Wizard spells in 4e

67 posts / 0 new
Last post

As someone who has been lookin over 4e for a few months now and about to start a new game as the DM I was trying to convince my group to try 4e.  They think it is the worst system ever, but have never played it.

One of my friends is willing to try it as he says, all systems are both good and bad.  His only problem is spending money on the new system when he likes 3.5

So anyway some of my friends where looking over the classes and noticed that Wizard spell's damage doesn't seem to progress as the wizard goes up in levels(fireball, lightning bolt ect..
Am I missing something or is this the way they handle it in 4e?

You're expected to replace your lower level encounter and daily powers with higher level ones.  The higher level ones typically offer stronger effects, increased damage, or both.

t~

edit: also, unlike 3.5, 4E casters get +x to hit/+x damage items just like weapon wielders do, so that's another place where damage increases as you level and gain better equipment.
As for spending money, download the demo version of the character builder and the D&D test drive. You can try out level 1-3 for free. Wizards have been changed a lot to put them on an even playing field with other classes. Also, a lot of their spells have become rituals, so check those out too.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
4e tends to have less 'baked in' damage progression in general. Higher level spells will do somewhat more damage off the mark than lower level ones, and a few, mostly at-will, powers do scale somewhat. Remember, in 4e you do power swaps at upper levels, so its not expected that an epic tier wizard will still have a spell like Fireball memorized. Overall though you'll find that damage increases largely come from things like your implement enhancement bonus, increased crit range crit damage, feat bonuses, item properties, ability score bonus, etc. A Magic Missile might do no more than 2d4 + 4 (INT) damage at level 1 but the same character at level 8 can easily be doing 2d4 + 5 (INT) +2 (enhancement) +2 (Dual Implement Spellcaster) +2 (Staff of Ruin) which is a 50% damage increase and that's far short of maximum optimization (you can easily tack on another +2 I'm sure, just too lazy to dig for it). On top of that your leader should be able to drop on some large to-hit pluses most rounds against any significant threat.

The end result is similar to having old style straight scaling damage increases except you get to set up some cool character development stuff in there to do it. Not every wizard is equally potent with all types of spells and they can get their bonuses in a few different ways.

Finally there are other ways that spells increase in potency. Areas of effect grow larger, you get better conditions to drop on the enemy, more side benefits, etc. I think it makes the spells somewhat more interesting in some ways. I mean old style fireball is the same every day and the same for every caster aside from how many d6 damage it does. I think 4e gives you a bit more variety in that direction.

In the end though, you will find that wizards are just not increasing at the same exponential rate as in 3.x. They are cool and as fun to play as ever, just not THE heavy hitters beyond all others. And yes the attack spells in 4e are a decent amount more limited in scope than in previous editions. They are really meant to be mostly powers you use in combat with a few exceptions. You can still find creative uses for them outside of a fight but the really creative uses for magic are likely to be ritual magic now. That's where you're going to get your mighty world shaking magic.

I think this is a great approach to magic myself. Combat powers are easier to run, more predictable, and still interesting and effective. The limits of magic outside of combat OTOH are no longer so tightly defined and more open-ended. Magic is no longer boxed up tightly in fixed spell lists. A ritual COULD do most anything. Even the Arcana skill just by itself is in many ways a form of magic and a creative DM will have all sorts of possibilities there. Skill challenge mechanics can also be used to work up more elaborate kinds of magical procedures than just 'I cast X'. You could for instance have a magical duel between wizards pretty easily.

I'd say though if your group is all negative about playing 4e and the system they use now is really fun for them to play then there's not a huge reason to switch outside of just trying something new. I think the game system in 4e is more solid and pretty interesting but its not necessary to try every new game that comes out. Get the starter stuff and play a few times. If you like it, start a campaign. If there are people that simply refuse to play it at all then really its their loss, not much you can do about that.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I want to thank everone that answered me.

I think the problem is they are so used to wizard spells becoming more powerful as they increase in levels, that this new system just seems so alien to them.  I did forget about the switching out powers at higher levels.

My friends play 3.5 and I enjoy running a game more then playing in one so I wanted to try something new.  While I dont like everything about 4e it's overall rules for the game I think are some of the best and I really like how the powers are spelled out so it's harder to "rules lawyer" your way around them.

As for running a 3.5 game for them one of my major complaints about that system was the openness about multi-classing.  Now I have noting about multi-classing it's just some of the players are more about min/maxing then playing a character and that drives me crazy.  This is not as easy to do in 4e.
I want to thank everone that answered me.

I think the problem is they are so used to wizard spells becoming more powerful as they increase in levels, that this new system just seems so alien to them.  I did forget about the switching out powers at higher levels.

My friends play 3.5 and I enjoy running a game more then playing in one so I wanted to try something new.  While I dont like everything about 4e it's overall rules for the game I think are some of the best and I really like how the powers are spelled out so it's harder to "rules lawyer" your way around them.

As for running a 3.5 game for them one of my major complaints about that system was the openness about multi-classing.  Now I have noting about multi-classing it's just some of the players are more about min/maxing then playing a character and that drives me crazy.  This is not as easy to do in 4e.



If you do try 4e my advice is to try running it by the book for a bit. A lot of the various rules seem odd or "wrong" somehow at first, but that is mainly a matter of perspective. 4e's strength is telling larger-than-life kind of stories vs 3.x's aim of making a set of cohesive rules for everything in the world. Some things like 4e healing don't make a lot of sense to 3.x players (since the 4e healing system would just not feel right in 3.x).

You'll find that nothing, not even 4e, can truly kill rules lawyering and min/maxing but the rules are a lot more straightforward and workable out of the box. A player with a lot of 4e mastery can still make a more powerful character too. That character is just not going to dominate the game and be 12x stronger than the one that the newbie made following the recommendation in the PHB. He might still be 1.5x or 2x as good at doing damage though.

4e in a lot of ways really is an RPG made by DMs for DMs. You can much more easily run it than even 1e in a lot of respects. Playability was definitely the devs highest priority. It shows.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
I think the problem is they are so used to wizard spells becoming more powerful as they increase in levels, that this new system just seems so alien to them.  I did forget about the switching out powers at higher levels.



This will be an adjustment for your players.  Keep in mind that 4E is designed to ensure that all party members regardless of race or class play a significant role in a combat encounter.  To do this, classes have to be balanced and be given something that they can do well that most other classes cannot emulate to a high degree.  In 3E, most primary spellcasters can with proper spell selection can make a non-spellcasting class obsolete at higher levels.  4E makes sure that whatever class you play, you get the cool stuff and more or less the same amount of cool stuff as any other class.

My friends play 3.5 and I enjoy running a game more then playing in one so I wanted to try something new.  While I dont like everything about 4e it's overall rules for the game I think are some of the best and I really like how the powers are spelled out so it's harder to "rules lawyer" your way around them.



It's probably impossible to totally eliminate rules lawyering.  4E does spell out things more accurately.

As for running a 3.5 game for them one of my major complaints about that system was the openness about multi-classing.  Now I have noting about multi-classing it's just some of the players are more about min/maxing then playing a character and that drives me crazy.  This is not as easy to do in 4e.



Min/maxing is still possible in 4E.  It's just that an average character is still effective compared to a min/maxed character in 4E.  The min/maxed will still be noticeably better.
<\ \>tuntman
As for running a 3.5 game for them one of my major complaints about that system was the openness about multi-classing.  Now I have noting about multi-classing it's just some of the players are more about min/maxing then playing a character and that drives me crazy.  This is not as easy to do in 4e.

There is some truth to that, because the system for multiclassing in 3.5 was so open that you could do almost anything with your class levels. That's the very reason that it is considerably more restrained in 4th Edition. It's hard to balance a game without reducing everything to suckitude when everyone can cherry-pick every good part of a class and ditch the rest.
     But at the same time, there are different things to min-max. Every character gets feats at a near-3.5-Fighter rate (every even-numbered level, plus levels 1, 11, and 21). Every character gets two at-wills, slowly gains four encounter powers, and slowly gains four daily powers. Whereas a fighter only cared about their feats back in 3.5, now they ask themselves "Do I want my at-wills to be Cleave and Reaping Strike, or maybe Footwork Lure and Threatening Rush?" You pick a paragon path (or a paragon multiclass, or a paragon hybridclass), and you pick an epic destiny. Within these, you are often required to make some choices, like what stat boosts to get from Demigod or where your Kensai attack bonus goes. While there aren't as many inherent choices and options as there were in the "go nuts" methodology of 3.5, there are more options and choices than are at first evident within the 4th Edition system.

As far as expenses go, it doesn't have to cost much. Buy the PHB and the DMG, and split the cost of a year's subscription to DDi with your group. Since you presumably have minis and a grid already (if you don't, those are cheap and substitutable), you'll be good to go at the mere expense of maybe $100 between all of you, with all the new mechanical additions to the game being added to the Compendium and Builders as part of that service. If I sound like an ad, it's 'cause I encourage 4th Edition and I like it a lot. I'm pleased with it. But if you're not wanting to put down $100 group-collective on this, I do believe the D&D website still offers a free download of the Keep on the Shadowfell module complete with basic rules and pre-made characters so you can give the basic elements a try.

If your friends still have a problem with the version, just point out the design goals. 3.5 aimed to mimic reality and cover all things, whereas 4th Edition rules sort of focus on what's directly relevant to the game and the players. 3.5 is sort of its own working phsyics engine, while 4th Edition is more of a cinematic experience. Either one isn't necessarily fit for everyone, and that's not a bad thing. Your friends can either say "I can get behind that methodology" or they say "I can't get behind that methodology," and you know what's going to happen from there.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.

As someone who has been lookin over 4e for a few months now and about to start a new game as the DM I was trying to convince my group to try 4e.  They think it is the worst system ever, but have never played it.

One of my friends is willing to try it as he says, all systems are both good and bad.  His only problem is spending money on the new system when he likes 3.5

So anyway some of my friends where looking over the classes and noticed that Wizard spell's damage doesn't seem to progress as the wizard goes up in levels(fireball, lightning bolt ect..
Am I missing something or is this the way they handle it in 4e?




I don't think it's the worst system ever. As a _game_, it's pretty good actually. Most of the game is well balanced against other elements of it. There are a few holes here and there, but by and large, one level 1 fighter is as good as another level 1 fighter. Slight variations, slightly different tactics, but they are pretty well balanced against each other. Most everything within the context of the game play is pretty well defined and laid out.

As a storytelling environment, it has some issues. It's not that there is anything wrong with what is laid out, it's the fact that it is laid out tends to discourage imagination ever so slightly. You have a set of buttons that you press, and you are less likely to think outside of that because you have this set of discrete buttons. It's not to say you can't, but the move "off the reservation" is a bit more jarring I think.

In another thread, I commented that 4e plays more like a game and previous editions play more like make believe with guidelines. It's not that one is worse than the other, just different. 

As for a wizard, you are correct, and the previous posters added in quite a bit more. I'll put in my own two cents that wizards in 4e are probably one of the biggest departures from previous editions, with clerics being a sort of close second. Now, each class has a role (controller in the case of wizards, leader in the case of clerics, etc) and those roles define their abilities a great deal.

Wizards cast fireball, but it's not nearly as massive damage as you might think. Their role isn't really to rip out a lot of big damage spells, it's to control. I think if I was to compare it to previous editions, I might compare it more to an enchanter style rather than an invoker style. You can still sort of do the invoker style, but it's generally not as effective as those classes that are designed to be the big damage dealers (strikers).

These roles go a long ways towards the comparisons I've seen made to WoW and other MMORPGS. The average 5 player 4e party is built very much like a 5 man MMORPG party; there is a tank who sucks the attacks and keeps the monsters on him, there is a healer who is to keep everyone alive, there is a mezzer who's supposed to keep down the adds, and there are one or more damage dealers. It certainly doesn't have to be this way, but it often is.

4e (speaking as a player since before 1e) is a very different experience. It's good a good game, but it feels very different, and takes some time to get used to. 
Rest assured that wizards are still awesome. They get cantrips at-wills. Familiars in Arcane Power. Their dailies are the most powerful of any class, and their utilities are very nice too. Give it a try.
Another nugget of rules changery that one must keep in mind is that Wizards no longer are designed to be the 'I can do everything if I'm well prepared' character. They fit a role. And the controller role is Designed to inflict status effects, move enemies, and cause damage of areas to help control the battlefield. Most classes don't scale up in damage with the exception of Strikers, who get a die or two of extra damage every few levels or so.

Wizards are still awesome. as people have said, and with rituals and the spellbook they still maintain a fair share of diversity and excellence.
I want to thank everyone for answering me.  I think it boils down to my players seeing it as a sacred cow and for them it's just another reason why "4e sucks".

Im still gonna try to run the game I just think if I have to fight this hard just to get the players to try it, Im fighting an uphill battle.  Every little thing they dont like will be another fault of 4e and I dont want to have to fight that battle just to play a game that is supposed to be fun.

These roles go a long ways towards the comparisons I've seen made to WoW and other MMORPGS. The average 5 player 4e party is built very much like a 5 man MMORPG party; there is a tank who sucks the attacks and keeps the monsters on him, there is a healer who is to keep everyone alive, there is a mezzer who's supposed to keep down the adds, and there are one or more damage dealers. It certainly doesn't have to be this way, but it often is.



>Implying the concept of roles such as Meat Shield, Damage Dealer, Healer, etc, are an MMORPG concept, and that having a party where each character fills different roles hasn't been the assumption for every edition of D&D ever.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)

These roles go a long ways towards the comparisons I've seen made to WoW and other MMORPGS. The average 5 player 4e party is built very much like a 5 man MMORPG party; there is a tank who sucks the attacks and keeps the monsters on him, there is a healer who is to keep everyone alive, there is a mezzer who's supposed to keep down the adds, and there are one or more damage dealers. It certainly doesn't have to be this way, but it often is.



>Implying the concept of roles such as Meat Shield, Damage Dealer, Healer, etc, are an MMORPG concept, and that having a party where each character fills different roles hasn't been the assumption for every edition of D&D ever.



Exactly.  MMOs stole that bit from D&D, not the other way around.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
OP:  The first rule to D&D 4 is to forget everything from D&D 3.5 or earlier.  If you go into a new campaign without the outlook that it is a different game entirely, I think you will find that a lot of it doesn't make sense and there will be confusion.

I am a 3.5 convert and I would not dream of going back.  I absolutely love D&D 4.

-TheNative
4e wizards can still do insane stuff, it just requires more thought and more tactics. When an eladrin wizard lures a bunch of monsters towards a ledge, fey steps (teleports) behind them and then thunderwaves them all off the cliff it's pretty badass.

4e combat is much more about positioning and movement than any previous edition. When I see people originally make characters they often overlook the movement powers. After they play a few fights they start looking FOR the movement powers.

Also wizards in 4e never need to carry that sling/darts/x-bow etc. because they have spells as at-will powers.

Remember that (unlike in previous editions) wizard spells get to apply the wizards ability bonus to the damage - adding your int bonus will help with damage and over the levels the int bonus is increasing. Also, you can get various feats and items to boost the damage of *ALL* your spells.

A level 20 wizard might have:

Int 22 - 25 (+6 to +7 damage)
+4 implement (+4 damage)
+2 from a feat
+3 - +4 from using two implements with dual implement spellcasting


That is already +15 - +17 damage and not using item properties yet.
A scorching burst at-will would then do 1d6 + 15 which corresponds to around 5d6  - 6d6 converted to average dice result.

A fireball daily will still do that 10d6 equivalent damage, but most of it will be static modifiers.

I want to thank everyone for answering me.  I think it boils down to my players seeing it as a sacred cow and for them it's just another reason why "4e sucks".

Im still gonna try to run the game I just think if I have to fight this hard just to get the players to try it, Im fighting an uphill battle.  Every little thing they dont like will be another fault of 4e and I dont want to have to fight that battle just to play a game that is supposed to be fun.

if you try running a first level campaign, you'll probably notice the following things.
  • healing is strange. you full heal between encounters (costing healing surges) and you regain all healing surges when sleeping 8 hours.
    Remind your players how in 3rd edition they (or at least many players) forced the cleric to cast his healing spells between combats, and sleept until they were fully healed. - so nothing change here, except players use their own resources (the healing surges), not the clerics (his spells)

  • the fighter gets cool options, instead of 'I hit it with my sword'.

  • the wizard isn't a glorified crossbowmen: he can cast spells the entire day

Qube's block builder: if you want to create blocks for powers, items and monsters for this forum, but don't know html
Signature in a box
For years, I've lived a double life. In the day, I do my job - I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi-polloi. But at night, I live a life of exhilaration, of missed heartbeats and adrenalin. And, if the truth be known a life of dubious virtue. I won't deny it - I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it. I've maimed and killed adversaries, and not merely in self-defence. I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property, and savoured every moment. You may not think it, to look of me but I have commanded armies, and conquered worlds. And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside, I have no regrets. For though I've led a double life, at least I can say - I've lived.

3.jpg
D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - Stone Gaint

Scipio: And Chihuahuas have definitely improved in the "attacking ankles, yapping, and being generally annoying" environment. Me: OK, am I the only who sees an analogy between forum trolls & Chihuahuas?
Some of my work:
XDMC 19 (silver): A full fledged assassins guild (with stats, skill challenges, ...)link XDMC 14 (Bronze): a one shot campaign for beginning DMs/players. link XDMC 16: Paragon path: the Epitome: being better then all then any one else. link (note: this is balanced) XDMC 25: The Gelatinous Cube mount Guide To Disreality: a collection of houserules - Introduction & table of content
My ego in a box
who am I kidding? my ego would never fit in a box

These roles go a long ways towards the comparisons I've seen made to WoW and other MMORPGS. The average 5 player 4e party is built very much like a 5 man MMORPG party; there is a tank who sucks the attacks and keeps the monsters on him, there is a healer who is to keep everyone alive, there is a mezzer who's supposed to keep down the adds, and there are one or more damage dealers. It certainly doesn't have to be this way, but it often is.



>Implying the concept of roles such as Meat Shield, Damage Dealer, Healer, etc, are an MMORPG concept, and that having a party where each character fills different roles hasn't been the assumption for every edition of D&D ever.



Exactly.  MMOs stole that bit from D&D, not the other way around.



While such roles might have existed, they were in no way called out, and they were much less clearly defined. I played wizard tanks, for instance, or priestly damage dealers. A fighter in previous editions had no marking (aka taunting) equivalent to encourage that role. Classes were much more defined by the imagery they fit rather than what their role in the party was. 

It's fine that it changed in all, but I think you are discounting the influence the MMO had. Nearly 11 years worth of very popular, strict role definition MMOs did weigh into making the framework for the game. I don't see why people get all up in arms with the notion that D&D might have stolen or been influenced by an MMO. It only makes good game design sense. 

wizard tanks,


You mean Swordmages?


priestly damage dealers.


You mean invokers?

They just made it easier to see roles, but each type of imagery still exists. Except that a Wizard Tank doesn't have the Wizard class, but the Swordmage Class. But it's still a Wizard tank.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
I just have one question about the notion that combat roles have "always" been there in D&D.  What class(es) was the "striker" in 1e?

A class isn't neccesarily always the same role. Even in 4e it's quite possible to have a Warlock that's more Controller then Striker.

But each character either has a role, maybe two, or is avoided for trying or bad to take on too many roles (3e Bard, anyone?)
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.

These roles go a long ways towards the comparisons I've seen made to WoW and other MMORPGS. The average 5 player 4e party is built very much like a 5 man MMORPG party; there is a tank who sucks the attacks and keeps the monsters on him, there is a healer who is to keep everyone alive, there is a mezzer who's supposed to keep down the adds, and there are one or more damage dealers. It certainly doesn't have to be this way, but it often is.



>Implying the concept of roles such as Meat Shield, Damage Dealer, Healer, etc, are an MMORPG concept, and that having a party where each character fills different roles hasn't been the assumption for every edition of D&D ever.



Exactly. MMOs stole that bit from D&D, not the other way around.



While such roles might have existed, they were in no way called out, and they were much less clearly defined. I played wizard tanks, for instance, or priestly damage dealers. A fighter in previous editions had no marking (aka taunting) equivalent to encourage that role. Classes were much more defined by the imagery they fit rather than what their role in the party was.

It's fine that it changed in all, but I think you are discounting the influence the MMO had. Nearly 11 years worth of very popular, strict role definition MMOs did weigh into making the framework for the game. I don't see why people get all up in arms with the notion that D&D might have stolen or been influenced by an MMO. It only makes good game design sense.



It has to do with how strong an emphasis on combat there is. In previous editions of D&D, even if your character waas pretty useless in combat they could still contribute in RP (maybe even dominate it), and if you really hated your combat ineffectiveness you could make a new character without too much trouble. Compare that to MMOs, where there's little, if any, serious non-combat content and combat effectiveness is pretty much the sole measuring stick for a character; in addition, if you discover your class isn't much use in high-level content then you have to go through the grind all over again to change classes. I still remember early EQ where a high level raid wanted at most 1 or 2 enchanters for mezzing adds, a shaman or three for buffs, maybe a couple necromancer mana batteries, and the rest was pretty much all warriors/rogues/priests/mages. Certain classes just didn't have much to offer because roles weren't clearly defined.
I want to thank everyone for answering me.  I think it boils down to my players seeing it as a sacred cow and for them it's just another reason why "4e sucks".

Im still gonna try to run the game I just think if I have to fight this hard just to get the players to try it, Im fighting an uphill battle.  Every little thing they dont like will be another fault of 4e and I dont want to have to fight that battle just to play a game that is supposed to be fun.

Yup.

My suggestion, is don't let anyone play a wizard, cleric, or psion.  Instead, make them play classes that "sucked" in 3.5, like the monk, or classes that didn't exsist, like the warlord.  It will be easier for them to accept changes if they have less of a sacred cow.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I just have one question about the notion that combat roles have "always" been there in D&D.  What class(es) was the "striker" in 1e?




In earlier editions1, there wasn't as rigid a division of classes amongst roles. That is to say that it was easier for a given class to fill any number of roles depending on how it was built. That is one of the big paradigm shifts going from earlier editions to 4E. In earlier editions, it went pick your class, choose your role. In 4E, you switch that around to be choose your role, then pick the class.

1 - I don't have much experience with pre-3.X editions, so I may be completely wrong. COnsider this a pre-emptive "my bad".
Mudbunny SVCL for DDI Before you post, think of the Monkeysphere
I just have one question about the notion that combat roles have "always" been there in D&D.  What class(es) was the "striker" in 1e?




In earlier editions1, there wasn't as rigid a division of classes amongst roles. That is to say that it was easier for a given class to fill any number of roles depending on how it was built. That is one of the big paradigm shifts going from earlier editions to 4E. In earlier editions, it went pick your class, choose your role. In 4E, you switch that around to be choose your role, then pick the class.

1 - I don't have much experience with pre-3.X editions, so I may be completely wrong. COnsider this a pre-emptive "my bad".

"Role" is getting to be more of an overview of the class then a requirement.  And the lines between roles are getting blurrier as more classes comes out.  A hybrid striker|striker can be a good defender.  Druids can be strikers or defenders.  Polearm fighters are basicly controllers.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Just remind them that having an open mind and giving something new a chance is a wonderful thing.
I just have one question about the notion that combat roles have "always" been there in D&D.  What class(es) was the "striker" in 1e?



The Thief.  Its signature combat power was extra damage on a backstab.  Many of the class' other powers ... hiding, move silently, climb walls, were designed to get the thief behind the foe so that it could deliver the backstab.  Classic striker design.

The fighter, on the other hand was a sort of defender/striker.  It had lots of hit points and great AC, which are good defender traits.  And since he wasn't hiding (unlike the thief) he became the primary target of melee attacks, as any good defender does.

The cleric was a leader, with his blesses and cure spells, and secondarily a defender with his moderately high hp and good AC.

The magic-user was the controller, although they also had a decent selection of leaderish spells, as well as some great striker spells, like lightning bolt.  At higher levels, a magic-user could use polymorph, tenser's transformation, and other spells to replicate the abilities of any role.

The 1e sub-classes blurred the lines a bit....
The ranger and paladin were defenders with a small bit of leader or striker thrown in.
The illusionist was even more controllery than the magic-user and didn't get a lot of the striker and defender powers a magic-user did.
The monk was a striker with a little bit of defender thrown in.  So was the assassin.

I don't remember the 1e druid all that well.  I think it was a leader like a cleric.

The bard was just, well, odd.  You start out a thief and then a fighter and then you get controller abilities. 


A recent Dragon article included rough guidelines for 'leveling up' powers, should you feel so inclined: just add one damage die (usually a d8 or d10 for implement powers) per tier.  This doesn't do anything to improve the power's other effects, but most of the riders to powers are useful no matter what level.
The idea I had was to run classic D&D in 4e.  I have all the old original AD&D modules and was working on converting them to 4e.  I also only planned on using the original core classes.
The main reason behind this most of my players started with 2E and neve got to play these classic adventurs and the others haven't played them since we where all kids.

I talked this over with a fellow LFR DM and good friend and he said he has the same problems getting people to play 4e outside of LFR at cons.

So for my group this is what Im looking at:
*-Fellow DM who is more then happy to play and looks forward to playing the old games converted.
*-One person who out right refuses to play 4e (still thinks 1e is the best and took 3 years to play 3.5 after it came out at cons).
*-One person willing to try something new
*-One person who's never played and just feels over whelmed by the rules, but willing to try it.
*-One person who is willing to play but always looks for some odd ball way to get around the rules.
*-One peson who will play but will also d nothing but cry the 4e is ruining the game.  This is the same person who runs a 3.5 game but made magic missile an "at will power" in his game.  This person also tried to say their is no different between fighters in 4e.  When I asked him if he felt fighters where all the same in 3.5 he said no way.  So I asked him when you add at-will, encounter, and daily powers (even more options then 3.5 had) how could the classes be all same?  he had no answer but to say he thinks 4e ruined the Forgotten Realms that is why he hates 4e.  

This is what Im dealing with here Frown
So for my group this is what Im looking at:
*-Fellow DM who is more then happy to play and looks forward to playing the old games converted.

Hurray!
*-One person who out right refuses to play 4e (still thinks 1e is the best and took 3 years to play 3.5 after it came out at cons).

Boo. But if this person isn't going to like any edition other than 1st, you can't do much about that. Deal with it, and let him deal with it.
*-One person willing to try something new

Hurray! He won't be disappointed. 4th Edition is pretty new.
*-One person who's never played and just feels over whelmed by the rules, but willing to try it.

Hard to imagine with the simpler ruleset, but just stress that all these strange things like healing surges and daily powers on martial classes are abstractions, like HP.
*-One person who is willing to play but always looks for some odd ball way to get around the rules.

Power to him, 'cause it's tough to get around the rules in 4th Edition. Tougher, anyway. Make sure you keep up with errata and keep him updated on errata, so that he doesn't attempt any shennanigans that the devs already put a stop to.
*-One peson who will play but will also d nothing but cry the 4e is ruining the game.  This is the same person who runs a 3.5 game but made magic missile an "at will power" in his game.  This person also tried to say their is no different between fighters in 4e.  When I asked him if he felt fighters where all the same in 3.5 he said no way.  So I asked him when you add at-will, encounter, and daily powers (even more options then 3.5 had) how could the classes be all same?  he had no answer but to say he thinks 4e ruined the Forgotten Realms that is why he hates 4e. 

This person is the same deal as the 1st-Edition guy. Let him mope and whine and if he gets too rowdy, show him the door and outline his options at that juncture. If the game's not for him, he should let you know and take his leave. It's not for everyone. Perhaps try to get him to play one of the classes that was brutally underwhelming in previous editions, like the monk or fighter. Both are a blast in 4th Edition.


Good luck getting them to convert. It's a system that's really friendly to DMing.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
I just have one question about the notion that combat roles have "always" been there in D&D.  What class(es) was the "striker" in 1e?



The Thief.  Its signature combat power was extra damage on a backstab.  Many of the class' other powers ... hiding, move silently, climb walls, were designed to get the thief behind the foe so that it could deliver the backstab.  Classic striker design.



And yet, the thief typically got to use backstab maybe once per combat, if he was lucky.  And if you played RAW only fighters gained multiple attacks per round so it didn't take many levels for the fighter's DPR to outstrip the thief's lone backstab.  The 1e thief was not primarily a combat class, he was a RP/skills class.  The striker was not always a D&D combat role.  IMO it was borrowed from mmorpgs and applied to classes like the rogue because the designers decided that all classes should be combat primary.
Now, whether one likes or dislikes that design decision is personal preference, the game is what it is.  If you like it, I see no need for the defensiveness against the suggestion that an element was borrowed from another game genre (especially when the devs have stated they targeted that genre's players)... particularly to the point of claiming a particular element was present in previous editions when it really wasn't.


And yet, the thief typically got to use backstab maybe once per combat, if he was lucky.


Even if true (and I dispute that) that backstab was often devastating.

And if you played RAW only fighters gained multiple attacks per round so it didn't take many levels for the fighter's DPR to outstrip the thief's lone backstab.  The 1e thief was not primarily a combat class, he was a RP/skills class.  The striker was not always a D&D combat role.  IMO it was borrowed from mmorpgs and applied to classes like the rogue because the designers decided that all classes should be combat primary.


The MMOs got it by analyzing the original classes.  These classes were devloped by Arneson, who was a military wargamer.  And since wargames began, units were generally divided into four classes: artillery (controllers), cavalry (strikers), infantry (defenders), and medic/logistics (leaders).  Arneson very purposely developed classes to mimic the wargame pieces with which he was laready familiar.  The thief was the last class to be introduced this way and, apparently, backstabbing was not uncommon in his games.

As for the fighters' multiple attacks, they tended to keep pace with the rogues' backstab.  The rogue got extra dice on backstabs about as often as the fighter got an extra half-attack.  The idea was the rogue should be backstabbing every other round, and the fighter gets an extra attack every other round.  The rogue, however, gets mad bonuses when backstabbing, and rarely misses on the backstab.

The roles were not as tightly delineated in 1e, but they were definitely and intentionally there.

The thief (not the rogue, which was a 2e name) was also a skill monkey, true, but class roles deal with the class' combat function.  And the thief's combat function was striker.

I see no need for the defensiveness against the suggestion that an element was borrowed from another game genre


Neither do I.  but class roles didn't come from MMOs originally.  They came from wargames.
I would like to point out one of my pet peeves.


Roles.

These are not classes, they are a specific archtype designed to form a part of a team. I look at them as a design tool rather than something a player actually "picks" when building/starting a character. I think the direction of what roles are what is something the DM needs to put his two cents in, asking one player or another to take a class with a certain role.

I look at classes, not Roles, but do realize that a group needs at least a character from each role to better meld with one another. It is an inherrent design of the game.

I wish the Forrum wasn't divided into role sections, instead being putting sections for each power source, and sub forrums for each class.
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
Neither do I.  but class roles didn't come from MMOs originally.  They came from wargames.

so "4E = 40K" would be a better insult?
Not that I agree, or care. Just trying to guage the full stupidty of the "4e = WoW" style rants.

Let us remember D&D roots... "chainmail."
Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
  he had no answer but to say he thinks 4e ruined the Forgotten Realms that is why he hates 4e. 



To be fair on this point, the 4E Realms update DID make a LOT of radical changes to the setting. Some specifics that irked many players I know include;

- Removing a number of fan favorite epic level NPC's by various means (Elminster was completely depowered and driven a bit insane).

- Eliminating both Mystra and the Weave from the game

- Completely redoing the cosmology and layout of the planes

- Tearing down civilization into a Points of Light world

- Adding the Spellplague in on top of that.

The easiest solution there is that there is a wealth of 3E fluff for FR that can be used just as easily with the 4E rules.


The MMOs got it by analyzing the original classes.  These classes were devloped by Arneson, who was a military wargamer.  And since wargames began, units were generally divided into four classes: artillery (controllers), cavalry (strikers), infantry (defenders), and medic/logistics (leaders).  Arneson very purposely developed classes to mimic the wargame pieces with which he was laready familiar.  The thief was the last class to be introduced this way and, apparently, backstabbing was not uncommon in his games.



But as you alude, thieves weren't present in the original D&D rules, they were introduced in the Greyhawk supplement.


As for the fighters' multiple attacks, they tended to keep pace with the rogues' backstab.  The rogue got extra dice on backstabs about as often as the fighter got an extra half-attack.



But again, you're comparing the fighter's attacks -every round-  to the thief's ability which he doesn't get to use nearly as often.  In the end, the fighter still does more damage per encounter than the thief, which is what I was getting at.  In the 4e model strikers typically deal more damage per combat than defenders.

  The idea was the rogue should be backstabbing every other round, and the fighter gets an extra attack every other round.  The rogue, however, gets mad bonuses when backstabbing, and rarely misses on the backstab.



I must admit I was under the impression the thief had to have surprise in order to backstab.  Having just looked it up, I see this is not so... however, he did require surprise to backstab at +4 to hit.  I still don't see getting in a backstab every other round as all that likely.


Neither do I.  but class roles didn't come from MMOs originally.  They came from wargames.

so "4E = 40K" would be a better insult?
Not that I agree, or care. Just trying to guage the full stupidty of the "4e = WoW" style rants.


No one said "4e=WoW" in this thread, just that 4e -did- borrow some elements from mmorpgs (as well as other video games).  While it is true that those elements are typically among the things that people dislike about 4e, automatically taking the statement of such facts as an insult is just dumb.



The idea I had was to run classic D&D in 4e.  I have all the old original AD&D modules and was working on converting them to 4e.


You should not have much trouble converting over older edition adventures to 4E.  I did it with two, 3E adventures already.  I actually prefer the older edition adventures over the 4E ones that I have seen.

I also only planned on using the original core classes.
The main reason behind this most of my players started with 2E and neve got to play these classic adventurs and the others haven't played them since we where all kids.



I don't see any benefit to limiting players from what classes they can play.  There is no reason why 2E classic adventures cannot be played with any 4E classes.  If you really want to show how good 4E can be, the worse thing you can do is limit character options for players.  This will be especially the case for those who like other editions.  At least by not limiting options, you can limit the complaint of how they cannot make a certain character concept in 4E.
<\ \>tuntman
But as you alude, thieves weren't present in the original D&D rules, they were introduced in the Greyhawk supplement.


Because Arneson was hesitant to introduce a class that had the potential to cause player v. player fighting (which it did -- he knew his players -- so he made alignment to force his players to play nice)

But the thief was his idea for the "cavalry class".  It was supposed to be mobile with a devastating attack.  If it failed in that role, it wasn't for a lack of design.

But again, you're comparing the fighter's attacks -every round-  to the thief's ability which he doesn't get to use nearly as often.  In the end, the fighter still does more damage per encounter than the thief, which is what I was getting at.  In the 4e model strikers typically deal more damage per combat than defenders.


Then it was a failure of design,though my experience differs.