damage over time spell the caster could have cast instead. I want balance over non heterogeneous effects. The last thing I want is 12 different ways for my character to do 3d6 damage (and a minor 6 second effect)!

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 11:27 AM
Well, I think the issue here is really whether the designers wanted to be more ambitious in designing effects at the risk of being less balanced, or less ambitious with less chance of imbalance. Clearly, WotC opted for the latter.

nagora
2008-06-02, 11:27 AM
Actually, they all read as:


Fluff description. Attribute vs. Defense, 3d6 Type damage, plus Effect for six seconds.

An untrained monkey can make up new "unique" powers by substituting in the parameters above.

To be fair, you would actually have to train the monkeys.

LCR
2008-06-02, 11:32 AM
To be fair, you would actually have to train the monkeys.

Not if you had super-intelligent monkeys.

Charity
2008-06-02, 11:33 AM
Er you do all know that none of those are actual powers and they are just made up to overstate his opinion i trust.

Here is a fist level actual power -

Cause Fear - Cleric Attack 1
Encounter
Standard Action, Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Wisdom vs. Will
Hit: The target moves its speed + your Charisma modifier away from you. The fleeing target avoids unsafe squares and difficult terrain if it can. This movement provokes opportunity attacks.

nagora
2008-06-02, 11:35 AM
Not if you had super-intelligent monkeys.

Surely they would only not need trained if they were godlike-intelligent monkeys? I may be misremembering.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 11:36 AM
Er you do all know that none of those are actual powers and they are just made up to overstate his opinion i trust.

Why yes. However, Url's format is pretty close to the standard powers format in 4e (the dice change too though).

One of the things that is an exception, mostly for the wizard, is the powers that persist. I found them quite interesting to make play more dynamic, if somewhat abuseable.

Charity
2008-06-02, 11:38 AM
Fine you all just carry on then :smallsigh:

Chronos
2008-06-02, 11:42 AM
On the plus side...it's balanced.Quite the contrary. This is the worst decision they could have made for balance. The way to achieve balance isn't to make everything almost identical; it's to make the options as different as possible. With al of the special attacks being "3d6 damage plus status effect", the best attack is the one which inflicts the best status effect, plain and simple. If, on the other hand, you have one attack which does nothing but a status effect, and another attack which does nothing but damage, then you have to choose which is more useful, and that'll vary from situation to situation.

For comparison, look at Warcraft II and Starcraft. In Warcraft II, the two sides were almost identical: A knight had exactly the same stats as an ogre, a footman had exactly the same stats as a grunt, a griffon had exactly the same stats as a dragon. The only differences were one minor upgrade for the archer units, and the spells available to the spellcasters. So comparing the two races was as simple as comparing the spells available to them, and the orcs got the better spells, so the orcs were better than the humans, plain and simple. This is terrible balance.

In Starcraft, on the other hand, the three races are about as different as they can be, even using different mechanics for several key aspects of the game (Zerg had a different unit production scheme, all three had different mechanics for constructing buildings). There are some superficial similarities, like Zerg and Protoss both having a basic unit that fights in melee, but a zealot is four times the cost and far tougher than a zergling, so you still use them in very different ways. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the races, and ultimately, which one is best depends on your playstyle. This is excellent balance.

MammonAzrael
2008-06-02, 11:45 AM
Not if you had super-intelligent monkeys.

Or if you had an electromnium hat, that harnessed the power of sun spots to produce cognitive radiation.

LCR
2008-06-02, 11:51 AM
Or if you had an electromnium hat, that harnessed the power of sun spots to produce cognitive radiation.

I was about to say that next.


Quite the contrary. This is the worst decision they could have made for balance. The way to achieve balance isn't to make everything almost identical; it's to make the options as different as possible. With al of the special attacks being "3d6 damage plus status effect", the best attack is the one which inflicts the best status effect, plain and simple. If, on the other hand, you have one attack which does nothing but a status effect, and another attack which does nothing but damage, then you have to choose which is more useful, and that'll vary from situation to situation.

For comparison, look at Warcraft II and Starcraft. In Warcraft II, the two sides were almost identical: A knight had exactly the same stats as an ogre, a footman had exactly the same stats as a grunt, a griffon had exactly the same stats as a dragon. The only differences were one minor upgrade for the archer units, and the spells available to the spellcasters. So comparing the two races was as simple as comparing the spells available to them, and the orcs got the better spells, so the orcs were better than the humans, plain and simple. This is terrible balance.

In Starcraft, on the other hand, the three races are about as different as they can be, even using different mechanics for several key aspects of the game (Zerg had a different unit production scheme, all three had different mechanics for constructing buildings). There are some superficial similarities, like Zerg and Protoss both having a basic unit that fights in melee, but a zealot is four times the cost and far tougher than a zergling, so you still use them in very different ways. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the races, and ultimately, which one is best depends on your playstyle. This is excellent balance.

Starcraft is a very good example for balanced gameplay. It is, however, a real time strategy game and not a roleplay game, in with preconceived opinions.
People have a very clear vision of what a fighter is supposed to do. Some prefer him to simply power attack with his sword, while other prefer him to scream "raging mongoose crazy fire explosion" while leaping at the enemy. But in the end he hits things.
A wizard, however, is supposed to do all of the following: Burn enemies with fireballs, mess with their minds, buff himself and others or just kill the orc with a slight movement of his right index finger.
In 4ed it seems that they reduced the wizard to a warmage. That's okay with some people, and others might be disappointed. The point is, that a wizard, who is by default supposed to be more powerful than a fighter (who is, after all, only hitting things over the head) and this is not going to be balanced without major compromises.

Lucyfur
2008-06-02, 11:52 AM
OP is beating a straw man! confirm/deny?

Indon
2008-06-02, 11:58 AM
This is the problem with fourth edition:

I disagree. I think that's a feature of 4'th edition.

The problem is not that everyone can have abilities like that - it's that there's little choice but to have abilities like that.

If you could choose between your 3D6+minor effect and, say, your 1D6+Good effect, then that'd be cool. But as it is, you just have your 3D6+Minor effect at-will ability, 5D6+Moderate effect Encounter ability, and your 6D6+Good effect, 3D6+Minor effect on a miss Daily ability.


Not if you had super-intelligent monkeys.

They would just self-train.


There are some superficial similarities, like Zerg and Protoss both having a basic unit that fights in melee, but a zealot is four times the cost and far tougher than a zergling, so you still use them in very different ways. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the races, and ultimately, which one is best depends on your playstyle. This is excellent balance.

Many still say humans had the best spell. :P

FafnerMorell
2008-06-02, 11:59 AM
Fireball, Dispel Magic, Fly, Haste, Stinking Cloud, and Explosive Runes are clearly almost carbon copies of each other.

Well, there are undeniably a lot of simularities between
"I prepared Explosive Runes this morning" and "I prepared Stinking Cloud this morning (with my burrito breakfast)". But "I prepared Fireball this morning"? Not so much. :smallwink:

TheOOB
2008-06-02, 11:59 AM
So basically you are saying there is a mechanical, balanced, baseline that all classes can achieve and can be used as the bases for designing new powers and abilities? I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Now if you are designing a new power, you can ask yourself "Is this more powerful (level appropriate damage) and (level appropriate status effect)?" There are plenty of powers that don't follow that formula, and I imagine that as more books come out you'll see that formula less and less, but remember that you have to establish a good base-line before you can mess around with it.

black dragoon
2008-06-02, 12:08 PM
Wait...Illusion Dmg?! O.o that can't be right that...that.
ERGH!!!:smallfurious:
does everything in this ed. do DMG!

Person_Man
2008-06-02, 12:08 PM
I haven't seen the books yet. As others have mentioned, I think a lot rests on what the "status effects" are. If they are interesting (Trip, Push, Pull, Entangle, Blind, Silence, Daze, Disarm, Levitate, Poison, Disease, etc) then I'm all for them. If they are boring (-2 penalty to Whatever Defense for 1 round) then I am against.

I am all for balance. But it doesn't excuse uncreative writing. When I want to play Heroclix, I'll play Heroclix. When I want to play D&D, I want to play D&D, not a watered down computer/miniature game with an XP system.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 12:11 PM
Push, Pull, Slide, Daze, Stun, Blind, Immobilize, Prone, Slowed... lots of variety in status effects.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 12:11 PM
Wait...Illusion Dmg?! O.o that can't be right that...that.
ERGH!!!:smallfurious:
does everything in this ed. do DMG!

Don't believe everything you're told. Kurald invented all of those powers. NONE of them are real.

TheOOB
2008-06-02, 12:20 PM
I haven't seen the books yet. As others have mentioned, I think a lot rests on what the "status effects" are. If they are interesting (Trip, Push, Pull, Entangle, Blind, Silence, Daze, Disarm, Levitate, Poison, Disease, etc) then I'm all for them. If they are boring (-2 penalty to Whatever Defense for 1 round) then I am against.

I am all for balance. But it doesn't excuse uncreative writing. When I want to play Heroclix, I'll play Heroclix. When I want to play D&D, I want to play D&D, not a watered down computer/miniature game with an XP system.

While there are techniques that give bonuses and penalties to different rolls and defenses and such, there are also a great deal of attacks that have interesting effects. Take the wizard at will powers for example:

Cloud of Daggers: 1d6 + Int damage, deals Wis damage to anyone passing through that square for 1 round.

Magic Missile: 2d4 + Int damage, good range, counts as basic ranged(can be used say, when a warlord grants you a ranged attack)

Ray of Frost: 1d6 + Int damage and slow(reduce speed to 2) for 1 round.

Scorching Burst: 1d6 + Int fire in 3x3 square

Thunderwave: 1d6 + Int damage in 3x3 blast(4e version of cone) and push foes back number of squares equal to Wis.

Only two of the five at will powers don't have some cool little tactical effect that be used to your advantage(and even magic missile and scorching burst have some good utility the others don't have aside from pure damage), and these are just the at-will powers, the simple basic powers designed to have simple rules because they can be used every round.

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-02, 12:27 PM
Don't be an idiot. Kurald invented all of those powers. NONE of them are real.

I'm going to have to say, pretty bad form Kurald. This is a strawman arguement by the book.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 12:53 PM
For a counter power...

Cleric Encounter, level 1... summons a ghostly knight to the battlefield to fight for you. At higher levels you summon multiples.

I don't have my books here at work... but I'm fairly certain that it doesnt just do 3d6 and a status effect. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 01:12 PM
I'm going to have to say, pretty bad form Kurald. This is a strawman arguement by the book.

Just because you're too angry to see it, doesn't mean there isn't a point to my words...

Cainen
2008-06-02, 01:18 PM
That's... basically the truth. Most things in there are about damage with slight effects tacked on, which is honestly a bit sad. That doesn't encourage creativity with the abilities at all.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 01:25 PM
For a counter power...

Cleric Encounter, level 1... summons a ghostly knight to the battlefield to fight for you. At higher levels you summon multiples.

I don't have my books here at work... but I'm fairly certain that it doesnt just do 3d6 and a status effect. :smalltongue:
Guardian of Faith, level 1 daily.

There are more in that vein.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 01:38 PM
Just because you're too angry to see it, doesn't mean there isn't a point to my words...

Even if there is one, when you lie and spread this...

http://soupytrumpet.com/uploads/2008/03/lost-red-herring.gif


...You lose credibility and the point is lost as you deceived people. Because of that, I believe (That)...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9783/1202228010192aa2.png

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 01:40 PM
That's... basically the truth. Most things in there are about damage with slight effects tacked on, which is honestly a bit sad. That doesn't encourage creativity with the abilities at all.

Well, that's not entirely true. It promotes a different kind of creativity than in 3e. In 3e, creativity seemed to come into play in figuring out how to stack effects on a target to maximize whatever you were going for. In 4e it seems to be more tactical. Playing a wizard I found that using the push/pull/slide effects and the autodamage sustainable area effects was pretty neat. i.e. using Thunderwave to keep pushing enemies back into a stinking clound/flaming sphere.

I think the lack of versitlity and creativity is partially, if not mostly, a result of the small number of powers that PC has access to at any time and not so much from a lack of difference bettween those powers. Of course, the powers that don't do effects and just different types of damage feel very vanilla.

Yikes... I'm defending 4e. When did this happen?

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 01:52 PM
Even if there is one, when you lie and spread this...

http://soupytrumpet.com/uploads/2008/03/lost-red-herring.gif


...You lose credibility and the point is lost as you deceived people. Because of that, I believe (That)...

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9783/1202228010192aa2.png

Huh? :smallconfused:
I thought it was pretty obvious that the intent of this thread was parody.
I mean, the powers he used really gave it away.



Well, that's not entirely true. It promotes a different kind of creativity than in 3e. In 3e, creativity seemed to come into play in figuring out how to stack effects on a target to maximize whatever you were going for. In 4e it seems to be more tactical. Playing a wizard I found that using the push/pull/slide effects and the autodamage sustainable area effects was pretty neat. i.e. using Thunderwave to keep pushing enemies back into a stinking clound/flaming sphere.

I think the lack of versitlity and creativity is partially, if not mostly, a result of the small number of powers that PC has access to at any time and not so much from a lack of difference bettween those powers. Of course, the powers that don't do effects and just different types of damage feel very vanilla.
Again, I agree with this. And Wizards are far from being the main offenders, since they get twice as many dailies and utilities.

They, however, also get more versatile powers than any other class, and some of the classes really don't get many choices at all. Rogues, for example.

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-02, 01:55 PM
Just because you're too angry to see it, doesn't mean there isn't a point to my words...

I wasn't angry until you said that. Firts I rather impassively read the thread. I saw your first post, and thought to myself 'Oh, those powers look boring and unimaginative'. Then I realised that you were, as has been pointed out, lying.

Now I see why, and I see the sarcastic point you were trying to make; however you presented them as real and then attacked them. Thats a strawman.

Allow me to present a similar arguement

3.5 sucks because of these spells.

Wiz/Sorc Lv 1: Everything dies - All your enemys die. Permanantly. They can never be raised.
Cleric Lv 1: Invincibility - you can't be killed. Ever.
Psion Lv 1: Dance bitch - Anyone you can see does anything you want.

Wow, these spells mean that 3.5 is utterly unplayable and broken. Now hopefully people will react as if they're real.

Edit:

Huh?
I thought it was pretty obvious that the intent of this thread was parody.
I mean, the powers he used really gave it away.

Most of us don't have the books. I assumed at first that these were actual powers.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 02:00 PM
Again, I agree with this. And Wizards are far from being the main offenders, since they get twice as many dailies and utilities.

Confused by this. Maybe I missed a section when I created the character. Where's the 'twice as many dailies' thing coming from?

Edit: Oh... I see. In the spellbook section. Honestly, I totally forgot about that and never even added them. Frankly, there don't seem to be enough interesting powers
at most levels for it to matter... also, they get twice as many known, but not twice as many to use per day. Some, like Stinking Cloud, are just so much better than the other options available at the same level that there really isn't any choice at all.


They, however, also get more versatile powers than any other class, and some of the classes really don't get many choices at all. Rogues, for example.

I agree there. The martial classes, in general, have less interesting and versitle powers. That's a tough line for WotC to walk though. Give them too many status abilities and they will stop feeling like martial characters.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 02:05 PM
Huh? :smallconfused:
I thought it was pretty obvious that the intent of this thread was parody.
I mean, the powers he used really gave it away.



Again, I agree with this. And Wizards are far from being the main offenders, since they get twice as many dailies and utilities.

They, however, also get more versatile powers than any other class, and some of the classes really don't get many choices at all. Rogues, for example.

Notice the reaction of people who DON'T have the books. Since most people don't have them, Kurald SHOULD have stated this powers are fake. Else, it causes misinformation.

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 02:07 PM
Confused by this. Maybe I missed a section when I created the character. Where's the 'twice as many dailies' thing coming from?

Wizards add two daily powers to their spellbook and prepare one each day, at each point where other classes just choose one new daily. Not quite twice the versatility, but certainly more versatility.

They get free rituals as they level, too, right? If others have to pay for theirs, then wizards have twice as many rituals for the same expense.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 02:12 PM
Confused by this. Maybe I missed a section when I created the character. Where's the 'twice as many dailies' thing coming from?
From page 158. :smallwink:




I agree there. The martial classes, in general, have less interesting and versitle powers. That's a tough line for WotC to walk though. Give them too many status abilities and they will stop feeling like martial characters.
Oh, I don't have a problem with status effect powers.
But I would have liked some more powers that allow you to break a charge or interact with the terrain, for example.
Or more long-lasting tactical powers that give you bonuses for certain actions.

This, however, would have required having more powers in the first place, since such powers don't have the all-around usefulness of "damage + condition" powers, so I can see how we ended up with that.

Sebastian
2008-06-02, 02:21 PM
Okay, I cracked a smile, and yeah, I see where this is coming from.

By the way:

Wish: You really wish to see that monster's death - so you attack it with a decisive blow! Strength vs. Fort, 3[W] + Str damage, enemy knocked prone

Miracle: A piano falls from the sky and hits your enemy. Cha vs. Reflex, 3d6 + Cha slapstick damage, enemy is stunned until the end of your next turn.

Funny faces: you grimaces at your enemy, he laugh so hard he breaks something. Charisma vs will 3d6 + Cha laughing damage, minor status for 1 round

intimidating stare, you look at your enemy so hard he don't want to mess with you. Str vs will, 3d6 scared ****less damage, minor status for 1 round.

:D

Jack Zander
2008-06-02, 02:26 PM
Wizard's Marketing: A gnome and a tiefling are summoned to talk about their switched places in the books. Cha vs Will. 3d6 stupidity damage plus facepalm for one round.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 02:27 PM
For comparison, look at Warcraft II and Starcraft. In Warcraft II, the two sides were almost identical: A knight had exactly the same stats as an ogre, a footman had exactly the same stats as a grunt, a griffon had exactly the same stats as a dragon. The only differences were one minor upgrade for the archer units, and the spells available to the spellcasters. So comparing the two races was as simple as comparing the spells available to them, and the orcs got the better spells, so the orcs were better than the humans, plain and simple. This is terrible balance.


Dude, if you are going to make an argument at least tell the facts. I know, facts get in the way of a rant, but Logic has its purposes.

While certain creatures were similar:
A footman does not = a grunt (I distinctly remember a difference) whether it was hp, attack, or something.

Now, if you had said Warcraft 1 you would be right (they were equal) except summons. But in there were lots of differences.

black dragoon:


Wait...Illusion Dmg?! O.o that can't be right that...that.
ERGH!!!
does everything in this ed. do DMG!

First, Illusion damage was in 3.5, get over it please.

Two, the OP was fabricating stuff. None of what he says is the truth. He may have meant to trick us. Or he just likes to throw thins out of proportion.

If he was kind enough to comment: "Note, I made these up." We would have less issue.

And this is why: I have no respect for the 4E haters. They make up things and try to play it off as if they were joking or worse wiosh to mislead.

Granted, a few 4E lovers can be over zealous. But they never mislead you with lies at least.

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 02:38 PM
I find it funny considering that people are saying "they should do more/less damage depending on the effect!"

You know what, guys? They *do*. A Rogue power of the same level might do 1[W] or 3[W], depending on the effect. Wizard powers do less damage and have better (and multi-target) effects.

Never suggest something like "every power of level x does 3d6+effect" again, Kurald.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 02:41 PM
I find it funny considering that people are saying "they should do more/less damage depending on the effect!"

You know what, guys? They *do*. A Rogue power of the same level might do 1[W] or 3[W], depending on the effect. Wizard powers do less damage and have better (and multi-target) effects.

Never suggest something like "every power of level x does 3d6+effect" again, Kurald.

Ask the sun not to shine, or Tippy not to make brutal wizard combos that rape games...:smallwink:

Reel On, Love
2008-06-02, 02:43 PM
Ask the sun not to shine, or Tippy not to make brutal wizard combos that rape games...:smallwink:

Let's not use "rape" that way, huh?

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 02:45 PM
For comparison, look at Warcraft II and Starcraft. In Warcraft II, the two sides were almost identical: A knight had exactly the same stats as an ogre, a footman had exactly the same stats as a grunt, a griffon had exactly the same stats as a dragon. The only differences were one minor upgrade for the archer units, and the spells available to the spellcasters. So comparing the two races was as simple as comparing the spells available to them, and the orcs got the better spells, so the orcs were better than the humans, plain and simple. This is terrible balance.

Just a minor nitpick, the reason Orcs were better was because Ogres got Bloodlust and Knights got Healing.

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-02, 02:45 PM
Let's not use "rape" that way, huh?

Tentacles of forced intrusion for the win

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 02:46 PM
Let's not use "rape" that way, huh?

Well, I used it because one of his tricks was even named Gaterape.

So, maybe I could rephrase it to "Brutal Wizard combos that kick games in the nuts and laugh maniacally while listening to death metal"?

Irreverent Fool
2008-06-02, 02:49 PM
I am all for balance. But it doesn't excuse uncreative writing. When I want to play Heroclix, I'll play Heroclix. When I want to play D&D, I want to play D&D, not a watered down computer/miniature game with an XP system.

Person_Man, thank you for summing it up so well. (sigged!)

Don't get me wrong, 4e seems like it could be great fun. I just refuse to consider it Dungeons & Dragons any more than I consider the FPS Shadowrun to be the Shadowrun Role-Playing Game.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 02:52 PM
Notice the reaction of people who DON'T have the books. Since most people don't have them, Kurald SHOULD have stated this powers are fake. Else, it causes misinformation.
Okay, you're right. I still think it wasn't that hard to see for people that don't have the books, but I of course wouldn't know, so whatever.

Calling him a liar, though, is a bit harsh.



Wizard's Marketing: A gnome and a tiefling are summoned to talk about their switched places in the books. Cha vs Will. 3d6 stupidity damage plus facepalm for one round.
Oh yes...:smallamused:


Funny faces: you grimaces at your enemy, he laugh so hard he breaks something. Charisma vs will 3d6 + Cha laughing damage, minor status for 1 round

intimidating stare, you look at your enemy so hard he don't want to mess with you. Str vs will, 3d6 scared ****less damage, minor status for 1 round.

:D
That's what I'm talking 'bout! Bonus points if you use actual spells though. Double bonus points if you stick to Kurald's idea of turning versatile non-damage spells and class abilities into random damage, and your enemy is bla bla stuff. :smallbiggrin:

Like...

Suggestion: You persuade your enemy to commit suicide. Cha vs. Will, 3d6 + Cha necrotic damage, and the target is immobilized until the end of your next turn.

You're on. :smallcool:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 02:56 PM
Person_Man, thank you for summing it up so well. (sigged!)

Don't get me wrong, 4e seems like it could be great fun. I just refuse to consider it Dungeons & Dragons any more than I consider the FPS Shadowrun to be the Shadowrun Role-Playing Game.

Try it, though. Apparently, according to most people, it's Better Than It Sounds. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BetterThanItSounds)

And in my opinion, it r0XX D4 Z0XX, but you should take that with a grain of salt.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 02:58 PM
I just refuse to consider it Dungeons & Dragons any more than I consider the FPS Shadowrun to be the Shadowrun Role-Playing Game.

See, this attitude I just don't understand. What the heck makes calling it Dungeons and Dragons so special? It's a brand name. To me, at least, that's like saying "I refuse to call Cherry Pepsi a Pepsi product.'

SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-02, 03:00 PM
Just because you're too angry to see it, doesn't mean there isn't a point to my words...

Actually.... yes, it does. I haven't seen any of the books yet, and as such took your original post as fact (though I feel quite silly about it now). I assume your complaints aren't baseless. Can you at least post some actual abilities for those that don't have (some kind of access to) the core books? It's like arguing in court that a defendant on trial for multiple counts of theft is guilty because he robbed Felix the Cat, Shaggy and the ninja turtles => baseless arguments that undermine the real crime...

Indon
2008-06-02, 03:02 PM
You know what, guys? They *do*. A Rogue power of the same level might do 1[W] or 3[W], depending on the effect. Wizard powers do less damage and have better (and multi-target) effects.

Is that how Rogue at-will powers work? I kinda skimmed through the powers looking for general trends (like, most classes don't seem to ever get new choices for at-will powers). The Encounter and Daily powers have a bit more variety because they show up less often - there might even actually be some tiny distinction in average damage for a couple Rogue encounter/daily powers.

And yes, Controller powers do less damage because they aren't Striker powers. That's one of the four different varieties of powers actually in the game.

Defender power effect: Defensive or aggro effect.
Leader power effect: Healing or buffing effect.
Controller power effect: Debuffing effect (Controllers are not necessarily AoE).
Striker power effect: Generally none.

At-will power: Low damage, weak and highly temporary effect.
Encounter power: Medium damage or low AoE damage, possible end-on-save effect, possible Sustain Standard (I'm thinking of Call Lightning, specifically - it's not in yet but I bet it'll be a Sustain Standard Encounter power).
Daily Power: High damage or medium AoE damage, probably end-on-save effect, probable damage on miss, possible Sustain Minor.

And then utility powers to describe anything that doesn't do direct damage.

Have I missed anything in particular in my summary of the variety to be found in the 4'th edition powers system?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 03:03 PM
Actually.... yes, it does. I haven't seen any of the books yet, and as such took your original post as fact (though I feel quite silly about it now). I assume your complaints aren't baseless. Can you at least post some actual abilities for those that don't have (some kind of access to) the core books? It's like arguing in court that a defendant on trial for multiple counts of theft is guilty because he robbed Felix the Cat, Shaggy and the ninja turtles => baseless arguments that undermine the real crime...

With pleasure. Which class? Or d'you want a power from each of them?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:04 PM
See, this attitude I just don't understand. What the heck makes calling it Dungeons and Dragons so special? It's a brand name. To me, at least, that's like saying "I refuse to call Cherry Pepsi a Pepsi product.'

A lot of the problem is how 4e was marketed.

The 4e system is fun, interesting, and streamlined/easy to use. I have played about 16 hours worth of games in it so far and I like it. But it is not what it was marketed as.

4e was marketed as a "revision" of 3.5. It was marketed as a continuation of the D&D game. It is not either of those, strip out WotC's copyrights and put in some other names and you wouldn't recognize it as D&D.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 03:07 PM
A lot of the problem is how 4e was marketed.

The 4e system is fun, interesting, and streamlined/easy to use. I have played about 16 hours worth of games in it so far and I like it. But it is not what it was marketed as.

4e was marketed as a "revision" of 3.5. It was marketed as a continuation of the D&D game. It is not either of those, strip out WotC's copyrights and put in some other names and you wouldn't recognize it as D&D.

Sooooooooo....we're arguing over what WotC said, and not over how good 4th actually is?

God-****in'-Dangit, we're worse than feudal barons.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 03:14 PM
I must say that though I look to 4e with fear and trepidation in my heart, I do not mind the idea of a similar system for abilities. I've used such before, and it works great in a tabletop game.

Best example was a superhero game I was in, using the Hero system. There you spent points for abilities, and some were generic. For example, one ability did 6d6 (or something like that) damage. How that was delivered was up to the character built. It could mean firing a 6d6 ray from one's fingertips, or delivering a 6d6 mega-punch! (In my character's case, he was a super-speedster, and the 6d6 was described as a rapid series of punches delivered at super-sonic speed.)

The simple, all-encompassing ability will be all the same, mechanics-wise, but in play it all came out different and we had a great time with the rules. If 4e is as described, it could easily work well in a tabletop setting.

Bleen
2008-06-02, 03:16 PM
I've been over my opinion of marketing and consumer expectations, so I'll stop repeating that paragraph or two over and over again to save space.

Apparently, Kurald forgets about how some of the powers have ranges defined in lines, bursts, targets, weapon ranges, secondary targets, secondary targets in weapon range, some that appear and then vanish, some that remain on the battlefield (especially from our good Controller friend, the Wizzurd), some that require different saves, and some that *GASP* apparently do more or less damage. The only ones I can name that all do the exact same base damage are martial classes, since they use some variant of [W] (Which I believe is the damage of their current martial weapon). AND SOMETIMES, IT'S 2[W]! Or even 1[W]! Or 1[W]+(Stat)! Madness*!

(*People who make Sparta jokes will have their organs harvested on sight.)

Indon
2008-06-02, 03:16 PM
Sooooooooo....we're arguing over what WotC said, and not over how good 4th actually is?

God-****in'-Dangit, we're worse than feudal barons.

If Madden 2010 were a really awesome baseball game, I imagine most Madden fans would not be pleased.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 03:17 PM
Sooooooooo....we're arguing over what WotC said, and not over how good 4th actually is?

God-****in'-Dangit, we're worse than feudal barons.

It's true. Barons generally had estates... I don't have an estate.


If Madden 2010 were a really awesome baseball game, I imagine most Madden fans would not be pleased.

True, but honestly, that's not a fair comparison and you know it. The changes from 3e to 4e are pretty big but it is still a table top RPG and still uses the same core mechanic. It's more like if Madden 2010 had many different basic controls than Madden 2009. Some fans would be tweaked, some wouldn't. Probably very few would refuse to call it 'Madden'.

That said, 4e seems pretty good. I haven't played enough yet to figure out if it is deep enough to keep me entertained as long as 3x does.

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-02, 03:19 PM
Madness*!

THIS! IS! 4TH ED ...

sorry, unavoidable really. I believe organ harvesting is now illegal, so i'll donate one instead. Here, have a kidney.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-02, 03:22 PM
With pleasure. Which class? Or d'you want a power from each of them?

I guess any of them. Sarcasm of the original post aside, the OP claims that same level powers do the same thing for all classes with only cosmetic changes (i.e. a 3rd level ranger power does 3d6 damage + effect = a 3rd level fighter power that does 3d6 plus effect = a 3rd level paladin power that does 3d6 plus effect, etc... for all classes). I'm wondering if that's case(and if it is, I can eat a bean burrito and produce more interesting results in about 12 hours than their development team can...), or at least how much of the exaggeration is true.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:22 PM
Sooooooooo....we're arguing over what WotC said, and not over how good 4th actually is?

God-****in'-Dangit, we're worse than feudal barons.

Yes and no. 4e, as a separate system is fun, balanced, easy to learn and play, and streamlined. If you expect 4e to stick with the D&D franchise and be, in general, nothing much more than a balanced, streamlined, revision of 3.5 then you will be disappointed.

The second is what 4e was marketed as.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 03:26 PM
Yes and no. 4e, as a separate system is fun, balanced, easy to learn and play, and streamlined. If you expect 4e to stick with the D&D franchise and be, in general, nothing much more than a balanced, streamlined, revision of 3.5 then you will be disappointed.

The second is what 4e was marketed as.

Herein lies the real problem, I believe, and one that would remain even if the marketing was the former. Just having the name "Dungeons & Dragons" easily carries expectations (fair or unfair) that this edition will not meet.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-02, 03:26 PM
May I introduce exhibit 1, to back up Kurald's case?

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5772/picture8wl6.png

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9563/picture7kp5.png

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4148/picture6kj4.png

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6338/picture5kq1.png

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1/picture4bj0.png

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/3782/picture3ox9.png

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1672/picture2oh1.png

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4710/picture1gm8.png


Yes, I know that they're all 1st level at will powers, but they're what you'll be using before long, in a prolonged encounter.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 03:28 PM
I guess any of them. Sarcasm of the original post aside, the OP claims that same level powers do the same thing for all classes with only cosmetic changes (i.e. a 3rd level ranger power does 3d6 damage + effect = a 3rd level fighter power that does 3d6 plus effect = a 3rd level paladin power that does 3d6 plus effect, etc... for all classes). I'm wondering if that's case(and if it is, I can eat a bean burrito and produce more interesting results in about 12 hours than their development team can...), or at least how much of the exaggeration is true.

O-key-doe-key. Here go a few:

Thunderwave Wizard Attack 1
You create a whip-crack of sonic power that lashes up from the
ground.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Implement, Thunder
Standard Action Close blast 3
Target: Each creature in blast
Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier thunder damage, and you
push the target a number of squares equal to your Wisdom
modifier.
Increase damage to 2d6 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.


Furious Smash Warlord Attack 1
You slam your shield into your enemy, bash him with your
weapon’s haft, or drive your shoulder into his gut. Your attack
doesn’t do much damage—but your anger inspires your ally to
match your ferocity.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Fortitude
Hit: Deal damage equal to your Strength modifier, and then
choose one ally adjacent to either you or the target. This
ally applies your Charisma modifier as a power bonus to
the attack roll and the damage roll on his or her next attack
against the target. If the ally does not attack the target
by the end of his or her next turn, the bonus is lost.


Deft Strike Rogue Attack 1
A final lunge brings you into an advantageous position.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade,
or a sling.
Target: One creature
Special: You can move 2 squares before the attack.
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.


You be the judge of their similarity. The one point completely in common in the increase at level 21.


Tippy: Aaah, the problem is that WotC tried to fast talk people? Makes sense to be angry at them, then, but the best course of action is to still give WotC a try.


PS: Should I simplify the powers so that they do not mirror their book counterparts so closely?

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 03:28 PM
Herein lies the real problem, I believe, and one that would remain even if the marketing was the former. Just having the name "Dungeons & Dragons" easily carries expectations (fair or unfair) that this edition will not meet.

Such as and why?

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 03:30 PM
A lot of the problem is how 4e was marketed.

The 4e system is fun, interesting, and streamlined/easy to use. I have played about 16 hours worth of games in it so far and I like it. But it is not what it was marketed as.

4e was marketed as a "revision" of 3.5. It was marketed as a continuation of the D&D game. It is not either of those, strip out WotC's copyrights and put in some other names and you wouldn't recognize it as D&D.

It's definitely a significant step from 3.5, but I still feel like it's D&D, of course, this is primarily a DM standpoint and not a Player one, so I guess I may have a bit of a different perspective: Nonetheless, the biggest differences are the nerfing to hell of full-casters, which to some people, was as much a part of D&D as that damn Dragon shaped Ampersand...

Yakk
2008-06-02, 03:32 PM
These abilities where found by randomly paging around.


Wall of Chilly Water Stuff (Wizard 15)
Daily + Arcane Cold Conjuration Implement
Standard Action: Area -- 12 wall squares within 10 squares
Effect: You conjure a solid wall of contig. squares filled with arcane ice. The wall can be up to 12 squares long and up to 6 squares high.

Any creature that starts its turn next to the wall takes 2d6 + IntB cold damage. The wall blocks LoS and prevents movement. No creature can enter a square containing the wall.

Special: As a standard action, a creature can attack one square of the wall. Each square has 50 HP. Any creature that makes a melee attack against the wall takes 2d6 cold dmg. The wall has vuln. 25 fire. If the wall is not destroyed, it melts away after 1 hour.


True Nemesis (Paladin Attack 15)
Daily Power + Divine Implement
Standard Action: (Range 5)
Target: One creature
Attack: ChaB vs Will
Hit: 2d10 + ChaB
Miss: 1/2 damage
Effect: Until the end of the encounter, whenever the target is within 5 squares of you and attacks you or an ally, you can make a secondary attack against the target as a immediate reaction.
Secondary Attack: Char vs Will
Hit: 2d10 + Cha modifier damage.
Miss: Half


Weave through the Fray (Ranger Utility 6)
Encounter + Martial
Immediate Interrupt Personal
Trigger: An enemy moves adjacent to you
Effect: You can shift a number of squares equal to your Wisdom
modifier.

So yes -- there are attacks that do 3d6 + Stat Bonus damage and have a minor status effect that lasts until the end of your next turn (or until the creature saves), and roll stat bonus vs defense to hit. But those are not anywhere close to every power.

And yes, most powers do damage: save or die is pretty much gone. Doing damage while you weaken your opponents happens quite often.

If you look at striker powers? You'll find a lot of "do damage to a target". But even they have minor special effects attached usually, or restrictions, or the like.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 03:34 PM
PS: Should I simplify the powers so that they do not mirror their book counterparts so closely?
I guess you could shorten them (the way Kurald did it, plus Action Type and Range).


By the way, some level 15 daily powers will go here for reference.
Just saying, so you don't write them down here too.

EDIT - so, here they are:

All standard actions unless stated otherwise.

Cleric: Seal of Warding
Close burst 3
Target: each enemy in burst
Attack: Wis vs. Will
Hit: 4d10 + Wis radiant damage, target slowed until end of your next turn.
Miss Half damage, not slowed
Effect: The burst creates a zone of difficult terrain that grants cover to you and your allies against ranged attacks until the end of your next turn.
Sustain Minor (reach effect by spending a minor action in subsequent turns): The zone persists.

Fighter: Unyielding Avalanche
Minor Action
Personal
You gain regeneration equal to Con, +1 power bonus to AC and saves. Any enemy that starts its turn adjacent to you takes 1[W] damage and is slowed until the end of its turn, as long as you are able to make opportunity attacks.

Warlock: Thirsting Maw
Ranged 5
Target: One creature
Attack: Con vs. Fort
Hit: 4d8 + Con, and you regain hit points equal to half the damage dealt.
Sustain Minor: 2d8 (save ends), and you regain hit points equal to half the damage dealt each time the target takes this damage.

Wizard: Blast of Cold
Close blast 5
Target: Each enemy in blast
Attack: Int vs. Ref
Hit: 6d6 + Int, and the target is immobilized (save ends).
Miss: Half the damage, target is slowed (save ends).



(I could have easily picked powers that are all about damage + status effects, though. They are fairly common.)

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:35 PM
Tippy: Aaah, the problem is that WotC tried to fast talk people? Makes sense to be angry at them, then, but the best course of action is to still give WotC a try.
I already have and I like 4e. It just fills a different role for me than 3.5 does. That role being the role of easy, quick, "just want a game with minimal fuss" game. 3.5 fills the role of interesting, slower, immersive, sandbox game in which you can play out whatever fantasy you want with little trouble.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 03:36 PM
Such as and why?

Well, allow me to phrase it thusly: If WotC released the 4e rules under some title like "Awesomesauce Fantasy Roleplaying" (or some other name), and marketed it as a great new system, would we raise as much hue-and-cry over that as we are doing over Dungeons & Dragons 4e? It is my opinion that there wouldn't be.

Chronos
2008-06-02, 03:39 PM
Quoth Starbuck II:
Dude, if you are going to make an argument at least tell the facts. I know, facts get in the way of a rant, but Logic has its purposes.

While certain creatures were similar:
A footman does not = a grunt (I distinctly remember a difference) whether it was hp, attack, or something.Straight from the horse's mouth (http://www.battle.net/war2/ovh/index.shtml):
There are only a few differences between the Orcs and the Humans. When upgraded, Human Rangers can do 3 more hit points worth of damage, and the Orc Troll Berzerkers can heal themselves, after a long period of time, with Regeneration. Death Knights have one more point attack range than the Human Mages. Ignoring magic, The Orcs and Humans are nearly exactly the same. All of the Ships are the same, Footmen/Grunts, Ogres/Knights, Peons/Peasants, Catapults/Ballistas, Dragons/Gryphons, Sappers/Demolition Squad, are all exactly the same.Perhaps you're thinking of Warcraft III?

Yakk
2008-06-02, 03:43 PM
I thought footmen in WC2 had +1 armor, and Grunts had +1 damage, compared to each other?

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 03:50 PM
Well, allow me to phrase it thusly: If WotC released the 4e rules under some title like "Awesomesauce Fantasy Roleplaying" (or some other name), and marketed it as a great new system, would we raise as much hue-and-cry over that as we are doing over Dungeons & Dragons 4e? It is my opinion that there wouldn't be.

Sure. But that's because if WotC released it under some other title half to 3/4 of us wouldn't even notice. Dungeons and Dragons is the biggest name in tabletop RPG's and other than a few video game franchises (like Final Fantasy) the biggest in RPG's period.

People raising a hue and cry doesn't mean that they are right to raise a hue and cry, it just means they did.

My question is, what are the 'core elements' or 'universal expectations of a Dungeons and Dragons' game that you feel 4e does not live up to and why.

Or more formally, what are the Necc. and Suff. Conditions to earn the name Dungeons and Dragons which 4e does not have?

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 04:05 PM
Quoth Starbuck II:Straight from the horse's mouth (http://www.battle.net/war2/ovh/index.shtml):Perhaps you're thinking of Warcraft III?

Weird. I mean, it 'twas a few years, but my mind tells me there were differences beteen the two. But I guess I was wrong on that note.

Bleen
2008-06-02, 04:09 PM
May I introduce exhibit 1, to back up Kurald's case?
Yes, I know that they're all 1st level at will powers, but they're what you'll be using before long, in a prolonged encounter.

I have 2-4 encounter powers, and 2 daily powers. Combat, from what I've heard lasts 3-7 rounds, maybe 8-10 if it's a very intense and difficult combat (in which case it SHOULD stretch your resources thin.)

So at later levels, more than half the time I'll be able to resort to using an encounter power. Compare to 3.X, where I didn't even have the option to do that as a melee class. At-Will powers are the equivalent of the Fighter's "I hit it with my sword." from 3.5. They are SUPPOSED to be simple and basic. The interesting abilities are the ones you're using per-encounter or daily. Those are analogous to maneuvers, spells, or special class features.

So, yes. At-Will powers all follow a similar template. They should. They are basic attacks, not me unleashing some sort of super-move or special attack on my enemy round-per-round. If I want that, I can go play another system.

You are effectively denouncing an intelligent and balanced design decision, misrepresenting information, and churning four lines out through a metaphorical grinder over and over again and claiming they apply to material with 350 pages.

Congrats. You're now what the media 'biz refers to as fair and balanced. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_news)

Aquillion
2008-06-02, 04:16 PM
These are all paraphrased, because we don't have a SRD yet. I've also left out a few details, like levels, that aren't really important (they differ based on the saves they target, too.)

Force Volley Encounter. Range is 20.
Targets one, two, or three creatures. Deals 3d6 + int damage to each on a hit, and dazes them until the end of your next turn. If you only target one enemy, you get +4 to hit.

Disintegrate. Daily. Range is 10.
Hits unattented objects without an attack roll. Deals 5d10 + int damage on a hit, and 10 damage a round until the enemy saves; after they save, they take 5 damage a round until they save again. On a miss it does 3d10 + int and 5 damage until they save.

Thunderclap Encounter. 3d6 + int damage, and target is stunned for one turn.

Ice Tomb Encounter. Range 10.
On a hit, does 3d10 + int cold damage. Target is entombed until the end of your next turn, counting as stunned and being unable to attack.

Time Stop Daily.
Gain two standard actions, which can't be used to attack people.

M's Mansion Daily Utility.
Does what it always did, except it always lasts 8 hours. Seriously, it does.

Combust. Encounter.
5d6 int mod fire damage on a hit, to everyone in a 2-square burst.

Wall of Ice. Daily.
12 squares of wall, 6 squares high, placed so that they're all connected but shaped however you want othewise. 2d6 + int cold damage if you start next to it. Each square has 50 hp, attacking it does 2d6 cold damage to the attacker. Vulnerable to fire, lasts an hour.

Prismatic Burst. Encounter attack.
3d6 + int mod damage, and the victim is blind for one turn.

M's Sword. Daily.
Sword appears, attacks for 1d10 + int mod damage each round, and lasts one round normally (so it gets one attack) -- but, you can spend your minor actions (which are like swift actions) to 'sustain' it by having it attack again. Technically as it is written it isn't clear if you have to have it attack to sustain it, or if you can sustain it outside of combat (possibly by having it attack your allies or yourself depending on the answer to the above.)

Spectral Ram. Encounter.
2d10 + int force damage, knocks target back 3 squares and prone.

Forcecage. Encounter.
3d10 + int force damage (seriously). Victim is confined for one turn, basically leaving them the equivilent of flat-footed and immobilizing them -- they can be attacked during that time.

Elemental Maw. Daily.
A maw appears, doing 6d6 int damage of a type you select from a list to anyone in a 2-square burst around it, and pulling them towards it. Half damage on a miss, and it doesn't pull them. Also, for one round, the spot where the maw appears still has a maw in it, which deals 3d6 + int damage to anyone who is sucked in and teleports them someplace nearby you select.

And so on. They do sort of seem to like 3d6 + mod damage for some reason (I'll bet playtesting just showed that three dice is an easy number to roll.) I should point out that I did grab 'interesting' spells to an extent, as well as a few 3d6 ones I tripped over, but neither is an exhaustive list. There is a definite and hard-to-miss tendency towards damage (possibly in area / over multiple targets) + effect (which only ever lasts for about one round); MMM (well, it's just MM now), Time Stop, and Wall of Ice are exceptions, not the rule.

Also, all the really interesting stuff (basically, anything beyond 'damage + one-turn effect') seems to be daily.

wodan46
2008-06-02, 04:19 PM
This IS a problem with 4th edition, but is rather overstated.

Abilities vary considerably in how and when they deal their effects and thus when it is a good idea to use them, but nevertheless most abilities come down to Damage, Healing, Buffing, and Debuffing.

I suspect that if you want to have Powers that last more than 1 round, you will have to pay a Sustain cost to ensure that you can't keep it going while throwing around more powers. Flaming Sphere already does that, Minor to sustain, Move action to Move or Attack.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 04:20 PM
Also, all the really interesting stuff (basically, anything beyond 'damage + one-turn effect') seems to be daily.

This is pretty much true. I've been toying with the idea of a homebrew mechanic to allow a Daily power to become an encounter power and an encounter power an at-will power at high levels. I think that would deepen the game some if done well.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-02, 04:21 PM
Exactly. I think we can pretty much see that, although Kurald exaggerated, between your paraphrasing and my photos, he was right.


Also, all the really interesting stuff (basically, anything beyond 'damage + one-turn effect') seems to be daily.


That's why we have our Cloud Chariots, that persist. Pimp car of the gods, baby.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:21 PM
This is pretty much true. I've been toying with the idea of a homebrew mechanic to allow a Daily power to become an encounter power and an encounter power an at-will power at high levels. I think that would deepen the game some if done well.

It would have to be something of the lower half of the previous tier and cost a feat per power, though.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 04:22 PM
Sure. But that's because if WotC released it under some other title half to 3/4 of us wouldn't even notice. Dungeons and Dragons is the biggest name in tabletop RPG's and other than a few video game franchises (like Final Fantasy) the biggest in RPG's period.

People raising a hue and cry doesn't mean that they are right to raise a hue and cry, it just means they did.

My question is, what are the 'core elements' or 'universal expectations of a Dungeons and Dragons' game that you feel 4e does not live up to and why.

Or more formally, what are the Necc. and Suff. Conditions to earn the name Dungeons and Dragons which 4e does not have?

Couldn't agree more. With all the baggage that comes with the name Dungeons & Dragons, so comes all the perks. Nor am I neccessarily saying 4e is bad for not. My statement was intended more as an observation on the debaters rather than the topic of debate. Typically this is a digression at best, or a non-sequitor at worst. As I am the Non-Sequitor Fairy, it's probably the later and isn't germaine to the argument.

Actually, it's maybe more a statement of the obvious. I'm also good at that. And rambling. I'm very good at rambling on ...

4e is about as far away from my original game as I can see it getting. Since I was playing AD&D as a kid, that's far. At times I'll wax nostalgic and voice aloud a desire to play 1e again with my group. They will promptly (and probably rightly) beat me down with whatever 3.xe book is handy. The game has changed and will continue to change. It's not the DnD I remember, but then, I can't expect it to be that way forever.

Hence why I joke: Change is bad and should be feared and eradicated.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 04:23 PM
This is pretty much true. I've been toying with the idea of a homebrew mechanic to allow a Daily power to become an encounter power and an encounter power an at-will power at high levels. I think that would deepen the game some if done well.
The Archmage does the first and the Demigod does the second effectively, although I don't know how much use you'd get out of them since they are acquired at level 30.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:23 PM
Exactly. I think we can pretty much see that, although Kurald exaggerated, between your paraphrasing and my photos, he was right.



That's why we have our Cloud Chariots, that persist. Pimp car of the gods, baby.

Only if you look at a single class. Between classes, the effects are VERY different.

And yes, he exaggerated, but give his exaggeration true value. It wasn't just exaggeration, it was GROSS exaggeration.

PS: Exaggeration Exaggeration! :smalltongue:

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 04:25 PM
This IS a problem with 4th edition, but is rather overstated.

Abilities vary considerably in how and when they deal their effects and thus when it is a good idea to use them, but nevertheless most abilities come down to Damage, Healing, Buffing, and Debuffing.

I suspect that if you want to have Powers that last more than 1 round, you will have to pay a Sustain cost to ensure that you can't keep it going while throwing around more powers. Flaming Sphere already does that, Minor to sustain, Move action to Move or Attack.

Wait, Flaming Sphere still exists? Wow, I already made it up just in case. Mine was duration encounter. I'd love to compare it to official.

Project_Mayhem
2008-06-02, 04:25 PM
GROSS exaggeration.

missed oppertunity to use hyperbole there

Irreverent Fool
2008-06-02, 04:37 PM
Sure. But that's because if WotC released it under some other title half to 3/4 of us wouldn't even notice. Dungeons and Dragons is the biggest name in tabletop RPG's and other than a few video game franchises (like Final Fantasy) the biggest in RPG's period.

If I mindrape Galthor the Mighty Barbarian of the Northlands and make him think he is a 6-year old goblin child and proceed to Polymorph Any Object him into one, he's not really Galthor the Mighty Barbarian of the Northlands. Yes D&D is just a name, but the name signifies something which I do not believe 4e is, any more than I believe it's appropriate to call a glass of milk a cow. A glass of milk is not a cow. Shadowrun the FPS is not Shadowrun the RPG (but both are good). 3.x was a deviation from 2e but it was still recognizable as D&D. GURPS is not D&D. 4e is not D&D.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-02, 04:38 PM
From the samples posted (thanks BTW!! :smallbiggrin:), it almost looks like things start off similar (1[w]+ability score) at low levels, and get more diverse as levels increase (yes/no/maybe?).

Also, pertaining to Aquillion's listed spells, are those all wizard spells, or are some of them spells from cleric or warlock spell lists? Seems like those are mainly 'damage+debuff' style abilities.

Here's another question: are the powers of a format that (maybe in the future) would allow for different/crazy stuff in future releases? For example, turning something like Maze (which doesn't do damage but keeps something out of the fight for a bit) into a 4th ed. power and keeping it relatively the same?

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 04:45 PM
Here's another question: are the powers of a format that (maybe in the future) would allow for different/crazy stuff in future releases? For example, turning something like Maze (which doesn't do damage but keeps something out of the fight for a bit) into a 4th ed. power and keeping it relatively the same?

Actually, Maze is a 4th ed. power and it pretty much does that except that it also deals damage.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 04:48 PM
Wait, Flaming Sphere still exists? Wow, I already made it up just in case. Mine was duration encounter. I'd love to compare it to official.
It's a level 1 daily:

Standard Action
Ranged 10
Target: One creature adjacent to the sphere.
Attack: Int vs. Ref
Hit: 2d6 + Int fire damage.
Effect: conjure sphere in square within range, sphere attacks adjacent creature. Any creature starting its turn next to sphere takes 1d4 + Int fire damage. As a move action, you can move the sphere up to 6 squares.
Sustain minor: Can sustain for whole encounter as a minor action, and make another attack as a standard action.

Sounds really nice, but our wizard used Sleep (as, by default, many probably will :smallwink:), so I can't really tell.



From the samples posted (thanks BTW!! :smallbiggrin:), it almost looks like things start off similar (1[w]+ability score) at low levels, and get more diverse as levels increase (yes/no/maybe?).

Sort of, although when you compare the classes, you can see hints at what their roles are and where they are going.
They did a good job at designing the basic at-will powers, if you ask me.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 05:00 PM
It's a level 1 daily:

Standard Action
Ranged 10
Target: One creature adjacent to the sphere.
Attack: Int vs. Ref
Hit: 2d6 + Int fire damage.
Effect: conjure sphere in square within range, sphere attacks adjacent creature. Any creature starting its turn next to sphere takes 1d4 + Int fire damage. As a move action, you can move the sphere up to 6 squares.
Sustain minor: Can sustain for whole encounter as a minor action, and make another attack as a standard action.

Sounds really nice, but our wizard used Sleep (as, by default, many probably will :smallwink:), so I can't really tell.


Mine for bad guy was:
Flaming Sphere (standard; encounter) Fire:
Range 4. Creates a sphere-like ball of fire in a square that can be moved (4 sq) as a move action. Any creature at end of your turn in the same square as sphere gets attacked. The sphere lasts till end of encounter, Each target, +8 versus Reflex, 1d10+5 fire damage and target takes 2 ongoing fire (save end).

But I like that; official one: it hurts adjacent people starting near it.

Maerok
2008-06-02, 05:02 PM
Fireball, Dispel Magic, Fly, Haste, Stinking Cloud, and Explosive Runes are clearly almost carbon copies of each other.

I <3 3rd level spells. :smallbiggrin:


I really take issue with this sort of uniform, formulaic set-up. I do a lot of small multiplayer RPG programming and this is the sort of stuff I try to avoid. On the flip side, this kind of tyrannical consistency between spells would be the easiest way to establish the sort of balance they are looking for.

nagora
2008-06-02, 05:07 PM
4e is about as far away from my original game as I can see it getting. Since I was playing AD&D as a kid, that's far. At times I'll wax nostalgic and voice aloud a desire to play 1e again with my group. They will promptly (and probably rightly) beat me down with whatever 3.xe book is handy.
Come back, come back, to Mordor Gygax we will take you...

wodan46
2008-06-02, 06:19 PM
Wait, Flaming Sphere still exists? Wow, I already made it up just in case. Mine was duration encounter. I'd love to compare it to official.

Oh, I thought you meant you'd read it as such in the 4e books. Sorry for the misquote.

Charity
2008-06-02, 06:25 PM
Wait, Flaming Sphere still exists? Wow, I already made it up just in case. Mine was duration encounter. I'd love to compare it to official.

Flaming Sphere Wizard Attack 1
You conjure a rolling ball of fire and control where it goes.
Daily - Standard Action - Ranged 10
Target: One creature adjacent to the flaming sphere
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
Effect: You conjure a Medium flaming sphere in an unoccupied square within range, and the sphere attacks an adjacent creature. Any creature that starts its turn next to the flaming sphere takes 1d4 + Intelligence modifier fire
damage. As a move action, you can move the sphere up to 6 squares.
Sustain Minor: You can sustain this power until the end of the encounter. As a standard action, you can make another attack with the sphere.

Counterpower
2008-06-02, 07:17 PM
If I mindrape Galthor the Mighty Barbarian of the Northlands and make him think he is a 6-year old goblin child and proceed to Polymorph Any Object him into one, he's not really Galthor the Mighty Barbarian of the Northlands. Yes D&D is just a name, but the name signifies something which I do not believe 4e is, any more than I believe it's appropriate to call a glass of milk a cow. A glass of milk is not a cow. Shadowrun the FPS is not Shadowrun the RPG (but both are good). 3.x was a deviation from 2e but it was still recognizable as D&D. GURPS is not D&D. 4e is not D&D.

I'll preface my statements with the caveat that I have no information about 4e abilities beyond what I've seen in this thread. That said though, I would like to address your last statement: 4e is not 3.x D&D. Yes, it has changed, and from what I can see those changes are fairly significant. I still don't quite understand how those changes make it "not D&D". Perhaps my opinion will change when I can really look at 4e for myself, but for now, all I see are significant changes to the available powers.

Really, I think this debate could be greatly simplified with a question that AKA_Bait asked that I didn't see an answer for:


My question is, what are the 'core elements' or 'universal expectations of a Dungeons and Dragons' game that you feel 4e does not live up to and why.

Or more formally, what are the Necc. and Suff. Conditions to earn the name Dungeons and Dragons which 4e does not have?

What do you think defines D&D, and why doesn't 4e meet that definition?

Ralfarius
2008-06-02, 07:46 PM
I'm not sure about these supposed grand expectations people have that 4E isn't going to fulfill, but here's what my expectations have always been for Dungeons & Dragons, regardless of system (bold for particular importance):

- Dragons to kill, potentially of various colours
- Dungeons to crawl
- A twenty-sided die somewhere in there
- Arcane magic
- Divine magic
- Hit points
- AC
- Good times with my friends spent gathered around some sort of table, making use of the above elements to weave stories that are interesting and fun

Really, everything else is just a matter of which rules system I prefer. If I play AD&D, 3.X, 4E, or even some horrible amalgam of these systems, I'm still playing D&D. I mean, how many people homebrew numerous rules, spells, classes, equipment, and so on? They're still playing D&D, aren't they? I don't think there's much difference between them playing their own version of the game to people playing 4E.

In short: Just because you don't like it in comparison to the older systems, doesn't make it not D&D. Seriously, it's fine if it's a rule set that doesn't suit you, but don't deride it by saying your expectations decide whether something is or is not.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 07:49 PM
...........only similarities I see is that they all end with "minor effect for six seconds"

.........don't see how this is the problem or a problem whatsoever.

PaladinBoy
2008-06-02, 08:01 PM
On the whole, having looked at the powers that have been posted on this thread (the real ones, not the strawman), I'm not sure why people are complaining. It looks good to me.

Zocelot
2008-06-02, 08:20 PM
I joined the D&D community about 2 years ago, and I feel no attachment to any past ruleset. Personally, I don't care if 4e "is D&D" or not. All I want is the ruleset that is the most fun.

Whether 4e is similar to past editions doesn't affect it's fun level. The only reason it matters is because some people want nostalgia. That said, nostalgia may be the difference between fun and boring for those people.