See I think the conversation went more along the lines of
"Let's make 'expeditious retreat' a super-powerful version of tumble, but have they wizard be able to use it less often"
So now you are suggesting that the designers of 4e said "Hmmm 'tumble' is a core Rogue skill, and always has been a core rogue skill but let's make the wizard the best tumbler in the game."
I doubt that.
But if they did, then 4e is already falling into the very trap that this whole mess of a new game mechanic was supposed to "fix." That would be unsettling news.
I think your concerns with the similarities between warlock and ranger are justified. However, I don't see how they mesh with your discussion of the difference between 3.5 and 4.0. The warlock was in 3.5, and, by your definition of the term, he was a non caster. He had a small set of abilities to choose from and could cast those abilities over and over. The problem of the ranger/warlock is not a case of 4.0 nerfing a caster, its the class design of two classes overlapping in the new edition.
I have played and run a number of 4.0 sessions, and I find this case the exception, not the rule. All of the other classes play very different from each other, even the ones with similar roles (fighter/paladin, I haven't played the warlord yet since I am unsure on the inspiring word rules.
I certainly agree that their is less difference between casters and non casters, but I think that is a result of comparing 4.0 to 3.5. If you look at 4.0 on its own terms I think you will find that the differences are still there, they are just not as large as you are accustomed to having them.
You don't understand my definition of "pure" caster if you think I put "Warlock" in that category. I specifically listed Warlock as a hybrid caster/non-caster in an earlier comment. In fact I pointed out that it was classes like "Warlock" and "Spellthief" that filled the "hybrid caster/non-caster" role that 4e has now restricted ALL roles to fill. You are either not reading my comments, or else you are not understanding them.
The problem with 4e is not that the "difference between casters and non-casters is smaller." The problem with 4e is that the pure caster and the pure non-caster are EXTINCT. A point I have made repeatedly but which you seem to have missed.
Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth when 3rd edition came out and they still had a DIRECTLY broken magic system that ALWAYS failed to work.
Over 30 years of playing a core mechanic that NEVER works? How could something so broken continue to be played by thousands of people year after year?
There are a great deal of broken RPG systems that people play. The White wolf games for instance are notoriously poorly balanced, but people like the flavor. Similarly, D&D had some huge balance issues too.
Now we played 1st and 2nd edition for decades with such archaic thngs like having a separate saving throw versus wands from a save versus spells and backwards mechanics like THAC0.
Was the game still playable? Sure. COuld it have been done better? Definitely.
That's the whole point of a new edition, to fix the problems of the last.
A lot of people disliked vancian magic prior to 4E, but the thing was that the magic section was so large that it just wasn't practical for most gamers to house rule it, because it wasn't a simple matter of a few house rules, it'd require an entire rewrite, similar to what 4E is doing. Not to mention most DMs didn't have time to playtest an entirely new magic system.
I am going to try one more time to explain why I have a fundamental problem with the whole "at-will, encounter and daily power" design of 4e.
First of all, I don't have a problem with introducing such a mechanic, my problem is that it is the ONLY mechanic in the game. This means that the option to play a pure spellcaster or a purely physical character is gone. Utterly gone.
Secondly, this mechanic was chosen as a means to enforce a deeper fundamental game design decision, the decision to force all classes to have equivalent power, impact and game involvement. This has been made abundantly clear by the designers as a core principle of 4e. Many of you who have been debating on this thread consistently defend that position, sarcastically asking me if I want the wizard to be all powerful at the expense of the fighter, for example. As if this design was the only means possible of balancing the game.
Thirdly, and most disturbingly, the consequence of this decision whether intended or unintended, is by definition limiting all magical powers to be no more powerful than what a martial character can do with their physical body.
To put it into game design terms that means that every time a wizard spell is considered, the game designers are forced to askWill this new spell give the wizard more capability than what a fighter can do with his sword?!!!!
And as if that isn't bad enough, it causes absurdities in both directions! When a wizard is given a power that is obviously reasonable for a wizard to have, if the fighter's physical limits are too low to match it, the fighter's physical limits are pushed beyond any reasonable means that a physical act could perform!. This "skill inflation" soon pushes the non-caster's abilities into the realm of the obviously super-powerful, and in effect turns them into spellcasters.
The main problem with this new approach is that it is not scalable without promoting physical "martial" skills into the obvious realm of magic so they can compete with the magical skills of the casters. The alternative is a game where all of the characters are limited by what the non-casting classes can physically perform. And a game where characters are so functionally limited will not satisfy the game players for long.
You know, sometimes I wonder if Ars Magica didn't have the right idea by assigning supremacy to a certain type of character. Maybe arcane magic is supreme in your world, maybe it's weak and fighters rule. Priests and the gods rule in other settings, and in some there's no point in playing anything other than a thief. Let certain types of characters be more powerful, but figure out ways to have other characters be necessary.
Maybe something that D&D should have incorporated from video games would be the concept of Difficulty Settings. You want the game to be easier or more high-powered? Have everyone play magic users. Blatantly label wizards and clerics and druids as "Easy Mode" characters. You want a more challenging game? Have everyone play fighters. Let running fighters and monks be the equivalent of setting the game to "Hard" or "Nightmare."
See, here's the problem right here: You want casters to be more powerful than other classes.
This is inherently bad, because what you're actually saying (and yes, this is what you're actually saying, REGARDLESS of what you argue) is "People should only play wizards." (and other spellcasters)
Well, that explains why I always prefer playing Rogues, I guess.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
Yes, this is what you're arguing. When you say more powerful, that means more fun. When you say more fun, you say the other classes should be less fun. And when you say that, you say that those classes shouldn't exist at all, because the purpose of a game is to have fun.
Well, that explains why I always prefer playing Rogues, I guess
Titanium Dragon wrote:
You do not understand this very basic fact of the reality of game design.
Perhaps it isn't ME who misunderstands the very fact and reality of game design TD. In my world of game design "fun to play" and "most powerful" are not tightly coupled concepts. Maybe that's because it isn't important to me that I HAVE to be the most powerful character to have fun. I wouldn't call that situation a "game design" issue, that gets more into psychology than game design I think.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
I'm sorry, but your argument is fundamentally wrong. You don't understand what makes 3.x unfun for so many people. This is why 3.x has major issues.
Gee, then what makes it FUN for so many people TD? Are you suggesting that nobody enjoys 3.5e? Or are you more uncharitably suggesting that it is only "fun" for people who "don't really know how to play it." Again, I think we are leaving the realm of game design and entering the realm of clinical psychology.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
If your definition of D&D is "a bad game", then you should stick with bad games.
You can assert what you like, insult whom you like and condescend to whomever you like TD, it doesn't make you right. It just makes you irritating.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
If you must always play a magic user, and feel that it is bad that non-magic users can be equally potent, you should go play a game like Mage: The Ascension or similar, wherein it is assumed that all characters are magic users.
Well, that explains why I always prefer playing Rogues, I guess.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
What's the point of learning how to use a sword when magic is always better?
Well, that explains why I always prefer playing Rogues, I guess.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
D&D is broken as soon as you have enough money to buy a candle. Or level 4, when you can become the omniscifer. Or level 5 (Pun-Pun, though I hear there may be a way to do it at level 1 now). Or level 8, when you can use the Detect City Bomb. Or level 7, when you can polymorph. Or about the same time for being able to wild shape three times per day. Or about the same time for the cleric to start pulling out divine metamagic and permanently becoming better than the fighter via DMM cheese.
The argument that 3.5e is "broken" is only a supporting argument for 4e game design if the 4e approach is acknowleded to have been the only way to fix it. I do not agree with that argument, I think there are other ways to fix 3.5e that would not result in causing pure casters and pure non-casters to go extinct. Your entire argument is that 3.5 needed to be fixed, and therefore 4e is good. This is not a defensible argument.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
4-12? The game breaks down as soon as a magic user does anything good.
Somehow my groups have managed to play 3.5e for years now without the game breaking down or a pun-pun popping up out of the woodwork. Hmmm....
Titanium Dragon wrote:
No. The problem is it IS D&D. You don't know what D&D IS. That is your issue.
Your definition of D&D is a bad game. Obviously that isn't the correct defintion of it.
The only part of a definition of D&D I have provided is that it is a game which allows pure spellcasters and pure non-spellcasters to co-exist in a meaningful and fun way. That's it TD. I've provided no more details of what my definition is. Are you saying that any game with pure spellcasters and pure non-casters is a "bad game?" Because that's the only logical conclusion one can reach from your assertion.
You know, sometimes I wonder if Ars Magica didn't have the right idea by assigning supremacy to a certain type of character. Maybe arcane magic is supreme in your world, maybe it's weak and fighters rule. Priests and the gods rule in other settings, and in some there's no point in playing anything other than a thief. Let certain types of characters be more powerful, but figure out ways to have other characters be necessary.
:P
Well, the thing is D&D has always tried to hide the fact that magic was absurdly powerful. Even though on a xp basis, a MU at mid-high levels was supposedly balanced with a fighter, there was a lways a nudge/hint that REALLY, MUer's were where it was
Well, the thing is D&D has always tried to hide the fact that magic was absurdly powerful. Even though on a xp basis, a MU at mid-high levels was supposedly balanced with a fighter, there was a lways a nudge/hint that REALLY, MUer's were where it was
Bleach:
I've been playing long enough to have some memories of this issue being discussed even with Gary Gygax early on.
In the original incarnation, magic users (which is what they were called) were clearly called out as the class with the most potential. However, they were also the class with the most vulnerability, especially at low levels. This was considered "balance" back then. The idea of starting characters at level 20 was completely absurd to the original game designers, and in fact they felt that doing so was tantamount to cheating. This was in large part due to the fact that the biggest challenge for a wizard was surviving the first four levels or so. And having played a number of wizards who were rolled up with 2 hit points and one magic missile as a starting wizard, I can attest to the fact that it was indeed extremely hard to survive low levels as a wizard.
But beyond the difficulty of surviving the low levels, the whole reason for the creation of the "Vancian" magic system was that it provided arbitrary limits to the spellcasters powers. The idea being that a wizard might be able to throw a couple of fireballs, but once those were spent, the wizard's contribution to the battle was drastically reduced. This, again, was considered "balance" in those days.
Over time several things happened that really began to create a situation where spellcasters (druids, wizards and clerics) became dominant in the game.
The first was the tendency of power gamers to roll up higher level characters so that their spellcasters never had to actually SURVIVE at a low level. Especially with the highly optimized builds that are great at level 20, but would have created far more difficulties to actually PLAY such a character at, say, level 2.
Secondly was the introduction of tons of new monsters with incredible powers. At first this was seen as necessary because the existing monsters were getting their butts kicked by the players. But as they introduced monsters with super-powers, they overlooked the fact that certain spells gave player characters access to any super power that they gave any monster. This is how "pun-pun" came to be.
Thirdly was the introduction of a roomful of splat books with new spells, new classes, new feats, etc. It was impossible to keep track of all the possible synergies of all these options, and it is not surprising that the unintended consequences of them resulted in an exponential power growth for spellcasters.
There is no doubt that this needed to be fixed. I completely agree that 3.5e is horribly broken at high levels, and that the cracks in the seams begin to appear even at low levels. But my contention is that 4e's MEANS of fixing the broken parts of 3.5e are a very poor means indeed.
To put it into game design terms that means that every time a wizard spell is considered, the game designers are forced to askWill this new spell give the wizard more capability than what a fighter can do with his sword?!!!! ...
Than let's compare what a wizard can do vs what a fighter can do. All numbers are based off of the DDXP pre-gen characters.
At will powers: Magic Missile vs. Cleave
Magic Missile can do 2d4 + Int mod at 20 squares (100 ft!), to a single target. Cleave can do 1[W] + Str mod to a single target, no range, and 3 damage to an adjacent target.
Against a single target, magic missile falls short by a MAXIMUM of 2 damage, but it has range. Against two targets, magic missile falls short by a MAXIMUM of 5 damage, but, again, has range.
Advantage: Wizard
Encounter powers: Force Orb vs. Passing Attack
Force Orb can do 2d8 + Int mod damage, at 20 squares (100 ft!) to a single target, and 1d10 + Int mod to all adjacent targets. Passing Attack allows our fighter to 1[W] + Str mod to your target, take his place, and make an additional attack against a different enemy at 1[W] + Str mod.
Against a single target, force orb is a no-brainer. More damage, AND range. Against two targets? Well, force orb STILL does more damage, and has range.
Advantage: Wizard
Daily Powers: Acid Arrow vs. Brute Strike
Acid Arrow has the same damage as force orb (2d8 + Int mod), again, at range (20 squares[100ft]). Also, it has the ongoing damage 5(save ends) part, as well. And, for good measure, it has splash damage, with slightly less damage, but still the ongoing effect. Indeed, it even does damage on a miss! Brute Strike does 3[W] + Str mod, but is Reliable.
Against one target, yes, brute strike does more damage...front loaded. Acid arrow has the chance, however, to do more damage if they constantly fail their save. Hell, even if they only take the ongoing damage for two rounds, it lags behind brute strike by only 4 damage max! But, if we throw that acid arrow against a group of enemies...watch the damage output suddenly dwarf that of ANYTHING that the fighter can do. Oh yeah, acid arrow has range, too.
Advantage: Fighter against single target, Wizard against 2 or more targets.
So, I think it's safe to say that the wizard can still do magic, and magic that can easily out-class anything that the fighter can do..or rogue for that matter!
I see your concern, Brass...but I have to humbly disagree with you. Even with just the first level pre-gen characters to go off of, the wizards is capable of far more than the fighter. It seems to me that the wizards is very capable of being the controller it is meant to be, while the fighter can keep on defending.
Than let's compare what a wizard can do vs what a fighter can do. All numbers are based off of the DDXP pre-gen characters.
At will powers: Magic Missile vs. Cleave
Magic Missile can do 2d4 + Int mod at 20 squares (100 ft!), to a single target. Cleave can do 1[W] + Str mod to a single target, no range, and 3 damage to an adjacent target.
Against a single target, magic missile falls short by a MAXIMUM of 2 damage, but it has range. Against two targets, magic missile falls short by a MAXIMUM of 5 damage, but, again, has range.
Advantage: Wizard
This completely overlooks the fact that cleave is damaging two characters and MM is damaging one. Factoring that in (let's say a minion is involved) and the advantage is not nearly so obviously in the wizard's favor.
TheBouncyPherret wrote:
Encounter powers: Force Orb vs. Passing Attack
Force Orb can do 2d8 + Int mod damage, at 20 squares (100 ft!) to a single target, and 1d10 + Int mod to all adjacent targets. Passing Attack allows our fighter to 1[W] + Str mod to your target, take his place, and make an additional attack against a different enemy at 1[W] + Str mod.
Against a single target, force orb is a no-brainer. More damage, AND range. Against two targets? Well, force orb STILL does more damage, and has range.
Advantage: Wizard
This advantage is highly dependent on the opposing party deploying their troops in a way that facilitates the wizard's ability. If the opposing party is doing anything halfway intelligent with deploying their troops, this is not nearly as advantageous to the wizard. Also this spell is clearly not useful in close combat, since it would do damage to friends and foes alike. So it can ONLY be used at range, which limits its use further. And finally, in both of your examples you are ignoring the fighter's PRIMARY purpose, which is to block off the advancement of the attacker, something neither of the wizard's spells do. So again, advantage is not nearly as clear as you think. Damage is NOT the only measure of effectiveness in combat.
TheBouncyPherret wrote:
Daily Powers: Acid Arrow vs. Brute Strike
Acid Arrow has the same damage as force orb (2d8 + Int mod), again, at range (20 squares[100ft]). Also, it has the ongoing damage 5(save ends) part, as well. And, for good measure, it has splash damage, with slightly less damage, but still the ongoing effect. Indeed, it even does damage on a miss! Brute Strike does 3[W] + Str mod, but is Reliable.
Against one target, yes, brute strike does more damage...front loaded. Acid arrow has the chance, however, to do more damage if they constantly fail their save. Hell, even if they only take the ongoing damage for two rounds, it lags behind brute strike by only 4 damage max! But, if we throw that acid arrow against a group of enemies...watch the damage output suddenly dwarf that of ANYTHING that the fighter can do. Oh yeah, acid arrow has range, too.
Advantage: Fighter against single target, Wizard against 2 or more targets.
This has some of the same limitations for the wizard as above. Also ANY power that is listed as "RELIABLE" is automatically twice as effective as a comparable power that is NOT "reliable."
TheBouncyPherret wrote:
So, I think it's safe to say that the wizard can still do magic, and magic that can easily out-class anything that the fighter can do..or rogue for that matter!
Yes, if you completely overlook and ignore the PRIMARY purpose of the fighter, which is to engage and bottle up the enemy, in your analysis, it appears the wizard has the advantage. I suspect that in balancing this out the game designers actually took that into account as part of the balance of the powers.
TheBouncyPherret wrote:
I see your concern, Brass...but I have to humbly disagree with you. Even with just the first level pre-gen characters to go off of, the wizards is capable of far more than the fighter. It seems to me that the wizards is very capable of being the controller it is meant to be, while the fighter can keep on defending.
TBP
As you can see in my rebuttals above, I humbly disagree that you have accurately measured the relative impact of these powers. You have measured it along one axis only. You are measuring the wizard's ability to "control" while ignoring the primary means of the defender actually using his ability to "defend."
