Yeah, save and die sucks, but so does unrealistic Wizards.
And why do fighters/rangers/rouges need a daily power? At will and encouter would be good enought, and more realistic.
I'm curious where you're getting the idea of what a "realistic" wizard entails, given that magic isn't real in the first place.
What you hold characters to is cinematic and novel simulation. And honestly, the per day Vancian wizard doesn't seem to exist in much fantasy literature or movies at all. We really don't know how many times any one wizard can execute a move.
We know that most characters have abilities they use all the time, abilities they use often and abilities they use for special circumstances only.
In that manner the At will, per encounter and per day makes sense.
***off subject observation*** and granted we have been doing 4e lite. We've been playing nearly every weekend with 4e, some of my players are starting to point out a lot of things that really relate to what the OP said. One of the main things being that damage outputs are about the same for all classes, and wizards spamming magic missiles being the same as 3e fighters complaining they had nothing better to do but swing. 2 have cancelled their pre-orders.
Has your group considered that 4E Lite has only a small portion of the options available in the actual game? In the real thing, you'll have more options to pick from in terms of powers when making your first-level character, and you'll be picking up new powers and feats as you level up - I can understand how 4E Lite would get monotonous over time, but that's because it's only a fraction of the game and you're doing it over and over again.
Has your group considered that 4E Lite has only a small portion of the options available in the actual game? In the real thing, you'll have more options to pick from in terms of powers when making your first-level character, and you'll be picking up new powers and feats as you level up - I can understand how 4E Lite would get monotonous over time, but that's because it's only a fraction of the game and you're doing it over and over again.
I hope you are right nth. But even if you are, and there are lots and lots of powers that replicate what wizards do with magic missile. The concern is that if they act more or less like magic missile, that's not much different than the fighter who says "Man I am SICK of swinging this sword!" and pulls an axe out of his backpack.
I am not trying to argue 3.5e or older versions of D&D against 4e. God knows they suck too in places. What I'm trying to do is describe what I see in 4e that seems to provide an ILLUSION of variation, pulled over a reality of sameness. Yes, we need to see more of 4e, and now, in less than a month, we'll have the actual books. You can bet I'll be all over this issue in character creation and in game play. Perhaps I'm all wet. I sure hope I am. But the reason I am concerned is because 4e is reportedly all about combat, and it is the primary combat mechanism that feels monotonous to me. Sure there may be all kinds of ways to differentiate characters in the "down time" but I like to differentiate them when it matters, when their lives are on the line.
Maybe the differentiation is now striker, leader, controller and defender. But I'm not sold on that yet. In the demo game we played, I could not tell you who took the role of "leader" or of "controller". "Defender" and "striker" were pretty clear, but that was really just a new way of saying "tank" and "artillery". I know the wizard was supposed to be the "controller" but once his daily power was cast, he was pretty much just another ranged attacker using magic missile instead of a bow. I don't even know who the "leader" was supposed to be. But what I did notice is that everyone had a more or less equal role in the fight. We all did about the same damage, we all had similar encounter and daily powers and we all used our at-will powers over and over again. So in that sense it was a fairly good demonstration that the designers goals were met. So why did it feel so flat?
I think it's fair to say that different reasonable people can have different reasonable opinions on what a wizard's spellcasting should "feel" like during combat to make it appear more realistic. After all, magic isn't real, so it's just a matter of personal opinion and aesthetics whether you can suspend your disbelief in a given magic system.
Personally, when I'm DM'ing, I like to think of combats in a cinematic sense. I ask myself "if I was watching this during an action sequence in a movie, what might it look like?" Given that perspective, I like the idea of all the player characters getting to do something flashy every round, as if the sequence is doing short cuts between the characters actions. So when it comes to wizards in particular, I'd think I'd rather see them lobbing out magic bolts or other spells every action than hanging back firing a crossbow or swinging a quarterstaff. Therefore I like that 4th edition's wizards are able to do minor attack spells every round as much as they like since it fits well with the way I want to envision the action.
And I'm not concerned that wizards will feel the same as fighters simply because the very basic underlying game mechanics are the same for how powers work across all classes. After all, even though all the classes have the same number of powers, the specific powers they get are very different. Not to mention the different class features.
...***off subject observation*** and granted we have been doing 4e lite. We've been playing nearly every weekend with 4e, some of my players are starting to point out a lot of things that really relate to what the OP said. One of the main things being that damage outputs are about the same for all classes, and wizards spamming magic missiles being the same as 3e fighters complaining they had nothing better to do but swing. 2 have cancelled their pre-orders.
Keep in mind that all your characters are still level 1. (Or at least I'm guessing they're level 1 since there aren't many rules for leveling up the characters in the PHB lite.) And at level 1 I wouldn't expect a vast difference in damage output between the classes because the opponents simply don't have that many hit points at such a low level.
Ask yourself what would happen if you reran the same adventures you're playtesting using 3rd edition rules. The level 1 casters would still have limited options during combat; in fact, they'd probably be forced to use their weapons instead of their spells most of the time. So it's probably a misconception to think that going back to 3rd edition would make a level 1 wizard more fun. If anything 4th edition 1st level spellcasters at least get to cast spells most of the time, right?
In fact, why take my word for it? Try running a series of 1st level adventures over and over for a few weeks in 3rd edition until 4th edition is out. Then compare how you like the 1st level adventures in 3rd edition to how you like them in 4th edition. That will give you a better idea which system you actually prefer, at least at low level.
Therefore I like that 4th edition's wizards are able to do minor attack spells every round as much as they like since it fits well with the way I want to envision the action.
Yeah, I like that too. I actually am very keen on the idea of wizards with at-will magic powers. And the idea of them being able to get off a magic missile with some level of competence each round, instead of lamely trying to roll a natural 20 with a crossbow is a MUCH improved vision of a wizard in my mind. In fact if they had added the concept of at-will magical powers to wizards to 3.5e and did nothing else, I would have applauded because I don't think that would have unbalanced the game, and it gives me a better vision of an actual wizard. So don't think I have a problem with wizards having at-will capability to launch magical attacks pretty much as long as they are conscious. I'm good with that.
Bodyknock wrote:
Keep in mind that all your characters are still level 1. (Or at least I'm guessing they're level 1 since there aren't many rules for leveling up the characters in the PHB lite.) And at level 1 I wouldn't expect a vast difference in damage output between the classes because the opponents simply don't have that many hit points at such a low level.
Here I have to disagree with you. There is a profound difference in power between spellcasters and non-spellcasters at level 1. As has been noted elsewhere on this thread, spellcasters suck at level 1. OK, they might get a couple of spells off, but those spells are going to be more or less equal in damage to the non-spellcasters weapons, and when they are out of spells, they are now attempting to hit monsters with usually about a -4 or more compared to the martial characters who have bonuses from their attributes, and usually a feat or two to boot. As everyone knows who played a crossbow-firing wizard, that usually meant you just littered the ground with useless bolts. Back in the old days this was considered "balanced" because the reverse was true once you hit the higher levels where the spellcasters began to dominate the game. It was almost a reward system, if you could stomach the ridicule and incompetence of being a spellcaster four four or five levels, you might just start earning some respect a couple of times a day until you hit level ten or so, when the party began to defer to YOUR ability to wreak havoc on the enemy and became supporting characters. Such a model is no longer acceptable for a lot of reasons. One of the most common and least discussed reasons is because very few games start at first level anymore. So wizards are unbalanced ALL THE TIME when you start your games at level 15 or so. And martial characters are quite right to complain about this.
Bodyknock wrote:
Ask yourself what would happen if you reran the same adventures you're playtesting using 3rd edition rules. The level 1 casters would still have limited options during combat; in fact, they'd probably be forced to use their weapons instead of their spells most of the time. So it's probably a misconception to think that going back to 3rd edition would make a level 1 wizard more fun. If anything 4th edition 1st level spellcasters at least get to cast spells most of the time, right?
I'm not sure anyone said a "level 1 wizard" in 3.5e would be more fun than a "level 1 wizard" in 4e. First of all it's a false comparison. A level 1 wizard in 4e is, imho, roughly equivalent in power and flexibility to a level 4 or 5 wizard in 3.5e. One of my problems is that from what I've seen a level 20 wizard in 4e seems to be roughly equivalent in power and flexibility to a level 10 wizard in 3.5e. There is no exponential power curve any more. Wizards plod along a growth path to reach the eventual nirvana of FOUR daily powers. Yay.
Bodyknock wrote:
In fact, why take my word for it? Try running a series of 1st level adventures over and over for a few weeks in 3rd edition until 4th edition is out. Then compare how you like the 1st level adventures in 3rd edition to how you like them in 4th edition. That will give you a better idea which system you actually prefer, at least at low level.
Here's a better idea. Run some 3.5e adventures at level 4 or 5 so you get a more accurate comparison, and THEN compare them to 4e at level 1.
I just read the character´s sheets of those demo games... and considering all excerpts and released material... i totally agree with the OP, and the majority of the people that posted in this thread.
4e Simplified every aspect of the game and Especially the character creation and uniqueness(role in combat and etc...)
All characters look the same... the diferences are merelly cosmetic.
This is NOT RPG. Maybe a plataform pen and paper game in the line of a Street Of Rage/Final Fight/etc... but definitelly not rpg.
There is no point in balance things that are actually the same. Balance is exactly the act of considering the diferences and apply the principle of equity and fairness. NOT EQUALITY. Btw, the entire beauty and importance of balance is to exalt and give importance to the diferences of those 2 things.
For this new 4e, balance come for the price of the diferences.
D&D as a game lost complexity, richness of elements, character customization and its replayability(i am already sick of it)
I am wondering if that may be the case in 4e as well. The current combat setup seems to encourage me to open up with an encounter power, then spend an action point to use an at-will power (or daily if I am facing a particularly tough solo foe or the BBEG). In subsequent rounds, it is simply a case of using whatever actions I have to spam whichever powers are the most effective.
Here's something on ENworld which I found to be HIGHLY introspective on the issue of spamming and 4E
occam_at_enworld]This brings me to one of my main concerns about 4e, which goes back to the early playtest reports from DDXP, where several people described a feeling of "button-mashing", getting into the same routine each combat once you were familiarized with your powers. The standard response was that if you think 4e involves button-mashing, what do you think about 3e, where you usually don't even have a choice of powers (at least for mundane combatants)? Perfectly reasonable response... except that some, at least, definitely felt it more in their initial 4e experiences. It instilled some worry in me, too, although it took me a while to figure out why.
Ironically, I think the "wahoo" feel of powers in 4e may be the very thing that makes them seem like old hat after a while. In 3e (and before), there usually isn't much to a non-spellcaster's attack: roll to hit, roll damage. Sure, you might occasionally mix it up with a feat or a bull rush or something, but the typical procedure is almost subconscious. You may not be flipping over tables or pushing opponents around the battlefield, but you don't usually notice that.
The dynamic nature of 4e powers forces you to pay attention to the effects of your action, because you're doing all kinds of cool extraordinary things. But after the 5th Tide of Iron, won't it get to seem a little ho-hum? And will you notice that more because the initial thrill is gone? (A thrill which was, granted, harder to come by at all in 3e.)
I have the same concern about monsters. It's cool interesting that a goblin picador can harpoon you and pull you around the battlefield. But how many goblin picadors can you fight before that just becomes annoying, along with most goblins' ability to shift away when you miss them? Earlier D&D goblins are as boring as they get, being nothing but a weapon and a few hit points in combat, but you never expect the coolness from goblins, so you don't usually miss it.
My concern with 4e is, despite PCs and monsters having much more flavorful and tactically interesting choices in combat, that the more flashy and exciting those choices are, the more you'll notice their repetition, thus potentially turning a great strength of 4e against it. I hope this doesn't happen, at least not to the point of making the game unenjoyable for a lot of people. I don't think we'll get a good sense of this until people have gotten some long-term playing in.
re: Tactics... Heh, runestar, at first I thought the same thing but playing with the pre-4ePHB lite and monsters has changed my viewpoint entirely...
Actually, it makes more sense to open a battle with an AT-WILL attack rather than an Encounter power. In fact, you probably should use an At-will power every round UNLESS you know the stats/current hp of the opponent. There are 3 main reasons..
1. There's no way to tell the difference between a kobold minion and a kobold skirmisher for example. Better to use your at-will on a target first and see how it reacts...
2. The bloodied mechanic/threshold. Many creatures we've seen "change" when they hit the Bloody Threshold. Either their defense goes down or they become in fact even more ferocious.
In the latter case, the math actually works out that it makes more sense to use at-will to get them to "Bloodied" then to use your Encounter power to finish them off as quickly as possible rather than the reverse while in the former, given that you want as great an advantage when using your encounter power, it makes sense to hold off until their defenses go down...
3. The fact that characters aren't as fragile and monsters won't one shot you means that DMs are more and more likely to run scenarios such as "The ruckus from your fight brings more enemies to the encounter" and feel confident that the party can survive it. Much more tactically sound to hold off on your Encounter power until you NEED it. wrote:
This brings me to one of my main concerns about 4e, which goes back to the early playtest reports from DDXP, where several people described a feeling of "button-mashing", getting into the same routine each combat once you were familiarized with your powers. The standard response was that if you think 4e involves button-mashing, what do you think about 3e, where you usually don't even have a choice of powers (at least for mundane combatants)? Perfectly reasonable response... except that some, at least, definitely felt it more in their initial 4e experiences. It instilled some worry in me, too, although it took me a while to figure out why.
Ironically, I think the "wahoo" feel of powers in 4e may be the very thing that makes them seem like old hat after a while. In 3e (and before), there usually isn't much to a non-spellcaster's attack: roll to hit, roll damage. Sure, you might occasionally mix it up with a feat or a bull rush or something, but the typical procedure is almost subconscious. You may not be flipping over tables or pushing opponents around the battlefield, but you don't usually notice that.
The dynamic nature of 4e powers forces you to pay attention to the effects of your action, because you're doing all kinds of cool extraordinary things. But after the 5th Tide of Iron, won't it get to seem a little ho-hum? And will you notice that more because the initial thrill is gone? (A thrill which was, granted, harder to come by at all in 3e.)
I have the same concern about monsters. It's cool interesting that a goblin picador can harpoon you and pull you around the battlefield. But how many goblin picadors can you fight before that just becomes annoying, along with most goblins' ability to shift away when you miss them? Earlier D&D goblins are as boring as they get, being nothing but a weapon and a few hit points in combat, but you never expect the coolness from goblins, so you don't usually miss it.
My concern with 4e is, despite PCs and monsters having much more flavorful and tactically interesting choices in combat, that the more flashy and exciting those choices are, the more you'll notice their repetition, thus potentially turning a great strength of 4e against it. I hope this doesn't happen, at least not to the point of making the game unenjoyable for a lot of people. I don't think we'll get a good sense of this until people have gotten some long-term playing in.[/quote] re: Tactics... Heh, runestar, at first I thought the same thing but playing with the pre-4ePHB lite and monsters has changed my viewpoint entirely...
Actually, it makes more sense to open a battle with an AT-WILL attack rather than an Encounter power. In fact, you probably should use an At-will power every round UNLESS you know the stats/current hp of the opponent. There are 3 main reasons..
1. There's no way to tell the difference between a kobold minion and a kobold skirmisher for example. Better to use your at-will on a target first and see how it reacts...
2. The bloodied mechanic/threshold. Many creatures we've seen "change" when they hit the Bloody Threshold. Either their defense goes down or they become in fact even more ferocious.
In the latter case, the math actually works out that it makes more sense to use at-will to get them to "Bloodied" then to use your Encounter power to finish them off as quickly as possible rather than the reverse while in the former, given that you want as great an advantage when using your encounter power, it makes sense to hold off until their defenses go down...
3. The fact that characters aren't as fragile and monsters won't one shot you means that DMs are more and more likely to run scenarios such as "The ruckus from your fight brings more enemies to the encounter" and feel confident that the party can survive it. Much more tactically sound to hold off on your Encounter power until you NEED it.
I just read the character´s sheets of those demo games... and considering all excerpts and released material... i totally agree with the OP, and the majority of the people that posted in this thread.
4e Simplified every aspect of the game and Especially the character creation and uniqueness(role in combat and etc...)
All characters look the same... the diferences are merelly cosmetic.
This is NOT RPG. Maybe a plataform pen and paper game in the line of a Street Of Rage/Final Fight/etc... but definitelly not rpg.
There is no point in balance things that are actually the same. Balance is exactly the act of considering the diferences and apply the principle of equity and fairness. NOT EQUALITY. Btw, the entire beauty and importance of balance is to exalt and give importance to the diferences of those 2 things.
For this new 4e, balance come for the price of the diferences.
D&D as a game lost complexity, richness of elements, character customization and its replayability(i am already sick of it)
Most other RPGs actually do balance different characters on the same axis...
Personallly, Ive always been somewhat skeptical on the claim that the wizard was balanced with the fighter due to the scarcity of the wizard's power.
The problem I have with this is something which the CR system highlighted. The CR system assumes that the party is at 100% capability. At low levels, 1-4, this is ok since the power of magic isn't impressive or that game-changing..
But try a CR 10 creature and assume for example that the party has no magic (no spellcasters, no magical items etc...). You'll notice the so-called balance (since if it was balanced, an all fighter or all rogue party should have no problems) goes flying south.
Yet, it is not just the Monsters themselves (after level 5, monsters assume that you have a spellcaster with you). Its the actual advnture itself..Everything assumes that you have a full spellcaster with you so the vaunted "power" of the fighter is totally diminished.
Assuming a typical 4 classic class party, Even if you're fighter and rogue are at max hp and have a pack full of cure light wounds, after level 7 and increasingly so, you simply can not "go on" without the power of the spellcasters.
This "balance" is like the hidden drawback of making a thief in 1E actually have to wait before they could train (Thieves in 1E had a faster XP chart but all classes in 1E had training fees they had to pay before they could level and if you were in the middle of a dungeon, where the hell are you going to find a trainer? Especially when everyone else wanted to keep on going and thus the "balance" of the thief class disappeared)
As for "playing the same", heh, I'm a fan of Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords and by your reasoning, a crusader would play exactly the same like a swordsage and be exactly the same like a warblade in feel.
Anyone else here want to disabuse this guy of that notion:D Hell, two WARBLADES don't even play the same much less two SWORDSAGES (the Crusader, maybe but that's because they have such restricted access to the schools/paths. Even here, I've seen two crusaders run differently due to the selection of manoeuvers, feats and prestige classes)
