4e - Balance vs Versatility

[Saph]

Well, I've finally had the chance to have a proper look at the books, and tried them out a little. IMO, the consensus here on the forums is fairly accurate.

Good points

4e is much better balanced, both between classes and between different levels. 1st-level characters are much more fun and effective than they are in 3.5, which is a good thing for those players who have GMs that insist on starting games at level 1.

4e's also much simpler to learn and requires less time investment. Of course, part of that is probably due to there just being less books out, but for the moment at least, it's much easier for casual players to pick up.

Bad points

Unfortunately, the way 4e gets that better balance and simplicity is by cutting down character versatility like a chainsaw addict at a tree nursery. Entire types of magic and class features are just gone.

If you measured character versatility on a scale from 1 to 10, it would look something like this (note, the 3.5 classes are on there as a rough estimate only):

1. 3.5 Fighter
2.
3. 4e classes (all)
4.
5. 3.5 Warlock, Bard
6.
7.
8.
9. 3.5 Wizard, Druid
10.

The range of abilities you have access to in 4e core as opposed to 3.5 core is literally an order of magnitude smaller - ten times less.

Conclusion

4e is, just as promised, better balanced and easier to learn and play than 3.5. But good grief, what a price you have to pay for it!

At the moment I'm playing a 12th level 3.5 druid in a D&D campaign. I'm looking at the 4e PHB class chapter, and I kind of want to like it . . . but there just isn't anything there that's anywhere near as cool and fun as what I've got already. As a druid I get to turn into any kind of animal I want (including a dragon, complete with breath weapon), and climb or fly at will. I have a big enough spell variety that I can do pretty much anything I can think of, and I can share most of it with my animal companion, who's awesome all by himself. And if I somehow need even more support, I can summon it. In 4e I can't do any of these things. Looking at the 4e class chapter makes me think of that line from Henry Ford - "You can have the Model T in any colour you want, so long as it's black".

It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

Whether the gain in simplicity is worth the loss of versatility, I just don't know. What I do know is I wish they could have tried harder to do a better job of balancing the two.

- Saph

[Kurald Galain]

I completely agree with what Saph just said.

Let me add a different example. We all know that 12th level druids are very high on the power curve of 3.5E. On the other hand, we also all know that warlocks are pretty low on the same power curve.

Now I have a 4th-level warlock in a low-powered party that can do the following:
*hang from ceilings like a spider
*shatter nonmagical unattended objects (because my charisma is so low, the save is too easy on attended objects, so this tends to not work)
*summon a swarm of bats
*cast unseen servant, because of a feat I took.

The 4E warlock can do none of this. While all of what I just said is pretty cool, none of it is even remotely overpowered. And none of it exists in 4E.

[Skyserpent]

Well, I've finally had the chance to have a proper look at the books, and tried them out a little. IMO, the consensus here on the forums is fairly accurate.

Good points

4e is much better balanced, both between classes and between different levels. 1st-level characters are much more fun and effective than they are in 3.5, which is a good thing for those players who have GMs that insist on starting games at level 1.

4e's also much simpler to learn and requires less time investment. Of course, part of that is probably due to there just being less books out, but for the moment at least, it's much easier for casual players to pick up.

Bad points

Unfortunately, the way 4e gets that better balance and simplicity is by cutting down character versatility like a chainsaw addict at a tree nursery. Entire types of magic and class features are just gone.

If you measured character versatility on a scale from 1 to 10, it would look something like this (note, the 3.5 classes are on there as a rough estimate only):

1. 3.5 Fighter
2.
3. 4e classes (all)
4.
5. 3.5 Warlock, Bard
6.
7.
8.
9. 3.5 Wizard, Druid
10.

The range of abilities you have access to in 4e core as opposed to 3.5 core is literally an order of magnitude smaller - ten times less.

Conclusion

4e is, just as promised, better balanced and easier to learn and play than 3.5. But good grief, what a price you have to pay for it!

At the moment I'm playing a 12th level 3.5 druid in a D&D campaign. I'm looking at the 4e PHB class chapter, and I kind of want to like it . . . but there just isn't anything there that's anywhere near as cool and fun as what I've got already. As a druid I get to turn into any kind of animal I want (including a dragon, complete with breath weapon), and climb or fly at will. I have a big enough spell variety that I can do pretty much anything I can think of, and I can share most of it with my animal companion, who's awesome all by himself. And if I somehow need even more support, I can summon it. In 4e I can't do any of these things. Looking at the 4e class chapter makes me think of that line from Henry Ford - "You can have the Model T in any colour you want, so long as it's black".

It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

Whether the gain in simplicity is worth the loss of versatility, I just don't know. What I do know is I wish they could have tried harder to do a better job of balancing the two.

- Saph

I think the biggest issue that occurred was that in "Balancing" the classes, there was a limit to how ridiculously powerful they were allowed to make the "weaker" classes. I mean, you're one of the many of us who are just a little irritated that their immense powers are being shut down by the new system in order to compensate for the mediocrity of the "Normal" guys. Fighters, Rogues and the like. The problem is: That level of versatility is quite difficult to deal with and not ALWAYS fun. The first time you get the Wild-Shape power for Druids you can turn into a bunch of animals that could very well be WEAKER than your normal form... there is no animal form that's better at fighting than you already are, hell you might have MORE hit points that the Brown Bear you can shift into. AND better defenses... as far as the animal companion is concerned, sure, it's kinda fun... but so much more bookkeeping. On the same vein, Familiars downright suck. They're cool in theory, but as an ally, Familiars just don't do much, I mean, they have crap hit-points and are easy targets for enemies. Plus keeping track of THEIR abilities is just a pain for anyone except the select few who relish that kind of paperwork.

So while it may have been fun to be a Druid, or a Wizard or a Cleric, the issue became that sometimes the Fighter wants to do cool stuff too, and not be constantly beaten to every punch by the Wizard or the Druid. Too much versatility ends up stepping on other characters toes. If a Druid can have singular class abilities that are better than entire other CLASSES then we have a problem... I'll miss batman, yes, I will miss him dearly, but I think I'll still enjoy 4e...

[Duke of URL]

My original take on 4e was "if you liked Warlocks and ToB, you'll like 4e".

Now I'm not as sure that this is true. The mechanics are similar enough, but from all accounts, the 4e classes will have less versatility at any given time than those classes above.

(And for the record, I like Warlocks, despite the "power curve" problem, and I'm just really getting into ToB now, so no opinion there.)

[Saph]

So while it may have been fun to be a Druid, or a Wizard or a Cleric, the issue became that sometimes the Fighter wants to do cool stuff too, and not be constantly beaten to every punch by the Wizard or the Druid.

Wouldn't a better solution have been to make the Fighter cooler?

I haven't heard many people complaining about how dull their Warblade and Swordsage characters are to play . . .

- Saph

[Edea]

It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

- Saph

While I agree (being a Wizard fan), you forgot some words on the ends of those sentences. Shapeshifting is fun -for you-. Having an animal companion is fun -for you-. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lave and turn enemies into squirrels is fun -for you-. I know it is -for me- in 3.5. It's one of the reasons I'd rather eat raw squid than play a martial character in that edition.

All the meanwhile, your dwarven fighter buddy is left with "Och, ah pook it wit' mah axe!"

Basically, without becoming GURPS, this is all that can really be done to remedy that problem. Even with ToB, 3rd edition martial characters are nowhere NEAR druids or wizards, or even warlocks (the UMD warlock is a FORCE), power-wise or versatility-wise. Not even close, -let alone- without ToB.

[Skyserpent]

Wouldn't a better solution have been to make the Fighter cooler?

I haven't heard many people complaining about how dull their Warblade and Swordsage characters are to play . . .

- Saph

I completely agree, with a bit of a caveat

Cooler, yes, but the problem is Playstyle, unfortunately we have the issue of the amount of bookkeeping Warblades and Swordsages required... Some players aren't GOOD at that stuff, and thus end up punished and relegated to the more observational end of the party because they don't feel like putting in an extra few hours of research and optimization.

Making Fighters way cooler is a good idea in theory: but then we'll get just as many people complaining about how D&D is becoming "Dragon Ball Z" and such. The problem appears to be an inability to please EVERYONE, amazing.

I agree that they should have kept SOME semblence of versatility in the Spellcasting classes, and I hope it'll be addressed in later sourcebooks...

[Saph]

While I agree (being a Wizard fan), you forgot some words on the ends of those sentences. Shapeshifting is fun -for you-. Having an animal companion is fun -for you-. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lave and turn enemies into squirrels is fun -for you-. I know it is -for me- in 3.5. It's one of the reasons I'd rather eat raw squid than play a martial character in that edition.

All the meanwhile, your dwarven fighter buddy is left with "Och, ah pook it wit' mah axe!"

But there is a fighter in my party. And a paladin, too. Me being a druid doesn't particularly ruin the game for them.

But even if it did, there are ways to limit the direct in-combat power of these abilities (or to buff the other classes to compensate) without cutting them out completely - and that's what I'd rather have seen them done.

- Saph

[Charity]

I'm not sure you haven't discounted the rituals available to every class.
Also 3e had a lot of false choice, in so much as the choices were there but they were so bad/subpar that no-one in their right mind would elect to use them.

I would put every core 4e class above the core bard in true versitility..
but 4e won't be for everyone, I am pretty sure however it will be for me.

[Prophaniti]

Honestly, I play a lot of straight up melee classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Knight, etc.) and I've never felt that I lack cool things to do in combat, nor been constantly upstaged by an overpowered caster. I've made this point before, and still feel that wizards, druids and clerics are only unbalanced on paper. But that's another discussion for another thread.

As far as 4E goes... The more I hear, the less likely it is that I'll actually pick up the books, even just for our group to pick over and laugh at the tieflings.

[Kurald Galain]

Even with ToB, 3rd edition martial characters are nowhere NEAR druids or wizards, or even warlocks (the UMD warlock is a FORCE), power-wise or versatility-wise. Not even close, -let alone- without ToB.

Yes, but the issue is that on the same scale, 4E characters are nowhere NEAR Tome of Battle characters either.

Fighters and monks suck, we get that. Compared to them, everything is better. But if you do the math, at nearly every level, a 4e character gets substantially less different powers than a 3E warlock, or crusader, or paladin. On the Saph scale, above, most characters in 3E are in the 5-9 range, with the much-maligned fighter being an exception. However, every single 4E character is well below the 5-mark.

[ghost_warlock]

The way I see it, there's no reason why 4e fighters couldn't have picked up a few save-or-suck-type effects to compensate for what they lacked in 3e.

Sure, they're never going to teleport or polymorph or the like, but they could realistically deal ability damage/drain, blind, stun, hamstring (immobilize), be better at disrupting casting, and even decapitate/skull crack (save or die). All of these would have improved the fighter's lot, against casters and other martial characters alike. Streamlining the rules for sunder, disarm, bullrush, and grapple would make them more effective as well.

I understand some of the vast utility of wizards going out the window, but it sounds like the overall power-cut went too far and simply didn't utilize options that could have been very cool, opting for simple hp-death for everyone.

By trying to give everyone cool options, but keep it simple at the same time, WotC has 'dumbed down' the game and weakened every class from what it could have been.

[Charity]

Prophaniti I would suggest seeing for yourself rather than relying on vocal internet posters...

[Skyserpent]

Yes, but the issue is that on the same scale, 4E characters are nowhere NEAR Tome of Battle characters either.

Fighters and monks suck, we get that. Compared to them, everything is better. But if you do the math, at nearly every level, a 4e character gets substantially less different powers than a 3E warlock, or crusader, or paladin. On the Saph scale, above, most characters in 3E are in the 5-9 range, with the much-maligned fighter being an exception. However, every single 4E character is well below the 5-mark.

Are you kidding? The Paladin? Really!? I'm sorry but they flippin' SUCKED. Their main combat ability hinged on the enemy being Evil, and a whole lot of DMs really seemed to enjoy tricking the Paladin into wasting his 1/day Smite evil on a guy who was Neutral or even Good just ot make him feel bad. Plus, if you used it and missed you're proper screwed. The horse was alright but it was a whole other thing to keep track of, and your spell selection was mediocre at best. Paladins weren't that great, unless you were that awesome Halfling Pally build w/ Riding dog and mounted combat feats. And even THEN you weren't that great shakes...

You're right: A fourth edition character gets FAR fewer abilities... but I feel that those abilities are still USEFUL, which is more than can be said for a lot of 3.5. An issue in 3.5 was the idea that there was a BETTER choice and a WORSE choice, and depending on the choice you can be alright or screwed. ToB made Fighters pretty much obsolete. No one other than the fighter REALLY wanted Weapon Focus, Exotic Weapon Proficiency wasn't worht it unless you picked up a Spiked Chain... The list goes on...

Frankly all these things CAN be swept aside, because as a cooperative game it's up to the PLAYERS to balance out whatever is going on. I've had FUN playing a Bard, and been damn useful in a scrap. I've been a fantastic single-classed fighter and had a lot of exciting times, but that doesn't excuse the system.

Because I know, firsthand, what an overpowered class can do to a game. Competitive players make it their GOAL to defeat other players, to upstage them because of their own insecurities.

Another player, who was NOT a Powergamer, nor was he trying to be a jerk or anything, upstage an ENTIRE OTHER party with his Cleric, ON ACCIDENT. He wasn't TRYING to be Overpowered, but he was well-prepared and he knew how to use a Cleric "Properly" and to him: "This is intelligent, any other method would be stupid." Thus: his more Roleplaying focused friends ended up shafted.

Playing a Weak Character CAN be fun, but you'd have to be the type of person who is OKAY being weak. and I can say for certain that's DEFINITELY not everyone. If a choice is clearly mechanically weaker it's a significant reason NOT to play that character, and with so many clearly superior options in 3.5 this is an issue.

Hell even in his OWN party, the Swordsage himself essentially relegated himself to being a sidekick. Repeatedly pointing out where the Cleric had succeeded and his Swordsage had failed. He was "Okay" with this, but I was not. This isn't how D&D is supposed to be...

And isn't how it IS either, but it's what it can be and what it sometimes even leans towards.

[Scintillatus]

I am in agreement with the concept of less "pork" in character abilities. Every single power can be used effectively, there are no traps for inexperienced players.

Additionally, mind-affecting abilities, illusions, summoning, shapeshifting et al are likely going to be restricted to their respective iconic character classes, instead of being heaped on the Wizard.

[Skyserpent]

The way I see it, there's no reason why 4e fighters couldn't have picked up a few save-or-suck-type effects to compensate for what they lacked in 3e.

Sure, they're never going to teleport or polymorph or the like, but they could realistically deal ability damage/drain, blind, stun, hamstring (immobilize), be better at disrupting casting, and even decapitate/skull crack (save or die). All of these would have improved the fighter's lot, against casters and other martial characters alike. Streamlining the rules for sunder, disarm, bullrush, and grapple would make them more effective as well.

I understand some of the vast utility of wizards going out the window, but it sounds like the overall power-cut went too far and simply didn't utilize options that could have been very cool, opting for simple hp-death for everyone.

By trying to give everyone cool options, but keep it simple at the same time, WotC has 'dumbed down' the game and weakened every class.

Perhaps, but then the issue arises when this stuff hits players:

Save or Suck spells and abilities aren't fun to have on you. Ability damage and drain cause a significant break in the action while you re-calculate all the changed modifiers, and Save-or-Die effects are NEVER EVER fun unless the players only use them on enemies.

Long term effects are irritating to have effect characters and I get a distinct feeling that 4e is MUCH more Player-vs-Player friendly. Which is an interesting direction to take a "Cooperative game" But frankly there'll ALWAYS be inter-player conflict, and that's part of the fun. The difference now is that the Fighter can actually go at it with the Wizard without being instantly shut down. They are EQUALS now. And not in an irritating way. A fight between two 4e classes will be far more interesting considering the lack of abilities that just end an encounter with one save. I think this is a positive step.

[Kurald Galain]

I am in agreement with the concept of less "pork" in character abilities. Every single power can be used effectively, there are no traps for inexperienced players.

I don't think this is true. I expect that within a month or two, the Gleemax boards will have put together build guides for each class, explaining which powers are good and which are not. But for instance - certain rogue powers are only useful for the "brawny" rogue, not for the other kind. Yes, that Is A Trap.

Remember, it took the internet a couple years and an intermediate edition to figure out that Weapon Focus was really not that good a feat in 3E.

Additionally, mind-affecting abilities, illusions, summoning, shapeshifting et al are likely going to be restricted to their respective iconic character classes, instead of being heaped on the Wizard.

So you keep saying... but do you have any solid source for that, or is it just an assumption on your part? Because the concept of any effect lasting longer than twelve seconds (i.e. "save ends" or "sustain minor") appears not to exist in 4E.

Judging by the 4E PHB, I'd expect both mind-affecting and illusion to go like "encounter power, wisdom vs. will, deal 3d6 damage on a hit because you create a horrid vision for your enemy", and shapeshifting to be "dexterity vs reflex, deal 1d10+strength on a hit, because you turn into a wolf for three seconds to maul your foe".

[Starbuck_II]

Bad points

Unfortunately, the way 4e gets that better balance and simplicity is by cutting down character versatility like a chainsaw addict at a tree nursery. Entire types of magic and class features are just gone.

If you measured character versatility on a scale from 1 to 10, it would look something like this (note, the 3.5 classes are on there as a rough estimate only):

1. 3.5 Fighter
2.
3. 4e classes (all)
4.
5. 3.5 Warlock, Bard
6.
7.
8.
9. 3.5 Wizard, Druid
10.

Should it be more like 4e classes at 4 since they can do rituals to cpoy most 3.5 utility Wizard spells?

Heck, all of 4E can fly with their Tensar's Floating disk. 24 hours mind you. How does the 3.5 do it for 24 hours? They don't.

It's easy to come up with explanations for why all this was removed, but the point is - shapeshifting is fun. Having an animal companion is fun. Being able to fly everywhere and climb everywhere and swim in lava and turn enemies into squirrels is fun. Was it really necessary to get rid of all that? With all that time they spent on development, the designers couldn't come up with any better solution other than "axe it all"?

Whether the gain in simplicity is worth the loss of versatility, I just don't know. What I do know is I wish they could have tried harder to do a better job of balancing the two.

- Saph

If I was designing a game and I had to choose between was is fun and broken or not as fun but balanced.
It is smarter to choose the balanced.

[Edea]

Yes, but the issue is that on the same scale, 4E characters are nowhere NEAR Tome of Battle characters either.

Fighters and monks suck, we get that. Compared to them, everything is better. But if you do the math, at nearly every level, a 4e character gets substantially less different powers than a 3E warlock, or crusader, or paladin. On the Saph scale, above, most characters in 3E are in the 5-9 range, with the much-maligned fighter being an exception. However, every single 4E character is well below the 5-mark.

I think that might be because they're saving material for new core releases. Guess that's how they're making money now.

[Skyserpent]

I don't think this is true. I expect that within a month or two, the Gleemax boards will have put together build guides for each class, explaining which powers are good and which are not. But for instance - certain rogue powers are only useful for the "brawny" rogue, not for the other kind. Yes, that Is A Trap.

Remember, it took the internet a couple years and an intermediate edition to figure out that Weapon Focus was really not that good a feat in 3E.


So you keep saying... but do you have any solid source for that, or is it just an assumption on your part? Because the concept of any effect lasting longer than twelve seconds (i.e. "save ends" or "sustain minor") appears not to exist in 4E.

Judging by the 4E PHB, I'd expect both mind-affecting and illusion to go like "encounter power, wisdom vs. will, deal 3d6 damage on a hit because you create a horrid vision for your enemy", and shapeshifting to be "dexterity vs reflex, deal 1d10+strength on a hit, because you turn into a wolf for three seconds to maul your foe".

Point taken: Yeah, there MIGHT be traps for inexperienced players, but they're really really simple ones that aren't NEARLY as dense or elaborate as the ones in 3.5, of course a few years of supplements probably will change this, but I'm hopeful. Also: the nature of the abilities is such that most builds are fully viable and stand a reasonable chance against pretty much any other build. Of course, this could just be the idiot in me talking and I'm blind to the actual situation, but that's how it looks to me right now...

As far as illusions and transformations: Well, let's hit the two seperately:

Illusions: I think you'll probably be right, and it is extremely irritating. I hope they figure out some way to fix it but I'm highly skeptical.

As far as Shapeshifting, I bet it'll be fine, but rather than being "Transform into X from page Y in Monster Manual Z. It'll be more like the PHB2 Druid variant where it's a set of static ability modifiers on a particular form. Or at least I imagine that'll be the case. I mean, it doesn't contradict anything other than their weird aversion to abilty score enhancement... oh right... their weird aversion to ability score enhancement... Hrm... I think it's doable... but we'll have to see...

All valid points, but those are two, honestly difficult archetypes to work with. illusions can be very VERY easily Overpowered with a creative enough mind. (and considering the standard D&D player, that's very much within the realm of possibility.) Shapeshifting is iconic enough that I think the PLAYER can at least maintain the form for as long as he wants...

But no shifting enemies, not for more than 12 seconds anyway... bleah...

[Oslecamo]

It's simply the laws of probability. The more choices you add to the game, the bigger is the chance that certain choices may be better than others.

In 3.0 wotc decided to give the players as much chances as possible. Mountains of spells, classes, feats, rules, items and god knows what else. The combinations are endless. With enough rules mastery your character can pretty much do anything.


And we all know how the story ended. The optimizers apeared and they proceeded to dig trough all those combinations in search of holes in the rules. Throwing planets. Don't save, just die. Colapsing reality. Etc, etc. It was inevitable, because there was simply too much rules for WOTC to cover all the possible holes.

And the players complained and complained, so WOTC simply decided, in 4e, to don't run any risks in design and simply kill 90 of the cool stuff that may be abused. This included:

1-EVERY class uses the same freaking rule system. Seriously, the only thing that changes are the names. The fighter is the wizard and the wizard is the fighter. This prevents that any class rules system may be superior to the other.

2-Very versatile stuff that can be used "creatively". Polymorph, metamagic, change this, shape that, spider walk, shatter. Some of them are broken. Others don't. But they're all imprevisible, and thus got the axe.

3-Save or dies, save or sucks, any crazy damage combo. Because aparently players complained that anything that could 1 hit KO the oponent is broken.
Thus any combination that had the closest possibility of allowing a quick player one turn victory was axed untill it stoped screaming.


4-Player minions. Certainly there's a way to implemtent it into a balanced way. But 3.X left too many scars in the minion department for WOTC to risk it again.

[ghost_warlock]

Perhaps, but then the issue arises when this stuff hits players:

Save or Suck spells and abilities aren't fun to have on you. Ability damage and drain cause a significant break in the action while you re-calculate all the changed modifiers,

Not really. For every 2 points of Str damage the character suffered a -1 to melee hit and damage. For every 2 points of Dex damage, the character suffered a -1 to AC, Reflex saves, and a -1 penalty to ranged attack rolls. For every 1 point of Con damage, the character took 5hp damage and a -1 to Fort saves. Int, Wis, and Cha damage rarely came up, but usually only affected casters. If any score hit zero, the character was rendered unconscious.

and Save-or-Die effects are NEVER EVER fun unless the players only use them on enemies.

Probably true, but they were always exciting and dramatic moments.

Long term effects are irritating to have effect characters

Long-term effects tend to require the least bookkeeping because the character can simply adjust the character sheet accordingly. After a certain level most of the harmful ones can be removed easily enough and nobody's going to complain about a 6-hour boost to a stat, AC, etc.

and I get a distinct feeling that 4e is MUCH more Player-vs-Player friendly. Which is an interesting direction to take a "Cooperative game" But frankly there'll ALWAYS be inter-player conflict, and that's part of the fun. The difference now is that the Fighter can actually go at it with the Wizard without being instantly shut down. They are EQUALS now. And not in an irritating way. A fight between two 4e classes will be far more interesting considering the lack of abilities that just end an encounter with one save. I think this is a positive step.

PvP has only once been a major component of a game I played in - and that was an ALIENS campaign using the Alternity system. Since D&D is predominantly a cooperative game, I've never seen much need for PvP balance.

[Scintillatus]

I just spent some time cataloguing the variety of things a Wizard can do in and out of combat.

In Combat:

• Direct Damage
• AoE Damage
• Slow
• Push/Pull/Shift
• Daze
• Knocking Prone
• Weaken
• Create Difficult Terrain
• Damage over Time
• Sleep
• Immobilization
• Summoning: Bigby's various hands, Mordenkainen's Sword, et al
• Conjurations: from walls to spheres
• Stun
• Remove LOS (specific, nonspecific)
• Teleportation
• Mazing
• Confusion

I'd like to see someone add things that a Wizard does in 3.5, without stepping on the toes of other concepts, overlapping with the existing concepts there, or adding "mass" to the beginning. Perhaps we can gain an insight into what's missing.

Wait, sorry; forgot Paragon Path special powers (outside of the bonuses from picking the path)

• Self-healing
• Regain encounter power
• Remove an enemy's attack

Okay, and non-combat, not including rituals....

• Prestidigitation (various)
• Mage Hand
• Light
• Expeditious Retreat
• Feather Fall
• Jump
• Shield
• Dimension Door
• Disguise Self
• Dispel Magic
• Invisibility
• Levitate
• Wall of Fog
• Arcane Gate (Teleportation)
• Blur
• Mirror Image
• Resistance
• Displacement
• Fly
• Greater Invisibility
• Stoneskin
• Mass Fly
• Mordenkainen's Mansion
• Time Stop

Aaaand here's the ritual progression;

3 first-level rituals at level 1.
5th, 11th, 15th, 21st, 25th; gain two rituals (your level or lower).

I think we're all aware of how extensive the list of rituals is?

[Prophaniti]

Prophaniti I would suggest seeing for yourself rather than relying on vocal internet posters...

Oh, I'll at least flip through them at my local book store. I'm not yet to the point of writing them off entirely. I just meant that I hear (not just from posters, but from their previews) less that I like and more that I don't every week. It's not all bad, I just read the thread on the alignment preview, and that, I like.

[Skyserpent]

Not really. For every 2 points of Str damage the character suffered a -1 to melee hit and damage. For every 2 points of Dex damage, the character suffered a -1 to AC, Reflex saves, and a -1 penalty to ranged attack rolls. For every 1 point of Con damage, the character took 5hp damage and a -1 to Fort saves. Int, Wis, and Cha damage rarely came up, but usually only affected casters. If any score hit zero, the character was rendered unconscious.

All that erasing and rewriting didn't bother you? What about when you had one ability modified, and it changed your Attack Bonus, but then your Gauntlets of Ogre Strength was dispelled so that got changed too, but just for a few rounds, and then you took a DIFFERENT Debuff... now you've got to keep track of when each individual effect began and ended and reorganize your abilities accordingly. This was just too much of a headache for me, I'm sorry. and it's not just me, I'm happy that you could handle it so readily, but a lot of the time, it's just a freakin' pain.

Probably true, but they were always exciting and dramatic moments.

A few dramatic moments are worth losing your character? I don't think so. Save or Die wasn't fun. It was anticlimactic and frustrating 9 times out of 10.

Player: Oh look! the Big Bad Evil Guy rolled a 1 against my Disintigrate. Haha! I'm awesome

...

okay... now what?

DM: *rage*

Long-term effects tend to require the least bookkeeping because the character can simply adjust the character sheet accordingly. After a certain level most of the harmful ones can be removed easily enough and nobody's going to complain about a 6-hour boost to a stat, AC, etc.

Now we're not talking about bookkeeping, long-term effects like Level Loss and stuff CAN be fixed, but they're big, and tiresome and they just bog down gameplay.

PvP has only once been a major component of a game I played in - and that was an ALIENS campaign using the Alternity system. Since D&D is predominantly a cooperative game, I've never seen much need for PvP balance.

To each their own, I'm sure you wouldn't MIND if the classes were balanced would you? Your group sounds phenomenal, but you guys are a lucky party. Most groups I've been in though seem to have a thing for wanting to pit their characters against eachother, maybe just to spar, or maybe on opposite sides of a war. Either case, Balance is important. If not for YOU than for the rest of us. I'm glad they made sure to make it workable for those of us who do end up murdering eachother, because now at least it's a fair murder.

[ghost_warlock]

I'd like to see someone add things that a Wizard does in 3.5, without stepping on the toes of other concepts, overlapping with the existing concepts there, or adding "mass" to the beginning. Perhaps we can gain an insight into what's missing.

Create minions (summon or necromance), Buff self/others, Shapechange, Avoid combat altogether (via misdirection, charms, or illusions), Contingency - "Be Prepared" is kinda the wizard motto, is it not?, Permanency - really, anything lasting longer than the duration of combat

All that erasing and rewriting didn't bother you? What about when you had one ability modified, and it changed your Attack Bonus, but then your Gauntlets of Ogre Strength was dispelled so that got changed too, but just for a few rounds, and then you took a DIFFERENT Debuff... now you've got to keep track of when each individual effect began and ended and reorganize your abilities accordingly. This was just too much of a headache for me, I'm sorry. and it's not just me, I'm happy that you could handle it so readily, but a lot of the time, it's just a freakin' pain.

Isn't keeping track of that stuff why they invented 3x5 index cards? I never track that stuff on the character sheet. When DMing, a couple quick notes by the monster's hp suffices.

[Skyserpent]

[*]Create minions (summon or necromance)[*]Buff self/others[*]Shapechange[*]Avoid combat altogether (via misdirection, charms, or illusions)[*]Contingency - "Be Prepared" is kinda the wizard motto, is it not?[*]Permanency - really, anything lasting longer than the duration of combat

Solid list, that. but might i note:

Buffing is the Cleric's job.
Shapeshifting, okay so now you're the Rogue or the Fighter...
Avoiding Combat, sorry Fighter, I guess you're not important after all...
Contingency and Permanency have their own caveats... Contingency was considered among the most Broken things ABOUT 3.5...

[Saph]

I'd like to see someone add things that a Wizard does in 3.5, without stepping on the toes of other concepts, overlapping with the existing concepts there, or adding "mass" to the beginning. Perhaps we can gain an insight into what's missing.

I think you might have posted in the wrong place - there's a separate thread on 4e wizards. The example character I was using was a druid. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the list of 4e wizard spells.

- Saph

[Scintillatus]

Every last thing you have listed goes against the very small and very fair set of rules I laid out.

Minion creation is already in (Mordenkainen's Sword, Orb of Fire, etc), and skeletal minions/undead will likely be reserved for a Shadow power source controller/leader.

Buffing yourself or others is a Leader job, not a Controller job. You already have a vast array of self-buffs anyway, such as Mirror Image.

Illusions will be Bardic, and you already get Disguise Self. Diluting the concept.

Shapechanging is for Druids, not for Wizards. You're diluting the concept again.

Contingency: Breaks the game. Fun fun.

You can Sustain effects, and create permanent things via rituals.

Anything at all the Wizard -should- do that he cannot do in 4e?

Edit;

@Saph: This illustrates that there is no "loss of versatility" in terms of effects you can create. I could make the same list for Clerics, Paladins, Rogues, whatever - it'd come down to the same thing. You can do the same stuff in 4e that you could do in 3e. You said that entire types of magic and class features are gone, and quite frankly, that is not true.

Many classes have not been published yet, and what you think is missing will not be soon enough; shapeshifting, illusion, etc. It certainly sucks that we can't have all the power sources and classes at once, but there's a good reason for it; examining the comparitive balance of each class prior to introducing new things to keep track of.

[Skyserpent]

I think you might have posted in the wrong place - there's a separate thread on 4e wizards. The example character I was using was a druid. I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the list of 4e wizard spells.

- Saph

i think he's trying to make a point about versatility. I'd discuss Druids with you but they aren't out yet, and the Wizard IS right next to your Druid on that Versatility scale...

Anyway: I do miss spider climb and smaller interesting effects, Summoning swarms... I'd agree that there ought to be a different way to handle combat than just hp damage but I kind of like that there's only one way to beat a person in a fight and that's to FIGHT HIM. To accomplish another objective in combat should have a different method, i.e. Skill Challenges. I mean, goals in a combat may not necessarily be to neutralize a threat, it could be to secure an item or deliver a message, I think disabling through hp damage is fine. A whole new system of resolving combat through odd effects just seems too difficult and class-specific for me...