Community

axetank wrote:

I might be corrupted by it far too easily. As such, I have to isolate myself from it for the good of D&D.

I suggest to you that even in this community of gamer geeks (a term I use with affection), this statement seems extremely ludicrous and detatched from reality.

Also, it might make me want to yell 'NERD!' and give you a wedgie -- but that part's my issue, not yours.

axetank wrote:

You don't understand, I'm a big fan of games like WoW (I don't play it specifically, I play runescape) and tactical RTS games and I'm very susceptible to trying new games (I tried to buy 4e before it came out actually), I might be corrupted by it far too easily. As such, I have to isolate myself from it for the good of D&D. D&D should not be like 4e, if I wanted that, I could just play a RTS.

Outlaw68 wrote:

So what your saying here is you have talked yourself into a corner that you don't know how to talk your self out of, and you can't swallow your pride enough to actually have a go at the game, at the risk you might actually like it and then look like a clown?

I think what he's saying is he doesn't want to end up "liking it for all the wrong reasons".

I'm fine with that - it's the same rationale a compulsive gambler uses for not going to Vegas, or a guy uses to not ask a certain girl out - they might have great times, but he knows on some level she'd be a bad influence on him.

It does not, however, mean you have much to weigh in on as to whether 4e is "good" or "bad". All you can really say in this case is you're afraid it would be personally addicting to you regardless of quality.

Outlaw68 wrote:

So what your saying here is you have talked yourself into a corner that you don't know how to talk your self out of, and you can't swallow your pride enough to actually have a go at the game, at the risk you might actually like it and then look like a clown?

Something like that, but don't tell anyone.

Although it's really more like Warweaver said.

Warweaver wrote:

I think what he's saying is he doesn't want to end up "liking it for all the wrong reasons".

I'm fine with that - it's the same rationale a compulsive gambler uses for not going to Vegas, or a guy uses to not ask a certain girl out - they might have great times, but he knows on some level she'd be a bad influence on him.

It does not, however, mean you have much to weigh in on as to whether 4e is "good" or "bad". All you can really say in this case is you're afraid it would be personally addicting to you regardless of quality.

Ahh yes, i got you...

And you last statement is dead on, i don't have a problem with people who don't like the game (actually usually they are the posts i find most interesting, at least the opinions that are posted in a reasonable manner, and actually explain their rationale), I do have a bit of a problem with people who post saying how much they dislike the game when all they are doing is regurgitating somebody else's comments and presenting them as their own

Warweaver wrote:

I think what he's saying is he doesn't want to end up "liking it for all the wrong reasons".

I'm fine with that - it's the same rationale a compulsive gambler uses for not going to Vegas, or a guy uses to not ask a certain girl out - they might have great times, but he knows on some level she'd be a bad influence on him.

It does not, however, mean you have much to weigh in on as to whether 4e is "good" or "bad". All you can really say in this case is you're afraid it would be personally addicting to you regardless of quality.

Yeah, but a compulsive gambler doesn't go to a website for gambling fans and tell them that gambling sucks. He avoids gambling and all references to gambling, and at worst he might communicate with those fellow people who also share an interest in avoiding gambling (Gambler's Anonymous and the like). I see what he's doing as similar to some twisted nymphomaniac going to porn forums to tell everyone that they're sinners... it's pointless.

Decivre wrote:

Yeah, but a compulsive gambler doesn't go to a website for gambling fans and tell them that gambling sucks. He avoids gambling and all references to gambling, and at worst he might communicate with those fellow people who also share an interest in avoiding gambling (Gambler's Anonymous and the like). I see what he's doing as similar to some twisted nymphomaniac going to porn forums to tell everyone that they're sinners... it's pointless.

No it's not, some of them might feel bad and stop doing it.

axetank wrote:

No it's not, some of them might feel bad and stop doing it.

That's your logic? Should homophobes go to gay chat rooms and tell them they're all monsters so they "feel bad and stop doing it"? Who are you to judge the actions of other people?

Seriously, I've heard serial killers with better logic behind their reasoning... and they're serial killers.

Decivre wrote:

That's your logic? Should homophobes go to gay chat rooms and tell them they're all monsters so they "feel bad and stop doing it"? Who are you to judge the actions of other people?

Seriously, I've heard serial killers with better logic behind their reasoning... and they're serial killers.

Might work... I've got no outward problem with the actions of other people. It's when they conflict with everything that's good about D&D that I have a problem.

axetank wrote:

Might work... I've got no outward problem with the actions of other people. It's when they conflict with everything that's good about D&D that I have a problem.

Yet others could also argue that you work in synch with everything that's wrong with D&D, and in that they have a problem with you. Neither is correct however, because good is subjective, and you have no real experience with the game to know whether or not those things that are good with D&D are even absent, short of "a friend of a friend once told me...."

Decivre wrote:

Yet others could also argue that you work in synch with everything that's wrong with D&D, and in that they have a problem with you. Neither is correct however, because good is subjective, and you have no real experience with the game to know whether or not those things that are good with D&D are even absent, short of "a friend of a friend once told me...."

You keep conveniently forgetting that I have played D&D 3.5 once. I do have some small experience with it. When you can calculate your chances of winning a battle by having it narrowed down to damage, you might as well roll the percentage dice and be done with it. The only reason MMO's and PC games can pull this off is because they have nice graphics and a faster reaction time than a DM to your actions. D&D should have an advantage over consoles in that it can do stuff like save or dies or incredible feats of magic through combos. That feeling is gone in 4e, where "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" seems to be the motto. Wonderful huh?

axetank wrote:

You keep conveniently forgetting that I have played D&D 3.5 once. I do have some small experience with it. When you can calculate your chances of winning a battle by having it narrowed down to damage, you might as well roll the percentage dice and be done with it. The only reason MMO's and PC games can pull this off is because they have nice graphics and a faster reaction time than a DM to your actions. D&D should have an advantage over consoles in that it can do stuff like save or dies or incredible feats of magic through combos. That feeling is gone in 4e, where "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" seems to be the motto. Wonderful huh?

You're entitled to your opinion, but it in no factual way resembles the game you're talking about.

Maybe if you'd played it a bit you'd know that.

DireMongoose wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion, but it in no factual way resembles the game you're talking about.

Maybe if you'd played it a bit you'd know that.

Poisoning the well.

axetank wrote:

You keep conveniently forgetting that I have played D&D 3.5 once. I do have some small experience with it. When you can calculate your chances of winning a battle by having it narrowed down to damage, you might as well roll the percentage dice and be done with it. The only reason MMO's and PC games can pull this off is because they have nice graphics and a faster reaction time than a DM to your actions. D&D should have an advantage over consoles in that it can do stuff like save or dies or incredible feats of magic through combos. That feeling is gone in 4e, where "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" seems to be the motto. Wonderful huh?

D&D has an advantage over consoles in that it's a player-run narrative, completely divorcing it from the common programming limitations of most videogames (with some exception... such as virtual tabletops and Neverwinter Night's player-moderated multiplayer). That's where the advantage lies. You can plug save-or-die effects in a videogame (the previously mentioned Neverwinter Nights had them, as it was based on 3rd Edition mechanics), as can you add feats of magic through combos to said videogames. It still doesn't make these things good additions to gameplay.

axetank wrote:

Poisoning the well.

Nope. The fact that you have never played 4E is important for people to know when considering how much weight to give your opinion on the gameplay of 4E.

mudbunny wrote:

Nope. The fact that you have never played 4E is important for people to know when considering how much weight to give your opinion on the gameplay of 4E.

You leave out the fact that you and others like you have and that I get my information from what you say on these forums.

axetank wrote:

You leave out the fact that you and others like you have and that I get my information from what you say on these forums. I guess that's just selective memory then.

The real experience and true feel of any game comes from how you interact with the the other players around the table through the framework provided by the rules. If you have never played the game, then your opinions on how the game plays shouldn't be given as much weight. Selectively repeating the opinions that you have read like a parrot doesn't provide anything useful to the person looking to find out how the game plays.

The same way that someone who has never eaten at a restaurant can't give a review that is worth anything simply by reading the menu.

I'm kinda torn on this topic. I've played 4e, and it's definitely missing something compared to what I consider a "good D&D experience". What that "thing" (or things) might be is open to interpretation - I have my theories. But the end result is it feels very blah to me. I never expected D&D could be boring. It's a shame because there's many bits I do like (i.e. the better class balance), but the bad outweighs the good. This is all very much my opinion, though.

4e D&D still has some of that advantage over consoles, and will never entirely lose it until we can transplant an actual DM (or AI equivalent that can literally react to anything you do) into video games. However it does feel like 4e has less of this advantage than previous incarnations. If other people don't have that perception, great - I do. Enjoy it.

But if there's one thing I can agree with the 4e lovers about, it's that someone who hasn't played it at all should have their opinion be given less weight. This is even truer for 4e than previous editions, because it plays much better than it reads (which is not something that was said nearly as often about 3e - dunno about 2e).

This isn't to say your opinion should be given no weight (outsiders to a situation have caused revelations in many fields), but you'll just have to accept that you'll receive a bigger dose of skepticism than usual.

axetank wrote:

Poisoning the well.

Poisoning the well for those that want to look it up.

Now I have another one for the thread, hasty generalization.

I’ve removed content from this thread because flaming and baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

calronmoonflower wrote:

Poisoning the well for those that want to look it up.

Now I have another one for the thread, hasty generalization.

I may be committing a hasty generalization, however, the alternative for me is unthinkable and I find the posts of the supporters of 4e to be truthful enough for use in my analysis of 4e. Why would they lie?

axetank wrote:

I may be committing a hasty generalization, however, the alternative for me is unthinkable and I find the posts of the supporters of 4e to be truthful enough for use in my analysis of 4e. Why would they lie?

It's not a question of whether or not they lied, but whether or not you even actually understand them. People often come to conclusions based on limited information that, while based fairly accurately on that information, are far from accurate to the total truth. It happens.

Decivre wrote:

It's not a question of whether or not they lied, but whether or not you even actually understand them. People often come to conclusions based on limited information that, while based fairly accurately on that information, are far from accurate to the total truth. It happens.

Shouldn't analysis of enough of them allow me to piece together the truth when compared? I mean, I'm only taking posts from tenured members of the forums and established avengers who are supposedly "spreading the truth about 4e" anyways.

axetank wrote:

Shouldn't analysis of enough of them allow me to piece together the truth when compared? I mean, I'm only taking posts from tenured members of the forums and established avengers who are supposedly "spreading the truth about 4e" anyways.

If I asked a million people who like the bible to tell me something about the Bible, I still wouldn't know everything about the bible. Everything I would have heard by that point is colored by their own opinions and ideas, but does not say anything about the original text... only the text as they see it. I doubt you've asked a million people about 4th Edition, or even a moderate fraction thereof (we'll go 1%, so 10,000 people), so I highly doubt you even have a fraction of the overall concept of the game. I'm sure you understand general concepts, but even the fact that you are declaring your information to come from "established avengers who are supposedly 'spreading the truth about 4E'" tells me that anything they might have told you is heavily modified by your own personal prejudices about the game.

Decivre wrote:

If I asked a million people who like the bible to tell me something about the Bible, I still wouldn't know everything about the bible. Everything I would have heard by that point is colored by their own opinions and ideas, but does not say anything about the original text... only the text as they see it.

And usually poorly translated as well. Many, if not most Bibles out there don't translate the original text into english properly. The most glaring example I can think of off the top of my head is that there is no commandment against killing. It's against murder. A very fine and important distinction that didn't get translated correctly and has stuck around.

Maxperson wrote:

And usually poorly translated as well. Many, if not most Bibles out there don't translate the original text into english properly. The most glaring example I can think of off the top of my head is that there is no commandment against killing. It's against murder. A very fine and important distinction that didn't get translated correctly and has stuck around.

*SHUDDER* Let's not start THAT one, please. I could go all day.

Crimson Lancer wrote:

*SHUDDER* Let's not start THAT one, please. I could go all day.

Heh. Alright. :P

Maxperson wrote:

And usually poorly translated as well. Many, if not most Bibles out there don't translate the original text into english properly. The most glaring example I can think of off the top of my head is that there is no commandment against killing. It's against murder. A very fine and important distinction that didn't get translated correctly and has stuck around.

An interesting little sidetrack on that point. I visited an old prison for convicts in Fremantle, Western Australia and the commandments are on the wall in the chapel and they read "though shalt not murder" because they used to do executions at that prison..

axetank wrote:

Shouldn't analysis of enough of them allow me to piece together the truth when compared? I mean, I'm only taking posts from tenured members of the forums and established avengers who are supposedly "spreading the truth about 4e" anyways.

Not necessarily. The bias of the reader is always present.

Much like Homer Simpson's claim that you can use statistics to prove anything even remotely true, a reading of the infinite monkeys of an internet forum can also be used to prop up just about anything, filtered through one's wishes and biases.

Play the game. Really. If you still hate it, you hate it and that's fine. Trying to make a case without having done so is an exercise in pseudo-intellectual masturbation at best.

axetank wrote:

You leave out the fact that you and others like you have and that I get my information from what you say on these forums.

and then twist and distort what you hear

axetank wrote:

Shouldn't analysis of enough of them allow me to piece together the truth when compared? I mean, I'm only taking posts from tenured members of the forums and established avengers who are supposedly "spreading the truth about 4e" anyways.

Hey PsionX, how many accounts is this you have now? 7?

Anyway, to answer your question, no, because I think the new Star Wars game (The Force Unleashed) bad from what I've heard. Of course, the only opinion I've heard is from someone who hates Star Wars.

At the same time, I do not like Star Wars myself, so even if other people tell me it's good because of the story, or faithfulness to the movies/Star Wars universe, I'm still going to color those statements with my own opinion.

When you twist someone's opinion, it is no longer their opinion. It's yours. You seem to be very good at that, and that's admirable.

But I've drifted off the point: This account, along with your many, many, MANY are all going on my ignore list, because quite honestly, I've had enough of you.

Why bother he will only make more.

axetank wrote:

I may be committing a hasty generalization, however, the alternative for me is unthinkable and I find the posts of the supporters of 4e to be truthful enough for use in my analysis of 4e. Why would they lie?

They wouldn't lie.

But you are looking at it through a distorted view.

The first distortion comes from the viewpoint of the 4E supporter. They may enjoy things that you don't like. They may find things not worth mentioning that, to you, mean the game is not worth playing. And you can't guarantee that it will all even out due to reading a large number of opinions, as you have no idea how each person weights their own personal biases.

The second distortion comes from *your* reading of the 4E supporters opinions. Without having played 4E, you can't say if their description of what is going on is accurate enough, when translated from the real world to text.

The final distortion comes from simply going off of reading something and not actually playing it. The group of players around the table has a large, large effect on the experience that you have playing a game.

If you play the greatest game in the world* with a bunch of idiotic morons, chances are very good you won't enjoy the game. At the same time, if you play a crappy game with your best friends, and they all enjoy the game, chances are that your opinion of the game will be more positive than if you had played it with a bunch of neutral strangers.

Kerym Ammath wrote:

Why bother he will only make more.

I have my ways to spot them though, and it's easier than arguing with someone.

mudbunny wrote:

If you play the greatest game in the world* with a bunch of idiotic morons, chances are very good you won't enjoy the game. At the same time, if you play a crappy game with your best friends, and they all enjoy the game, chances are that your opinion of the game will be more positive than if you had played it with a bunch of neutral strangers.

That's kinda close to the opinion one of my friends has about 4e. He said it would basically be the greatest thing since sliced bread for RPGA, with the standardization, streamlining, and total balance. But that's the exact same reason he would never, ever use it for a home game. I really can't disagree with him either.

Warweaver wrote:

That's kinda close to the opinion one of my friends has about 4e. He said it would basically be the greatest thing since sliced bread for RPGA, with the standardization, streamlining, and total balance. But that's the exact same reason he would never, ever use it for a home game. I really can't disagree with him either.

Yeah, cause cooperative games shouldn't have balance. It's just those pew-pew PvP videogames, right?

When I am given a game with multiple class choices, I expect all classes to be at least somewhere in the range of eachother in power. Not balancing the game just because "no one is competing!" is crap. That's sheer laziness.

Refering to the RPGA comment, again, balance is also not just for social, not with friends events. Take Soul Caliber 3. The game is completely unbalanced. Why? Because the game wasn't in arcades, only on home consoles, because who cares if Shang Wa is almost invincible and Lizardman sucks? You are just playing with friends, not people at an arcade who you might not know!

That is the reason I dislike SC3. The makers used "only with friends" as an excuse to not have to smooth out the glaring character inbalance. Funny how SC4 has tried to balance out classes, the same way D&D 4 did. SC4 is one of the best fighting games I have ever played.

[NOTE] If this post sounds incoherent/rude, please be aware that I am a man with cronic sleep problems, typing at 12am, in my room with the lights out. On a laptop with black keys.[/NOTE]

Rustmonster wrote:

Yeah, cause cooperative games shouldn't have balance. It's just those pew-pew PvP videogames, right?

When I am given a game with multiple class choices, I expect all classes to be at least somewhere in the range of eachother in power. Not balancing the game just because "no one is competing!" is crap. That's sheer laziness.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't denigrating it's balance (neither am I). Do you know what else is lazy? Narrowing all the classes and powers down into a select few mechanics, instead of trying to keep them "balanced but different". Another thing that is lazy is turning damage into the be-all, end-all of combat effects, as well as consolidating all non-combat effects into either a) a challenge mechanic that doesn't work or b) leaving it completely out of the rules until they can figure out how to make it work with the new, more-restrictive system.

Can you call it "efficient" as well? Sure. Just like I can call having a game that supports spells like Wish, Fabricate, or Permanency more "open" and less "blah" than a game that limits your options to ends-with-encounter, nearly-all-damage-dealing effects. This is why 4e is not "better", just "different" - you can't declare "almighty balance" to be the only thing important in an rpg, or even that it trumps all other concerns. It is important - but personally, I can fix most balance concerns in 3e much easier than I can pull 4e out of its "blahness". YMMD.

Maybe my view will change when 4e has more books under its belt and more options - however I find this unlikely, as the mechanical framework of 4e does not seem conducive to the parts of 3e I would miss (i.e. the "interpretive spells" mentioned above). *shrug*

Warweaver wrote:

That's kinda close to the opinion one of my friends has about 4e. He said it would basically be the greatest thing since sliced bread for RPGA, with the standardization, streamlining, and total balance. But that's the exact same reason he would never, ever use it for a home game. I really can't disagree with him either.

Actually, I think it would be great for tournament play, but as a game for having fun with being creative, it's not very interesting saying: per day, per encounter, at will, at will, at will ... at will, at will, at will ... at will? Oh he's dead? I pick up the treasure, roll a skill challenge to disarm the trap.

Remember to keep posts here on-topic and friendly. Please consider the code of conduct when posting to these forums.

http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php

axetank wrote:

Actually, I think it would be great for tournament play, but as a game for having fun with being creative, it's not very interesting saying: per day, per encounter, at will, at will, at will ... at will, at will, at will ... at will? Oh he's dead? I pick up the treasure, roll a skill challenge to disarm the trap.

You must have had major problems, then, with non-casters in 3.X.

Attack 1 (melee), Attack 2 (ranged), Situational Attack A (Disarm), Situational Attack B (Grapple), Situational Attack C (Trip).

It's not very interesting saying: Attack 2, Attack 1, Sit. Attack A, Sit. Attack B, Attack 1, Attack 1, Attack 1, Attack 1 ... Attack 1? Oh he's dead? I pick up the treasure, and if I'm a Fighter, hope combat begins again soon, because I'm essentially worthless outside of combat.

Honestly, I find that the variety of actions in any given combat (that isn't vs. Elite or Solo foes - I'm not a fan of the HP on either of those, and I'm not sure I'll use a solo foe again any time soon) is about the same in 4th as it was in all of our 3.X, with the only noticeable difference being with casters, who seem to have* fewer per-combat options (mostly because they were the ones with all of the options before).

EDIT: I should note that I don't dislike "repeated actions" in [i]either edition. I like having more different (effective) options with my fighter, which favors 4th Edition in my mind, but that doesn't mean that I don't like it in 3.X.[/i]

Further Thoughts Show

* Show

Warweaver wrote:

I'm pretty sure he wasn't denigrating it's balance (neither am I). Do you know what else is lazy? Narrowing all the classes and powers down into a select few mechanics, instead of trying to keep them "balanced but different". Another thing that is lazy is turning damage into the be-all, end-all of combat effects, as well as consolidating all non-combat effects into either a) a challenge mechanic that doesn't work or b) leaving it completely out of the rules until they can figure out how to make it work with the new, more-restrictive system.

Can you call it "efficient" as well? Sure. Just like I can call having a game that supports spells like Wish, Fabricate, or Permanency more "open" and less "blah" than a game that limits your options to ends-with-encounter, nearly-all-damage-dealing effects. This is why 4e is not "better", just "different" - you can't declare "almighty balance" to be the only thing important in an rpg, or even that it trumps all other concerns. It is important - but personally, I can fix most balance concerns in 3e much easier than I can pull 4e out of its "blahness". YMMD.

Maybe my view will change when 4e has more books under its belt and more options - however I find this unlikely, as the mechanical framework of 4e does not seem conducive to the parts of 3e I would miss (i.e. the "interpretive spells" mentioned above). *shrug*

I'm tired of this. Making sure classes are different isn't necessarily achieved by giving them different mechanics. Look at psionics... it has differing mechanics from magic, but for the most part they feel identical. Many of the spells are effectively the same thing with psionic phrases (see Wish and Reality Revision for the most obvious example). Conversely, magic in Shadowrun uses identical mechanics to everything else in the game... magic casting uses an identical mechanic to how firing a gun is handled (attribute + skill) and resisting drain uses an identical mechanic to resisting normal damage, but it all feels rather different. No one ever gets confused as to whether they are firing a gun or casting a spell. The difference is in how things are flavored and interact with the game, not necessarily in how the mechanics handle them.

Besides, there are unique mechanics within the game. Several classes have some defining mechanic for them. Paladins and Clerics have Channel Divinity, a selectable per-encounter ability which can become more versatile with feats, to define them from all other classes. The wizard is the only class that gets to choose and prepare its daily and utility spells for the day. The fighter causes a status effect with every single swing of his sword. Rogues deal huge damage when they flank. Warlocks have abilities that trigger when something they have targeted with one of their abilities happens to die. These are all unique mechanics. Just because the developers have unified the syntax by which these mechanics are written in the books doesn't somehow make them identical in nature.

Warweaver wrote:

I'm pretty sure he wasn't denigrating it's balance (neither am I). Do you know what else is lazy? Narrowing all the classes and powers down into a select few mechanics, instead of trying to keep them "balanced but different". Another thing that is lazy is turning damage into the be-all, end-all of combat effects, as well as consolidating all non-combat effects into either a) a challenge mechanic that doesn't work or b) leaving it completely out of the rules until they can figure out how to make it work with the new, more-restrictive system.

Can you call it "efficient" as well? Sure. Just like I can call having a game that supports spells like Wish, Fabricate, or Permanency more "open" and less "blah" than a game that limits your options to ends-with-encounter, nearly-all-damage-dealing effects. This is why 4e is not "better", just "different" - you can't declare "almighty balance" to be the only thing important in an rpg, or even that it trumps all other concerns. It is important - but personally, I can fix most balance concerns in 3e much easier than I can pull 4e out of its "blahness". YMMD.

Maybe my view will change when 4e has more books under its belt and more options - however I find this unlikely, as the mechanical framework of 4e does not seem conducive to the parts of 3e I would miss (i.e. the "interpretive spells" mentioned above). *shrug*

Any decent game has unified mechanics. Im not just talking about rpg games but war games and computer games as well. The minute you start introducing various sub system balance goes out the window, and system mastery becomes more important than playing the game as it was in 3.5.

The game does not limit your options at all. We have plenty of options in 4e. Just because you need craft/proffession or save or suck does not mean the rest of us do.


They have non damaging effects, or effects where damage is only secondary. Take a look at fey pact warlock.

williamhm75 wrote:

Any decent game has unified mechanics. Im not just talking about rpg games but war games and computer games as well. The minute you start introducing various sub system balance goes out the window, and system mastery becomes more important than playing the game as it was in 3.5.

This i can agree with totally, i would also point out that not only does a unified system help with balance, it also helps with keeping the game easy for everybody to learn.

Decivre wrote:

I'm tired of this. Making sure classes are different isn't necessarily achieved by giving them different mechanics. Look at psionics... it has differing mechanics from magic, but for the most part they feel identical. Many of the spells are effectively the same thing with psionic phrases (see Wish and Reality Revision for the most obvious example). Conversely, magic in Shadowrun uses identical mechanics to everything else in the game... magic casting uses an identical mechanic to how firing a gun is handled (attribute + skill) and resisting drain uses an identical mechanic to resisting normal damage, but it all feels rather different. No one ever gets confused as to whether they are firing a gun or casting a spell. The difference is in how things are flavored and interact with the game, not necessarily in how the mechanics handle them.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. 3e Psionics is my point as well - all they did was copy half the powers from the other casters, that is why it seems so similar. Just because they use points instead of Vancian doesn't mean they did a good job with "differing mechanics". I've never played Shadowrun so I can't weigh in on that - I would say though that I expect much less variation in a game like, say, Mage (where you're all playing the same general kind of thing with different "flavor") than the pinnacle of class-based games, D&D.

Decivre wrote:

Besides, there are unique mechanics within the game. Several classes have some defining mechanic for them. Paladins and Clerics have Channel Divinity, a selectable per-encounter ability which can become more versatile with feats, to define them from all other classes. The wizard is the only class that gets to choose and prepare its daily and utility spells for the day. The fighter causes a status effect with every single swing of his sword. Rogues deal huge damage when they flank. Warlocks have abilities that trigger when something they have targeted with one of their abilities happens to die. These are all unique mechanics. Just because the developers have unified the syntax by which these mechanics are written in the books doesn't somehow make them identical in nature.

Yawn dude, yawn. I am glad that you find them varied and unique enough in actual play, but I don't. Having most of the variation be "how much damage to how many", getting to pick from a (much smaller) list of inflictable conditions, and having slight variations in the numbers involved based on your feats is not what I would consider "unique". They are by no means identical, but what separates them is far diminished from previous incarnations.

williamhm75 wrote:

Any decent game has unified mechanics. Im not just talking about rpg games but war games and computer games as well. The minute you start introducing various sub system balance goes out the window, and system mastery becomes more important than playing the game as it was in 3.5.

Funny, I thought Starcraft turned out to be a pretty "decent" game. Video games aside (you don't really play D&D against each other anyway), unified mechanics are fine as long as you don't go too far. I think 4e went too far. Sub-systems don't instantly unbalance things - they do however, generate interest, which is why a well-balanced sub-system is important...because people tend to focus on them.

It is certainly more difficult to create than a blander unification. I think the rewards are worth it. WotC has disagreed.

williamhm75 wrote:

The game does not limit your options at all. We have plenty of options in 4e. Just because you need craft/profession or save or suck does not mean the rest of us do.

Plenty of options...perhaps. Plenty of interesting options? Not for me, thanks. And just because you don't does not mean the rest of us don't. Your point?

Outlaw68 wrote:

This i can agree with totally, i would also point out that not only does a unified system help with balance, it also helps with keeping the game easy for everybody to learn.

In a class-based system, the ease of learning compared to a game with sub-systems is negligible. You don't play more than one class at once. There is a reason why people found the "Tome of..." books so interesting. People consume new sub-systems. They are neat. It is a tug-of-war between garnering interest and keeping uniformity. And I think WotC's going to pull itself into the mud.

Warweaver wrote:

They are by no means identical, but what separates them is far diminished from previous incarnations.

Really? I'm not sure that's true (when looking at 3.5), except in the case of casters (Cleric / Wizard).

• Barbarian = (Fighter - XtraFeats + (Rage x X/day))
  
• Fighter = (NPC Warrior + XtraFeats)
  
• Paladin = (Fighter + Cleric / 2)
  
• Ranger = (Fighter + Druid / 2)

I mean, there are few "unique"/non-numeric things that distinguish those classes. Usually a single "iconic" ability, with some other little features added in. Barbarians have Rage (with Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, and DR), Paladins have Detect/Smite (with Aura of Good/Courage, Lay On Hands, Divine Health, and Special Mount), and Rangers have Favored Enemy (with Animal Companion, some movement features, some Stealth features). Fighters have Weapon Specialization in core - that's it. They're about as un-unique as they come.

And from the classes we have already seen, most of those things (exception: "pets") are already in the game, along with further distinctions, in the Power trees. Plus Fighter has a niche now, all his own! And our two Arcane casters are actually distinct from one another (instead of being exactly the same, except for a single game mechanic)!

Warweaver wrote:

Yawn dude, yawn. I am glad that you find them varied and unique enough in actual play, but I don't. Having most of the variation be "how much damage to how many", getting to pick from a (much smaller) list of inflictable conditions, and having slight variations in the numbers involved based on your feats is not what I would consider "unique". They are by no means identical, but what separates them is far diminished from previous incarnations.

Its no more damage centric than 3e was. The only thing they removed was the instant I win buttons, ie wish miracle, and the sod spells. The spells in 4e
are still flavourful,and can be reflavored.

Funny, I thought Starcraft turned out to be a pretty "decent" game. Video games aside (you don't really play D&D against each other anyway), unified mechanics are fine as long as you don't go too far. I think 4e went too far. Sub-systems don't instantly unbalance things - they do however, generate interest, which is why a well-balanced sub-system is important...because people tend to focus on them.

Star craft had unified mechanics, all races had similiar number of units, all did damage the same way, all used the same resource management system.

It is certainly more difficult to create than a blander unification. I think the rewards are worth it. WotC has disagreed.

It is not bland at all. The classes are unique enough, in fact I can make 2 vastly different paladins in 4e where as in 3e they all looked the exact same. Over 90% of characters gained flexibility in 4e.

Plenty of options...perhaps. Plenty of interesting options? Not for me, thanks. And just because you don't does not mean the rest of us don't. Your point?

Where I live there are maybe 3-4 3.5 games going on as opposed to over 15-20 4e games. One of the 3.5 games is switching to 4e as soon as the 4e Eberon book comes out.

In a class-based system, the ease of learning compared to a game with sub-systems is negligible. You don't play more than one class at once. There is a reason why people found the "Tome of..." books so interesting. People consume new sub-systems. They are neat. It is a tug-of-war between garnering interest and keeping uniformity. And I think WotC's going to pull itself into the mud.

Yeah but in 3e some classes were needleslly complex, or had one or two tricks and then useless, or were just plain useless compared to other classes. Others just should not have been made (3e ninja, seriously just make a rogue.)

Warweaver wrote:

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. 3e Psionics is my point as well - all they did was copy half the powers from the other casters, that is why it seems so similar. Just because they use points instead of Vancian doesn't mean they did a good job with "differing mechanics". I've never played Shadowrun so I can't weigh in on that - I would say though that I expect much less variation in a game like, say, Mage (where you're all playing the same general kind of thing with different "flavor") than the pinnacle of class-based games, D&D.

Therein lies the problem. Variation lies in the hands of the player, not the game. It's up to the player to make his character unique, and up to the game to make his character feasible. The sole advantage of classes is the fact that they solidly define character concepts in a way that makes character creation simple and effective. If you want to make a spellcaster, you can make one without having to read several pages of rules on how many points you have to spend to become a spellcaster.

While classes use unified mechanics, every class has many differences that lie on more than a superficial level in D&D. This was true in previous editions, and this is true now.

Warweaver wrote:

Yawn dude, yawn. I am glad that you find them varied and unique enough in actual play, but I don't. Having most of the variation be "how much damage to how many", getting to pick from a (much smaller) list of inflictable conditions, and having slight variations in the numbers involved based on your feats is not what I would consider "unique". They are by no means identical, but what separates them is far diminished from previous incarnations.

And the catch is that most powers aren't simply "how much damage to how many". A far smaller ratio of overall combat abilities simply do damage than in previous iterations. Most powers combine damage with effect in a manner that works with the mechanics of the game. Wizards no longer have to choose between dealing damage and causing effects, as they can now do both to a degree potentially every round. Fighters and rogues now have much better access to these dynamic effects, meaning that it's no longer simply the realm of spellcasting... everyone has useful decisions to make in combat that go beyond "whatever has the most pluses".

Decivre wrote:

And the catch is that most powers aren't simply "how much damage to how many". A far smaller ratio of overall combat abilities simply do damage than in previous iterations. Most powers combine damage with effect in a manner that works with the mechanics of the game. Wizards no longer have to choose between dealing damage and causing effects, as they can now do both to a degree potentially every round. Fighters and rogues now have much better access to these dynamic effects, meaning that it's no longer simply the realm of spellcasting... everyone has useful decisions to make in combat that go beyond "whatever has the most pluses".

There's one of the interesting parts of 4e, everyone has powers and they each do something, and they even add ability scores into them which is cool, but they still just do damage. I honestly don't know if there's a solution to this, but IMO, computer games already have this down really well. I just can't help feeling that 4e seems like DotA to me where everybody has a specific role with abilities to back it up, but it's mostly just damage. Thats why I have a problem with damage being the main theme of combat. Because computer games can already do that, and while it's probably easier to make new abilities, and engage in out of the box thinking in 4e than in an already programmed computer game, the computer game has better graphics and faster response time. So there you have it.

axetank wrote:

There's one of the interesting parts of 4e, everyone has powers and they each do something, and they even add ability scores into them which is cool, but they still just do damage. I honestly don't know if there's a solution to this, but IMO, computer games already have this down really well. I just can't help feeling that 4e seems like DotA to me where everybody has a specific role with abilities to back it up, but it's mostly just damage. Thats why I have a problem with damage being the main theme of combat. Because computer games can already do that, and while it's probably easier to make new abilities, and engage in out of the box thinking in 4e than in an already programmed computer game, the computer game has better graphics and faster response time. So there you have it.

I think possibly part of the problem is you are viewing hp's as physical damage. the reason every attack power (even the ones that are illusions, blind, immobilize, shift creatures etc etc) do damage is they are sapping the enemies will to fight. They don't represent physical damage but also the psychological effect an illusion or a curse can have on an enemy.. If they created powers that didn't do HP's damage for use in combat it wouldn't mesh with the rest of the system, because morale, endurance, luck and physical damage are represented by HP's.. if something affects one of those conditions, they should do HP's damage.

Warweaver wrote:

In a class-based system, the ease of learning compared to a game with sub-systems is negligible. You don't play more than one class at once. There is a reason why people found the "Tome of..." books so interesting. People consume new sub-systems. They are neat. It is a tug-of-war between garnering interest and keeping uniformity. And I think WotC's going to pull itself into the mud.

It may be negligible to some players (namely those committed to learning all the rules), but i see a huge advantage in having a minimal learning curve form going form playing say a fighter to a wizard. You already have the base knowledge for every thing except individual power conditions (AoE etc) and the individual class features (marking etc).

I really do believe that the target demographic that WOTC are trying to bring into the game don't have the patients to learn multiple sets of rules, unlike people who didn't find hours of "fast" fun with video games. Generally speaking video games appeal to such a broad range of younger people because all the prep you need is to slap a disk in the console or computer and you are done. By reducing the load of rules to learn they make the game much more inviting to those who aren't interested in learning several sets of rules for each different class.

greatfrito wrote:

Really? I'm not sure that's true (when looking at 3.5), except in the case of casters (Cleric / Wizard).

On some level, I am talking about casters. When you hit on a neat way to do things, you don't "go halvsies" on it and apply that to everything else. I just didn't see the point of them dragging some classes down and squeezing them in (decreasing lateral options) to meet all classes in the middle - bringing everyone up to the level of casters is just as good. See Tome of Battle.

Even using just the Sorc and Wizard as examples, we had a good template. I fully agree not everyone wants to memorize a huge list of options - in fact, the vast majority of people I played with in 3e played melee classes because of that fact. In most cases, 3e melee classes were not under-powered in relation to monster encounters - it was only when the casters popped up that their weakness was revealed. I've played with a party of all non-casters and a party of all-casters, and each time everyone enjoyed themselves immensely and didn't feel out-classed. The point I'm trying to make here is that there are people who will always play the classes with fewer options, just as there are people who always play melees, because that is what they want. But in 4e, there is no recourse for the people who want to play with lots of options, like the Wizard or Cleric. These options do not need to be (in fact, shouldn't) any more powerful than those of other classes - in fact a tiny bit weaker would make sense. But curtailing them to a handful of extra dailies (and a single class/role) is the definition of unsatisfying.

greatfrito wrote:

I mean, there are few "unique"/non-numeric things that distinguish those classes. Usually a single "iconic" ability, with some other little features added in. Barbarians have Rage (with Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, and DR), Paladins have Detect/Smite (with Aura of Good/Courage, Lay On Hands, Divine Health, and Special Mount), and Rangers have Favored Enemy (with Animal Companion, some movement features, some Stealth features).

Some of these features are un-retrievable in 4e - but I agree they've been replaced by 4e's powers, to say otherwise is to have rose-colored glasses. Yet a few differences remain. You get all class features at first level - you also get paragon or multi features later, which I would count, but note that you always get them at exactly the same level, further reducing the uniqueness. They are all very straightforward - few class features apply out of combat, and those considered too "complicated" have been removed completely, like animals.

The summoners, druids, etc. of old are never coming back - we can tell this from how the Bag of Tricks now works. My guess is you have more than 2 beasts/elementals/mounts/familiars, and you're out of actions for yourself. To me, a hard limit of summons (without limiting the action pool) would've been better. I understand the concern about people taking forever on their turns like in 3e, but this is taking the balance-obsession too far. This makes me not want to play someone with companions at all, and that is a bad thing for game design to do, IMO.

greatfrito wrote:

Fighters have Weapon Specialization in core - that's it. They're about as un-unique as they come.

No argument here.

greatfrito wrote:

And our two Arcane casters are actually distinct from one another (instead of being exactly the same, except for a single game mechanic)!

That's unfair. The Warlock is taken from the 3e class of the same name and Binders, not Sorcerers. Sorcerers have (depending on your view) either been completely eradicated in 4e, or given the Wizards' name and wizards have been eradicated.

And let's be honest - both arcane casters in 3e could do a lot more than either of them can in 4e! Potentially (due to spell selection) they could be way more different than the warlock/wizard - unless you don't consider their spell lists a class feature. Illusionists, blasters, controllers, dominators, summoners, necromancers, party buffers...

williamhm75 wrote:

Its no more damage centric than 3e was. The only thing they removed was the instant I win buttons, ie wish miracle, and the sod spells. The spells in 4e
are still flavourful,and can be reflavored.

Huh, I didn't know animal companions, Telekinesis, Reduce Person, Rary's Telepathic Bond, Quench, or Reincarnate were "instant I Win buttons" (I just thought of random things). Guess that's just me though.

Removing I Win buttons is ok (though making them more reliant on the DM is better). Removing everything that doesn't directly have to do with combat and dealing damage or is remotely complex is not. Leaving some of these in but forcing them to have high GP costs (at the level you get them) and huge casting times is not.

williamhm75 wrote:

Star craft had unified mechanics, all races had similiar number of units, all did damage the same way, all used the same resource management system.

I thought you might claim that. 3e has unified mechanics too - everyone has a BAB. Everyone has HP. Everyone has a move speed. Everyone has a level and a GP Value. Guess what? There are units in Starcraft that don't do damage, as well as ones that only do damage to certain things or with certain special abilities. Only one side has pylons. Only one side can float their buildings. Only one side turns their farming units into buildings, and can regenerate. See where I'm going with this? Seriously, those factions are as different as night, day, and...something else that's not like night or day at all. :P

williamhm75 wrote:

It is not bland at all. The classes are unique enough, in fact I can make 2 vastly different paladins in 4e where as in 3e they all looked the exact same. Over 90% of characters gained flexibility in 4e.

Actually it's more like 3/4 or 75% - this is counting the Warlock and Warlord (as a non-core / entirely-new class, respectively, gaining flexibility). The cleric and wizard lose flexibility, and the barbarian, bard, monk, druid and sorcerer all lose flexibility (all of it, as they don't exist). If we choose to claim that the "totally new" classes negate the "don't exist" classes, it still leaves us with only 50% of 4e classes gaining flexibility, and 25% of them losing it.

Seems like a Pyrrhic victory to me.

williamhm75 wrote:

Where I live there are maybe 3-4 3.5 games going on as opposed to over 15-20 4e games. One of the 3.5 games is switching to 4e as soon as the 4e Eberon book comes out.

And where I live, every single person I know has either a) disliked 4e from the start, or b) bought the core books (like me + most of em), played a while, and eventually become disillusioned. There are 0 current 4e games, and ~10 3e right now. The one exception is a friend of mine who had to find Australians to play online with. But local anecdotes mean zilch, as they're useless from a demographic standpoint - I don't actually believe 4e isn't selling, despite the above. All it does is validate the "you surround yourself with friends that have similar tastes" idea.

williamhm75 wrote:

Yeah but in 3e some classes were needlessly complex, or had one or two tricks and then useless, or were just plain useless compared to other classes. Others just should not have been made (3e ninja, seriously just make a rogue.)

No argument here. I've said from the start, a "varied but balanced" system takes more work. I consider it worth it, WotC doesn't. So I consider them kinda lazy. But this view may be colored by how they treated the 4e FR changes... :P

Decivre wrote:

Therein lies the problem. Variation lies in the hands of the player, not the game.

I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Handing me an rpg that has "Super Attack: do YxLevel damage to Z creatures" for every class (the game just has one), and tells me to "flavor it so it's a different class every time!" would be tossed in the trash. (Yes this is a huge exaggeration.)

Decivre wrote:

A far smaller ratio of overall combat abilities simply do damage than in previous iterations.

This is a mildly deceptive statement. I would never say the melee classes getting more options is a bad thing. But claiming 4e's ratio of only-damage abilities is smaller than 3e's (which, for some melee classes, was at or close to "100%") doesn't discount the fact that the ratio of "damage-dealing options" to "other-dealing options" or "combat" to "non-combat" is far higher in 4e than 3e.

I mean, I could just as easily say that a Barbarian or Rogue in 3e had any ratio of "only-damage" options - after all, anyone can grapple/trip/disarm/etc. You can do it for your entire career and never deal a single point (as short as that career would be).

Decivre wrote:

everyone has useful decisions to make in combat that go beyond "whatever has the most pluses".

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I've never been against melees getting more useful decisions. I am, however, against the choice not to do damage and instead the "non-damage" component being enhanced somehow, being so incredibly rare. Even page 42 is mostly about damage. I find that disturbing. If it all involves the same "pluses", it's boring. It's a game of plink-the-badguys to death that everyone is playing the same way.

What is the problem with people doing hp damage? There should be no way around hp I hated ability damage/drain. There are enough non damaging powers in the game, rituals handle out of combat magic just fine, animal companions will be back. Telekinisis while fun was either over powered or weak.

The classes in 4e are balanced and different enough. The developers realized that balancing seperate systems is impossible. Because it is you cannot come up with different ways of doing everything and have them all be equal to each other.

Utility powers do no damage. The only thing you cannot do in 4e is make a character that contributes nothing to combat, or noncombat.

axetank wrote:

There's one of the interesting parts of 4e, everyone has powers and they each do something, and they even add ability scores into them which is cool, but they still just do damage. I honestly don't know if there's a solution to this, but IMO, computer games already have this down really well. I just can't help feeling that 4e seems like DotA to me where everybody has a specific role with abilities to back it up, but it's mostly just damage. Thats why I have a problem with damage being the main theme of combat. Because computer games can already do that, and while it's probably easier to make new abilities, and engage in out of the box thinking in 4e than in an already programmed computer game, the computer game has better graphics and faster response time. So there you have it.

To be fair, how many cooperative games out there don't deal out roles to individual players? In FPSs, someone takes up the sniper role, someone has to be point-man. In team RTS, everybody usually serves to assist in one position of superiority for the team... one player taking air dominance, and relying on another player for their ground support. Even in sports, you have quarterbacks, goalies, receivers, forwards, wingmen... every position serving to give everyone a role in the greater team.

So no, it's not a computer game mechanic... it's a universal cooperative game mechanic.

Outlaw68 wrote:

(Both previous posts)

I agree with you on both counts. I am just not comfortable with this direction D&D is taking. Locking everything into one mechanic (whether it be "all attacks do hp damage" or "all classes work by the same rules") just doesn't sit well with me, inherently. I like being surprised and intrigued by sub-systems. I like having unique and different tactics available (more different than 4e offers, anyway). I like having a wealth of truly fantastic (meaning wildly different) options to choose from, even when I'm not leveling.

Illusions, fear effects, etc. not doing damage just makes sense to me - not because I don't sometimes do the "hp is morale" thing, but I do it rarely, and they are the best candidates for something that I think should exist - exceptions to the hp "rule". I like exceptions. Exceptions do not have to be powerful, they just do something not duplicated elsewhere, which makes them interesting.

It's a good thing that they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. I just wish they didn't have to diminish D&D so much to do it. If the "instant-gratification" crowd could be taught to like taking their time on D&D, to discover its nuances and hidden joys - that'd be nice. But that is a long-term goal, and I don't think WotC is interested in long-term. Theirs is not to prevent a sales-slump - it is to have 5e ready when it does.

Warweaver, I think you should try playing a Warlord sometime. With the amount of levels your mind seems to work on, you would probably be a VERY good Taclord.

Personally, I blame Hasbro. What else did we expect from this type of thing? They're a flippin' TOY company.

Warweaver wrote:

I agree with you on both counts. I am just not comfortable with this direction D&D is taking. Locking everything into one mechanic (whether it be "all attacks do hp damage" or "all classes work by the same rules") just doesn't sit well with me, inherently. I like being surprised and intrigued by sub-systems. I like having unique and different tactics available (more different than 4e offers, anyway). I like having a wealth of truly fantastic (meaning wildly different) options to choose from, even when I'm not leveling.

Illusions, fear effects, etc. not doing damage just makes sense to me - not because I don't sometimes do the "hp is morale" thing, but I do it rarely, and they are the best candidates for something that I think should exist - exceptions to the hp "rule". I like exceptions. Exceptions do not have to be powerful, they just do something not duplicated elsewhere, which makes them interesting.

It's a good thing that they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. I just wish they didn't have to diminish D&D so much to do it. If the "instant-gratification" crowd could be taught to like taking their time on D&D, to discover its nuances and hidden joys - that'd be nice. But that is a long-term goal, and I don't think WotC is interested in long-term. Theirs is not to prevent a sales-slump - it is to have 5e ready when it does.

They have illusion spells, arcane source will probably have more, and they have rituals, warlocks have quite a few fear effect powers, especially in dark pact. And no they do not need exceptions, exceptions are a bad idea, exceptions are what help break a game.

Warweaver wrote:

I agree with you on both counts. I am just not comfortable with this direction D&D is taking. Locking everything into one mechanic (whether it be "all attacks do hp damage" or "all classes work by the same rules") just doesn't sit well with me, inherently. I like being surprised and intrigued by sub-systems. I like having unique and different tactics available (more different than 4e offers, anyway). I like having a wealth of truly fantastic (meaning wildly different) options to choose from, even when I'm not leveling.

Illusions, fear effects, etc. not doing damage just makes sense to me - not because I don't sometimes do the "hp is morale" thing, but I do it rarely, and they are the best candidates for something that I think should exist - exceptions to the hp "rule". I like exceptions. Exceptions do not have to be powerful, they just do something not duplicated elsewhere, which makes them interesting.

It's a good thing that they are trying to appeal to a wider audience. I just wish they didn't have to diminish D&D so much to do it. If the "instant-gratification" crowd could be taught to like taking their time on D&D, to discover its nuances and hidden joys - that'd be nice. But that is a long-term goal, and I don't think WotC is interested in long-term. Theirs is not to prevent a sales-slump - it is to have 5e ready when it does.

I actually like the way they are doing it. Making the game easier to learn is making it very easy for me to get new players, and get players who don't have the same sort of time we had at high school back to the gaming table. I really do think a rule system is secondary to the story and roleplaying (so i guess it is actually third ), so I don;t have a problem with the easier rules.. i kind of liken it to my football coaches philosophy, basically the idea is by keeping the playbook simple, player concentrate on playing rather than what they are supposed to be doing. The same can be true for roleplaying games. Keeping the rules easy, and by extension the subsystems to a minimum, i believe it allows players to roleplay rather than thinking about the rules and how they need to use then to roleplay... in short.. just roleplay! :D

I also have to say, i like that morale effects etc affect hitpoints. I have read in every version of the game that HP's are more than physical damage. This is the first edition that does back up this statement with rules to support it. I remember (i think it was the 2nd ed core rules) states that melee lasts a minute, but you only get one strike in that minute because it is the only chance at a successful hit (the rest of the time is spent parrying, dodging and moving. But the rules also said Hitpoint where endurance, luck etc.. but the rules did not really support that statement. With 4th ed they do, in my opinion.

Warweaver wrote:

But in 4e, there is no recourse for the people who want to play with lots of options, like the Wizard or Cleric. These options do not need to be (in fact, shouldn't) any more powerful than those of other classes - in fact a tiny bit weaker would make sense. But curtailing them to a handful of extra dailies (and a single class/role) is the definition of unsatisfying.

I'm of two minds here.

On one hand, having played 3E and having played 4E, I really do feel like the Vancian classes and the non-Vancian classes could never have really been balanced with each other. Tome of Battle was a big step in that direction but it still didn't really get there -- the casters still were just that much better in the right hands.

People have talked about how hard/impossible it is to balance a class like a fighter or a ToB class that's on a roughly even power keel from encounter to encounter with a class like a wizard that might be out of juice in an encounter or might be fresh and willing to blow its wad. While I think there's truth to that, I think the bigger problem in balancing those classes was this: the cost of adding extra spells to your repertoire as new books came out was minimal as a wizard and nonexistant as a druid/cleric. When Complete Warrior comes out, my melee character has new choices for feats and levels, but they occupy the same slots I always had -- my power can only increase so much with extra material. But if I'm a druid and Complete Divine comes out, not only do I gain those same opportunity-cost choices of class levels and feats, but I get access to a whole bunch more spells for free. Even if all of those spells are perfectly balanced (not that they were or ever could be), my versatility increasing does power me up.

On the other hand...

I really, really liked Vancian casting. I really liked that a wizard could be the strongest or weakest character in a party depending on how well you anticipated the day's challenges and picked your spells accordingly. When I first read about 4E and heard how they were changing the game, I thought that there probably wouldn't be anything for people like me in 4E. (I have a different opinion, having seen the finished rules and played the game, but...) I submitted a question which was asked of the 4E designers at D&D experience... it and the response are posted on the web somewhere or other... basically asking if there would be options in the game for people like me who craved more mechanically complex characters. Their answer was that there would be, just not in the core books because they wanted to keep the classes in there relatively uniform/simple in basic mechanics.

So, we'll see. It doesn't seem like as big of a problem to me as it once did, but I'd still really like to see what they'd do with a more mechanically complex class. I hope that's still forthcoming.

Warweaver wrote:

I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Handing me an rpg that has "Super Attack: do YxLevel damage to Z creatures" for every class (the game just has one), and tells me to "flavor it so it's a different class every time!" would be tossed in the trash. (Yes this is a huge exaggeration.)

Now what point is exaggerating going to serve? I mean, I suppose I could create some conversive argument by claiming that "3rd Edition sucks because it's causing global warming (yes this is a huge exaggeration)", but it doesn't do anything to counteract or promote any side of the debate.

Though to be fair, 3rd Edition does have Super Attacks... Save-or-Dies, Wish, Power Word Kill... take your pick.

Warweaver wrote:

This is a mildly deceptive statement. I would never say the melee classes getting more options is a bad thing. But claiming 4e's ratio of only-damage abilities is smaller than 3e's (which, for some melee classes, was at or close to "100%") doesn't discount the fact that the ratio of "damage-dealing options" to "other-dealing options" or "combat" to "non-combat" is far higher in 4e than 3e.

I mean, I could just as easily say that a Barbarian or Rogue in 3e had any ratio of "only-damage" options - after all, anyone can grapple/trip/disarm/etc. You can do it for your entire career and never deal a single point (as short as that career would be).

That would be the peak advantage of this Edition. Characters have a decent amount of both combat and non-combat abilities; combat abilities being largely powers both attack and utility, and non-combat being largely skills and rituals. In fact, a large number of utility powers can serve both a combat and non-combat purpose.

However, you seem to forget that this edition had to disperse largely different abilities amongst 8 different classes with small amounts of overlap (Healing/Inspiring Word, Sure Strike/Careful Attack), whereas 3rd Edition had a spell list that heavily overlapped amongst several classes (and yet 3rd Edition still has around 100 less spells than 4th Edition has powers).

Lastly, you can limit yourself to grabs, utility powers, rituals, and more while refusing to deal a single point of damage. Nothing stopping you anymore than base attack bonus stopped you from doing the same in the previous edition.

Warweaver wrote:

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I've never been against melees getting more useful decisions. I am, however, against the choice not to do damage and instead the "non-damage" component being enhanced somehow, being so incredibly rare. Even page 42 is mostly about damage. I find that disturbing. If it all involves the same "pluses", it's boring. It's a game of plink-the-badguys to death that everyone is playing the same way.

Then perhaps you should show us in your infinite wisdom how a 29th level power could deal an effect while dealing no damage and be balanced against all the other 29th level powers. Be equally effective in some way, by some balancing manner, without convoluting the rules to a greater degree. I'd actually be interested in how you'd do it.

Also, page 42 largely references circumstance bonuses and setting DCs based on improvised action. Two-thirds of a chart and two paragraphs do not make most of a page.

axetank wrote:

Actually, I think it would be great for tournament play, but as a game for having fun with being creative, it's not very interesting saying: per day, per encounter, at will, at will, at will ... at will, at will, at will ... at will? Oh he's dead? I pick up the treasure, roll a skill challenge to disarm the trap.

you do know that the majority of rpgs use the same internal mechanics right?
i know you have only gamed 3rd once , 4th never but you have gamed with people in some rpg right?
wod, nwod,shadowrun,hero,gurps?
each use 1 mechanic & each are fun.
I can list off far more games with 1 major mechnic then games like older versions of d&d that use several.

Warweaver wrote:

Yawn dude, yawn. I am glad that you find them varied and unique enough in actual play, but I don't. Having most of the variation be "how much damage to how many", getting to pick from a (much smaller) list of inflictable conditions, and having slight variations in the numbers involved based on your feats is not what I would consider "unique". They are by no means identical, but what separates them is far diminished from previous incarnations.

.

almost all spells in 3rd edition are damage,movement or status with a few that are a combonation.
the issue is with you mentaly blocking this out.

lets play a game real quick, name 6 3rd ed spells from the 3rd ed phb
lets repeat that for at least 3 levels but more is fine.

Warweaver wrote:

On some level, I am talking about casters. When you hit on a neat way to do things, you don't "go halvsies" on it and apply that to everything else. I just didn't see the point of them dragging some classes down and squeezing them in (decreasing lateral options) to meet all classes in the middle - bringing everyone up to the level of casters is just as good. See Tome of Battle.

Tome of Battle still didn't bring everyone up to the level of casters - that was (is?) part of the problem.

Players don't want non-casters to be "on par with" casters, it seems. Sure, they can deal as much damage. They may also be able to do some pretty neat tricks. But they shouldn't be allowed to instant-kill, or create illusions, or manipulate reality - or to scry-teleport-ambush. At least, that's what it always seems like.

"Bringing everyone up" to the level of casters could be just as good... but given the fact that "attacking + blinding every creature in a 3x3 square with what is described as a flurry of crossbow shots or thrown daggers" ("Blinding Barrage", Rogue 1) is often decried as "unrealistic" (or the At-Will/Encounter/Daily power scheme), I don't think it would ever be possible to truly "bring everyone up" to the same level without even worse complaints than we get now.

Even using just the Sorc and Wizard as examples, we had a good template. I fully agree not everyone wants to memorize a huge list of options - in fact, the vast majority of people I played with in 3e played melee classes because of that fact. In most cases, 3e melee classes were not under-powered in relation to monster encounters - it was only when the casters popped up that their weakness was revealed.

My experience was usually that 3e melee classes worked perfectly fine against NPCs. Against monsters, unless they were prepared, things were difficult. You are right though, their weaknesses were revealed when the casters popped up. But the casters always popped up. Because they were popular. And because they often had an easier time of things.

I've played with a party of all non-casters and a party of all-casters, and each time everyone enjoyed themselves immensely and didn't feel out-classed.

I've played both as well - non-casters work extremely well alongside non-casters, and full-casters work extremely well alongside full-casters. But when they were together, the "differences" in the systems began to shine through, and the weaknesses of the non-casters began to show.

I never had a problem with players outright stating that they were not enjoying themselves because of class. I did, however, have a strong trend throughout all of 3.5 for more and more players to abandon older characters to start playing casters. While we started out with 5 or so players, with a Wizard and a Cleric, by the time we were leaving 3.5 for other games the group was alternating between 4 and 5 players, with the majority as full casters (or Warlocks) with maybe a rogue. Tome of Battle almost tipped the scales, but only momentarily, before the players began requesting to swap to casters again, just for the sheer volume of options that type of character would have when compared to non-casters.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are people who will always play the classes with fewer options, just as there are people who always play melees, because that is what they want.

I don't see how that is a solid argument though. We shouldn't say "alright, this system is fine as-is because someone will always play the worst option, even if it is the obvious worst option." Someone, somewhere, will always play a commoner - that doesn't mean "Commoner" would be a good idea for the balance levels for a base class.

But in 4e, there is no recourse for the people who want to play with lots of options, like the Wizard or Cleric. These options do not need to be (in fact, shouldn't) any more powerful than those of other classes - in fact a tiny bit weaker would make sense. But curtailing them to a handful of extra dailies (and a single class/role) is the definition of unsatisfying.

But there is recourse - I think it's just not the one you want.

Rituals are intended to fill that "player wants to play with a lot of options" niche - and like spells in 3.X, rituals have the distinct advantage of being immediately available when introduced (via supplements): the character can pick and choose from new rituals, without replacing his old.

Additionally, Wizards have a few tremendous further advantages.

First, they earn several rituals for no cost (13, to be exact), which is an awesome little feature that I think get's too-often overlooked.

And second, they have access to double (triple, with a feat) the number of Daily and Utility powers of any other class. With the feat, they may seriously be selecting all but 1 option at any given level.

Between those two features, the Wizard, specifically, has a lot more options than any of the other classes. The Cleric lacks the spellbook, but maintains the Rituals, which still puts him far ahead of the other classes.

That's unfair. The Warlock is taken from the 3e class of the same name and Binders, not Sorcerers. Sorcerers have (depending on your view) either been completely eradicated in 4e, or given the Wizards' name and wizards have been eradicated.

I think it is fair. To be honest though, when the Warlock was released my first thought was "THIS should have been in the core books, not the Sorcerer" - my gaming group agreed, and we never had another sorcerer (plenty more wizards though).

Still, the point was that our two core arcane classes are more distinct than our two core arcane classes from 3.5. They don't even have the choice of being exactly the same - they are distinct in design itself.

And let's be honest - both arcane casters in 3e could do a lot more than either of them can in 4e! Potentially (due to spell selection) they could be way more different than the warlock/wizard - unless you don't consider their spell lists a class feature. Illusionists, blasters, controllers, dominators, summoners, necromancers, party buffers...

Potentially, they could be exactly (minus casting per day) the same (due to spell selection).

While I love all of those aspects of the arcane spell list (namely, that it was a whole hodge-podge of classes mixed into one - or two), I have issues with it being in a class-based system.

Or, more accurately, I have issues with spellcasters (and to a much lesser extent, Fighters in 3.5) working outside or around the class-based system while the others do not. Honestly, to get the same variety for the non-full-casters, one would have to roll Barbarian/Fighter/Monk/Ranger/Rogue into a single class, from which the player could pick their options as they advance (and don't forget buying additional options).

The one thing that I like the most from core 4th Edition, in regard to Wizards, is that there is some promise that their disparate classes and class roles will all be split off into actual separate classes. Now, given the Illusion web supplement (which was a huge step in the wrong direction, for multiple reasons, in my mind), and the forthcoming "tempest fighter," I think this might break down in 4th as it did in 3.5, which will be a huge let-down (and which will result in me taking a much heavier hand with supplements this time around).

DireMongoose wrote:

Tome of Battle was a big step in that direction but it still didn't really get there -- the casters still were just that much better in the right hands.

This is true - ToB was great but it didn't go far enough. I think they tried to make the maneuvers a little weaker because you could go all day, which was the wrong direction. I'm fine with stuff like At-Will spells for casters in 4e. What I don't like is reducing their options because everyone has to have the same. It's magic. It's a standard of fantasy that magic can do things normally impossible. That said, the real problem with ToB was not that they didn't have as many options as the casters did - people that play "traditional" melee types (not counting gishes and such) don't care about transmuting stone walls into honey, or if they do, it is a very particular kind of magic that a PrC or a magic item can handle. No, what ToB was missing is the idea that melee PCs should not be "out-badassed" by casters in anything - they need to be equal. The fighter doesn't have to be able to make a Forcecage - however, he does need to have a way of getting out of it that looks cool. The rogue doesn't need to fly. However, he does need a way to combat flying creatures effectively (SAing their wings to force them down, etc.).

I really think those who enjoyed wizards and those who enjoyed barbarians are two entirely different kinds of player. The same person can be both kinds of course, but not at once. There were casters that jumped the gap as well, like sorcerers and warlocks - the wizard for those who didn't care so much about options. But turning every class into a 50/50 mix of this, and just weakening all their powers instead of keeping the strength and providing counters, makes them all dissatisfying...to me, anyway.

DireMongoose wrote:

While I think there's truth to that, I think the bigger problem in balancing those classes was this: the cost of adding extra spells to your repertoire as new books came out was minimal as a wizard and nonexistant as a druid/cleric. When Complete Warrior comes out, my melee character has new choices for feats and levels, but they occupy the same slots I always had -- my power can only increase so much with extra material. But if I'm a druid and Complete Divine comes out, not only do I gain those same opportunity-cost choices of class levels and feats, but I get access to a whole bunch more spells for free. Even if all of those spells are perfectly balanced (not that they were or ever could be), my versatility increasing does power me up.

I can't argue with this...to be honest, I consider myself a little biased. I've been running a 3.5 campaign for the last few years, and it has a bunch of my house rules. One of them was to come up with a substantially cut-down spell list for clerics, the trade-off being they can memorize domain spells in any slot (as well as the extra one). This made clerics more individualized and more like their earlier edition roots, where they had some neat cleric-only spells but weren't the catch-all utility guys like wizards. I also made Natural Spell a +1 lvl metamagic feat. These and some other tweaks (SoDs in my game just put you at -1d10 hp) pared down their nuttiness - and if you think the gp cost for maintaining a spellbook is negligible, I suggest playing a 3e wizard. It's not bank-breaking, but it is a noticeable chunk of your WBL. This, combined with the fact all my non-caster players have at least a few levels in ToB classes, has shown me what's still possible with a "fixed" 3e (not that my house rules are - just a start). Comparatively, 4e grinds it all up and lays it out in a homogenized set.

DireMongoose wrote:

Their answer was that there would be, just not in the core books because they wanted to keep the classes in there relatively uniform/simple in basic mechanics.

Well! Here's hoping.

Decivre wrote:

In fact, a large number of utility powers can serve both a combat and non-combat purpose.

I don't think the "large number" of utility powers is as big as you claim. Though it would be interesting to be proven wrong.

Decivre wrote:

However, you seem to forget that this edition had to disperse largely different abilities amongst 8 different classes with small amounts of overlap (Healing/Inspiring Word, Sure Strike/Careful Attack), whereas 3rd Edition had a spell list that heavily overlapped amongst several classes (and yet 3rd Edition still has around 100 less spells than 4th Edition has powers).

And yet, 3e also has more variation in said spells. Not to mention the classes that do "heavily overlap" (cleric/druid, sorc/wiz/bard...you can pretend the paladins/rangers do too, but it's a fractional class feature - it'd be like a 4e class that got Powers at half the progression of the others) have a wider variety of options than 4e powers do.

In 4e, they could've come up with a "power rubric" instead of listing out all those powers for each class (in fact they nearly did with page 42). "It does X damage at Y level plus Z. If you want it to inflict A status, reduce damage by B. If it has a range/area/# of creatures C, reduce damage by D." Personally I don't like it when half the sourcebook I paid for looks like it was created purely via plugging in numbers and making sure they keep to a specific range. I'm all for balance, but I don't buy an rpg to look at pages of math that I could almost figure out the Master Formula for in my head. It's wasted space that could be spent on expanded options.

Decivre wrote:

Then perhaps you should show us in your infinite wisdom how a 29th level power could deal an effect while dealing no damage and be balanced against all the other 29th level powers. Be equally effective in some way, by some balancing manner, without convoluting the rules to a greater degree. I'd actually be interested in how you'd do it.

I dunno, but here's a shot in the dark:

Squee-Gee's Mold (Wizard Attack 29)
Daily + Arcane, Implement, Necrotic, Charm
Standard Action Close Burst 20
Target: Each Enemy in Burst
Attack: Int vs Will
Hit: The target is stunned (save ends), loses the use of their minor action (save ends), and suffers a -2 to all attacks until the end of the encounter.
Miss: The target is dazed (save ends), and suffers a -1 to all attacks until the end of the encounter.

Other fun ideas would be powers that: decrease the numbers a monster power is Recharged on, negate interrupts/freeze action points for its duration, reduces their resistance to other spells of the same element for its duration, etc. Since NPCs work by monster rules now, these ideas are more applicable than ever.

This is a little beside the point, as I just flat-out don't like where they've put the balance bar - but I'm working with what I got. Personally, I'd be fine with rituals that create permanent structures (like Wall of ___) for little to no cost. By a certain level, you should be able to make a big maze out of ice walls with nothing but time. "But oh noes" you say, "what if they do the wall of iron thing and then sell all that scrap iron and break ze economy!" And you would say this as if adventurers haven't been pulling the carpets and armoires out of dungeons and selling them in town for decades. As always, it'll work if the DM wants it to, no more no less. (General "you" here - I don't think any of you folks would actually make this argument.)

Decivre wrote:

Also, page 42 largely references circumstance bonuses and setting DCs based on improvised action. Two-thirds of a chart and two paragraphs do not make most of a page.

Fair enough.

jimthegray wrote:

lets play a game real quick, name 6 3rd ed spells from the 3rd ed phb
lets repeat that for at least 3 levels but more is fine.

Is this...

jimthegray wrote:

almost all spells in 3rd edition are damage,movement or status with a few that are a combination.
the issue is with you mentaly blocking this out.

...related to this? Because this latter statement is completely, totally, verifiably untrue. Even for many spells that have status effects (i.e. Wall of Stone, Tree Shape), that effect is far from their primary purpose.

greatfrito wrote:

Players don't want non-casters to be "on par with" casters, it seems. Sure, they can deal as much damage. They may also be able to do some pretty neat tricks. But they shouldn't be allowed to instant-kill, or create illusions, or manipulate reality - or to scry-teleport-ambush. At least, that's what it always seems like.

See my response to Dire Mongoose above - I think it will help explain my viewpoint a bit better. (And I don't like SoD's any more than you do - not instant ones anyway.)

greatfrito wrote:

I don't see how that is a solid argument though. We shouldn't say "alright, this system is fine as-is because someone will always play the worst option, even if it is the obvious worst option." Someone, somewhere, will always play a commoner - that doesn't mean "Commoner" would be a good idea for the balance levels for a base class.

Definitely not. A system always needs improvement if it is not balanced vertically (power-level wise), but not always if it is not balanced laterally (options-wise). Even that's not quite what I'm saying though...it's really the breadth of the options themselves I'm talking about. Melee/non-caster types should get plenty of balanced options for what they are good at - non-magical stuff and fighting (which everyone should be good at). The casters should get the really weird, out-there stuff - spells that summon fiends and make people invisible and fly and such. But while these options are more diverse than the non-casters, they should have perfectly mundane downsides that can be exploited. You can still hear or throw water/paint/dust on the invisible guy. If you kill the fiend it causes feedback to the caster, or maybe there's a summoning focus they must hold while controlling it - disarm that, and poof! The flight spell is advantageous - until people start firing arrows at you, and you take penalties like old-school Levitate because it's hard to control.

greatfrito wrote:

Rituals are intended to fill that "player wants to play with a lot of options" niche - and like spells in 3.X, rituals have the distinct advantage of being immediately available when introduced (via supplements): the character can pick and choose from new rituals, without replacing his old.

I loved Rituals in theory - but in practice, they're just another "meh" factor. Forcing them all to have gp costs was, IMO, a mistake, as well as having many of the same kind in the PHB. Hopefully my interest will return as more come out.

greatfrito wrote:

Between those two features, the Wizard, specifically, has a lot more options than any of the other classes. The Cleric lacks the spellbook, but maintains the Rituals, which still puts him far ahead of the other classes.

True - the wizard still suffers from a severe lack of options compared to his 3e incarnation, though. And not just due to not having a "potentially infinite, gold and pages aside" spell list. But more due to the only spells the 4e wiz being able to choose making him Control, Control, and more Control. This is my problem with class roles though (see below).

greatfrito wrote:

Potentially, they could be exactly (minus casting per day) the same (due to spell selection).

Considering the number of spells to choose from, I would consider two identical arcane casters but one option among many. "Potentially" yes, probability wise, much less likely. The real reason I think most people dropped the Sorcerer was that the Wizard is better in almost every way (especially once you realize the awesomeness of Scribe Scroll). Some held onto the Sorc as their only option for "caster with a tiny list but lots per day" - until the Warlock.

greatfrito wrote:

While I love all of those aspects of the arcane spell list (namely, that it was a whole hodge-podge of classes mixed into one - or two), I have issues with it being in a class-based system.

Maybe this is the source of my problem. I love the lore and feel of D&D, but I liked 3e the most. So really, I don't like class-based systems.

greatfrito wrote:

Or, more accurately, I have issues with spellcasters (and to a much lesser extent, Fighters in 3.5) working outside or around the class-based system while the others do not. Honestly, to get the same variety for the non-full-casters, one would have to roll Barbarian/Fighter/Monk/Ranger/Rogue into a single class, from which the player could pick their options as they advance (and don't forget buying additional options).

Agreed. The fact that such an option-pick (like the 3e Fighter, but not crappy) appeals to me is further proof of the above...

Hey, I actually made a 29th-level Spell just for the fun of it that doesn't deal actual damage, based off of Kefka:

Fallen One
A single horrifying word reduces your enemies' strength immensely, practically killing them.
Daily; Arcane/Divine; Necrotic; Psychic
Standard Action - Close burst 20
Target: each creature in burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Fort
Effect: Any creature hit with this Power is reduced to 1 hit point, weakened, and slowed. They cannot be healed, nor can these effects be removed. However, a successful Save ends all negative conditions on the creature, and restores them to their full hit points.

EDIT: Yeah, I actually thought about it last night, and realized it would make more sense as Arcane/Divine and targeting Fort. Makes it much more balanced.

Crimson Lancer wrote:

Hey, I actually made a 29th-level Spell just for the fun of it that doesn't deal actual damage, based off of Kefka:

Fallen One
A single horrifying word reduces your enemies' will to live, practically killing them.
Daily; Divine; Necrotic; Psychic
Standard Action - Close burst 20
Target: each creature in burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Effect: Any creature hit with this Power is reduced to 1 hit point, weakened, and slowed (save ends all three effects).

I am not trying to attack your work here, but is there a precedent for this sort of spell in 4th ed? (I don't have my book shandy), because i am pretty sure a spell like this just raises the old specter of wizards ignoring HP's (Not save or die... but very close to it..)

I like the idea you are getting at.. but i think it would be better served doing a set amount of damage, as it has been pointed out on these boards on numerous occasions (i am aware the point of it was you trying to get away from 3[W] damage etc.. but i think it is so ingrained into 4th ed philosophy that trying to do something like this is going to be unbalancing..)

Just my 2cp's...

Warweaver wrote:

I don't think the "large number" of utility powers is as big as you claim. Though it would be interesting to be proven wrong.

I'll just go over a single class because I don't feel like going over the whole list... so here's the list of useful out-of-combat utility exploits for rogues.

• Fleeting Ghost: biggest use would be avoiding combat in the first place. Another purpose would be maintaining speed with the party while remaining hidden while traveling forest, for instance.
  
• Great Leap, Master of Deceit: kinda obvious.
  
• Quick Fingers: could be quite handy for stealing something while doing something a little more time consuming... pickpocketing someone standing beside you while juggling, for example.
  
• Chameleon: again, usually for avoiding combat rather than something done within it. Very useful for infiltrating a locale.
  
• Mob Mentality: the only thing that beats information out of people better is doing it as a team.
  
• Nimble Climb: Obvious.
  
• Certain Freedom: "Oh noes, I hate being tied up like this! Whatever shall we do?! We are doomed, doomed I tell... the guard gone yet?"
  
• Shadow Stride: another "useful for avoiding combat".
  
• Foil the Lock, Hide in Plain Sight, Leaping Dodge: all fairly obvious, Hide in Plain Sight being another "avoiding combat" one.
  
• Cloud Jump: one of the best and zaniest jump exploits.
  
• Hide from the Light: the absolute best "useful for avoiding combat" power.

That's 14/21 utility powers for the rogue... 2/3s ain't that bad, and the ratio could be better (or worse) for other classes.

Warweaver wrote:

And yet, 3e also has more variation in said spells. Not to mention the classes that do "heavily overlap" (cleric/druid, sorc/wiz/bard...you can pretend the paladins/rangers do too, but it's a fractional class feature - it'd be like a 4e class that got Powers at half the progression of the others) have a wider variety of options than 4e powers do.

In 4e, they could've come up with a "power rubric" instead of listing out all those powers for each class (in fact they nearly did with page 42). "It does X damage at Y level plus Z. If you want it to inflict A status, reduce damage by B. If it has a range/area/# of creatures C, reduce damage by D." Personally I don't like it when half the sourcebook I paid for looks like it was created purely via plugging in numbers and making sure they keep to a specific range. I'm all for balance, but I don't buy an rpg to look at pages of math that I could almost figure out the Master Formula for in my head. It's wasted space that could be spent on expanded options.

There isn't an exact formula, since every status is going to have different usefulness depending on your current level of play. More importantly, it's disingenuous to claim they have a wider variety of options... the overall spell list is smaller than the total power list from 4th Edition by around 100 powers, and there is minimal overlap. If we compared them piece by piece 4th Edition would come out on top for overall variety, and the only real complaint seems to be "how dare they not allow my cleric to take dispel magic... this game sucks". If your argument is variety = a several hundred spells each usable by multiple classes, as opposed to variety = several hundred powers with only a couple usable by more than a single class, then I suppose we'll always disagree on this.

Warweaver wrote:

I dunno, but here's a shot in the dark:


Squee-Gee's Mold (Wizard Attack 29)
Daily + Arcane, Implement, Necrotic, Charm
Standard Action Close Burst 20
Target: Each Enemy in Burst
Attack: Int vs Will
Hit: The target is stunned (save ends), loses the use of their minor action (save ends), and suffers a -2 to all attacks until the end of the encounter.
Miss: The target is dazed (save ends), and suffers a -1 to all attacks until the end of the encounter.

Other fun ideas would be powers that: decrease the numbers a monster power is Recharged on, negate interrupts/freeze action points for its duration, reduces their resistance to other spells of the same element for its duration, etc. Since NPCs work by monster rules now, these ideas are more applicable than ever.

This is a little beside the point, as I just flat-out don't like where they've put the balance bar - but I'm working with what I got. Personally, I'd be fine with rituals that create permanent structures (like Wall of ___) for little to no cost. By a certain level, you should be able to make a big maze out of ice walls with nothing but time. "But oh noes" you say, "what if they do the wall of iron thing and then sell all that scrap iron and break ze economy!" And you would say this as if adventurers haven't been pulling the carpets and armoires out of dungeons and selling them in town for decades. As always, it'll work if the DM wants it to, no more no less. (General "you" here - I don't think any of you folks would actually make this argument.)

I don't see how stacked effects would really balance or improve gameplay. In fact, I can already imagine the dozens of nerd-rage threads along the lines of "ervyting is about statuses in 4E!!! it's WoW!!! lololololololol!!!!!" that would have come down the pipeline if they did that.

Moreover, I'm not particularly a fan of bypass mechanics (mechanics that bypass or completely eliminate other mechanics... save-or-dies, sneak attack and crit immunity, anti-magic field), so I doubt I'd enjoy such negation mechanics being introduced to the game. My eyes rolled over when I saw things that reduce damage reduction as is, I don't know if the game needs more than that.

As for your last part, I don't think it's necessarily just about breaking the economy. My question is what logic denotes that high-powered magic shouldn't cost anything outside of "it's magic"? I mean, I actually like the fact that they have added the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" concept to the game... it's balancing effect on the economy is tertiary to toning down the godlike nature of spellcasters and ensuring that such godly effects don't become cheap parlor tricks on a massive scale....

[INDENT]"Okay, what douchebag surrounded the entire continent with an ice maze? just because it doesn't have a component cost doesn't mean you have to be a **** about it!"

"I wouldn't have done it if you wouldn't have thrown my house into the Abyss!"[/INDENT]

Besides, I can see powerful archmages having an extradimensional pouch containing millions of gold worth of reagents seemingly pulling such effects out of nowhere. That seems more sensible to me than that same archmage literally pulling such effects out of nowhere.

Crimson Lancer wrote:

Hey, I actually made a 29th-level Spell just for the fun of it that doesn't deal actual damage, based off of Kefka:

Fallen One
A single horrifying word reduces your enemies' strength immensely, practically killing them.
Daily; Arcane/Divine; Necrotic; Psychic
Standard Action - Close burst 20
Target: each creature in burst
Attack: Charisma vs. Fort
Effect: Any creature hit with this Power is reduced to 1 hit point, weakened, and slowed (save ends all three effects).

EDIT: Yeah, I actually thought about it last night, and realized it would make more sense as Arcane/Divine and targeting Fort. Makes it much more balanced.

That is singly the most subtle save-or-die effect I've ever seen, but it still acts as a bypass to hit points. How exactly does a save end being reduced to one hit point?

Ah, you misunderstand. You are not REDUCED to 1 HP, your MAX HP is SET to 1. :D Basically, a successful Save ends the entire Effect line.

EDIT: Hrrmmm...I'll have to edit it. Thanks, Decivre.

Decivre wrote:

I'll just go over a single class because I don't feel like going over the whole list... so here's the list of useful out-of-combat utility exploits for rogues.

I don't think Leaping Dodge counts, as it only works in response to an enemy attack. Regardless, the rogue certainly isn't the norm when it comes to non-combat utilities - every time I hear about "every power being for combat" I hear "well except maybe the rogue" tacked on, due to those utilities.

Comparing the Rogue to another common "non-combat monkey" from 3e, the Ranger, we find the ranger with...4, maybe 5 Utilities usable outside of combat (I would count Forest Ghost according to your criteria, but not Expeditious Retreat or Safe Stride, as their bonuses are very negligible in a non-combat situation).

By these same criteria, the Fighter has a whopping...uh, zero (0). Unless you count Iron Warrior, but I wouldn't. I think you'll find the rest of the classes (possible exception: wizard, I haven't checked) more in the Fighter-Ranger range of Utilities that are useful out of combat. Which is to say, nearly nonexistent.

Decivre wrote:

If your argument is variety = a several hundred spells each usable by multiple classes, as opposed to variety = several hundred powers with only a couple usable by more than a single class, then I suppose we'll always disagree on this.

I guess so. I'll always consider "lots of options that other people also get some of" to be preferable to "fewer options nobody else gets".

Decivre wrote:

I don't see how stacked effects would really balance or improve gameplay. In fact, I can already imagine the dozens of nerd-rage threads along the lines of "ervyting is about statuses in 4E!!! it's WoW!!! lololololololol!!!!!" that would have come down the pipeline if they did that.

I really don't see how that could be any worse than it is now. :P

Decivre wrote:

Moreover, I'm not particularly a fan of bypass mechanics (mechanics that bypass or completely eliminate other mechanics... save-or-dies, sneak attack and crit immunity, anti-magic field), so I doubt I'd enjoy such negation mechanics being introduced to the game. My eyes rolled over when I saw things that reduce damage reduction as is, I don't know if the game needs more than that.

Even mechanics that just allow you or your companions to do more damage later? I think spells that assist the team or hinder the enemy's ability to do damage are just fine - as long as they don't end the encounter by themselves. Likewise, I'm fine with straight hp loss being the most common way of taking baddies down (though I wish they'd kept vampire-staking and rakshasa-bolting, myself), but there should be options that contribute in less direct ways than "I deal it some damage too".

Decivre wrote:

As for your last part, I don't think it's necessarily just about breaking the economy. My question is what logic denotes that high-powered magic shouldn't cost anything outside of "it's magic"? I mean, I actually like the fact that they have added the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" concept to the game...

I like the concept too - I've always been a fan of the "magic is sacrifice" school of thought. But reducing it to mere gp values (and high ones at that) seems to do the concept a disservice to me. masochistic Blood mages, addicted Lifedrinkers, giving up your name, or simple fatigue after casting - these are interesting ways to take magic. Straight-up gold for "fairy dust" you turn into magic items (must...avoid...WoW...reference...) is much less so, especially when you calculate the totals to come up with some kind of contrived ban on magic ever doing anything as or more easily than mundane effort. Maybe I'm just a penny-pincher, but when I get Tenser's Floating Disk, I want to use it - not wait three levels for the gp cost to be miniscule.

And if it's a choice between giving it an actual resource cost in-game to ensure people don't go crazy, and leaving it up to the DM to insert "sacrifice fluff" when they want to (but the players being able to use Rituals more often), I know which one I'd rather have.

Decivre wrote:

[INDENT]"Okay, what douchebag surrounded the entire continent with an ice maze? just because it doesn't have a component cost doesn't mean you have to be a **** about it!"

"I wouldn't have done it if you wouldn't have thrown my house into the Abyss!"[/INDENT]

You win for that.

Warweaver wrote:

I don't think Leaping Dodge counts, as it only works in response to an enemy attack. Regardless, the rogue certainly isn't the norm when it comes to non-combat utilities - every time I hear about "every power being for combat" I hear "well except maybe the rogue" tacked on, due to those utilities.

Comparing the Rogue to another common "non-combat monkey" from 3e, the Ranger, we find the ranger with...4, maybe 5 Utilities usable outside of combat (I would count Forest Ghost according to your criteria, but not Expeditious Retreat or Safe Stride, as their bonuses are very negligible in a non-combat situation).

By these same criteria, the Fighter has a whopping...uh, zero (0). Unless you count Iron Warrior, but I wouldn't. I think you'll find the rest of the classes (possible exception: wizard, I haven't checked) more in the Fighter-Ranger range of Utilities that are useful out of combat. Which is to say, nearly nonexistent.



I guess so. I'll always consider "lots of options that other people also get some of" to be preferable to "fewer options nobody else gets".



I really don't see how that could be any worse than it is now. :P



Even mechanics that just allow you or your companions to do more damage later? I think spells that assist the team or hinder the enemy's ability to do damage are just fine - as long as they don't end the encounter by themselves. Likewise, I'm fine with straight hp loss being the most common way of taking baddies down (though I wish they'd kept vampire-staking and rakshasa-bolting, myself), but there should be options that contribute in less direct ways than "I deal it some damage too".



I like the concept too - I've always been a fan of the "magic is sacrifice" school of thought. But reducing it to mere gp values (and high ones at that) seems to do the concept a disservice to me. masochistic Blood mages, addicted Lifedrinkers, giving up your name, or simple fatigue after casting - these are interesting ways to take magic. Straight-up gold for "fairy dust" you turn into magic items (must...avoid...WoW...reference...) is much less so, especially when you calculate the totals to come up with some kind of contrived ban on magic ever doing anything as or more easily than mundane effort. Maybe I'm just a penny-pincher, but when I get Tenser's Floating Disk, I want to use it - not wait three levels for the gp cost to be miniscule.

And if it's a choice between giving it an actual resource cost in-game to ensure people don't go crazy, and leaving it up to the DM to insert "sacrifice fluff" when they want to (but the players being able to use Rituals more often), I know which one I'd rather have.



You win for that.

Non combat is what skills and rituals are for. Abilities should be mostly combat as it is a high fantasy game. DnD has always had a focus on combat, now however you can actually get xp for non combat situations.

Also I like how they did rituals my group is more hung up on the time component of rituals then the money, but my tiefling lock will definitley be taking alchemy, blast patches, and alchemist fire oh yeah.

Warweaver wrote:

I don't think Leaping Dodge counts, as it only works in response to an enemy attack. Regardless, the rogue certainly isn't the norm when it comes to non-combat utilities - every time I hear about "every power being for combat" I hear "well except maybe the rogue" tacked on, due to those utilities.

Comparing the Rogue to another common "non-combat monkey" from 3e, the Ranger, we find the ranger with...4, maybe 5 Utilities usable outside of combat (I would count Forest Ghost according to your criteria, but not Expeditious Retreat or Safe Stride, as their bonuses are very negligible in a non-combat situation).

By these same criteria, the Fighter has a whopping...uh, zero (0). Unless you count Iron Warrior, but I wouldn't. I think you'll find the rest of the classes (possible exception: wizard, I haven't checked) more in the Fighter-Ranger range of Utilities that are useful out of combat. Which is to say, nearly nonexistent.

It really is too bad that the Fighter didn't get some out-of-combat Utilities. At least this time around he got a useful social skill though (Streetwise, which seems to have absorbed "Gather Information").

As for "useful out of combat utilities," I have a few minutes on my hands, so...
The List, for Reference Show

So, looking at it, casters still have far more "unique" options than other classes (and "full casters" seem to get the "free rituals" aspect in 4th). The other classes, it seems, have to rely on skills (or the Ritual feat, if they want). Fighters (and now Warlords) are still behind in out-of-combat options, but not as bad as before.

Warweaver wrote:

I don't think Leaping Dodge counts, as it only works in response to an enemy attack. Regardless, the rogue certainly isn't the norm when it comes to non-combat utilities - every time I hear about "every power being for combat" I hear "well except maybe the rogue" tacked on, due to those utilities.

Comparing the Rogue to another common "non-combat monkey" from 3e, the Ranger, we find the ranger with...4, maybe 5 Utilities usable outside of combat (I would count Forest Ghost according to your criteria, but not Expeditious Retreat or Safe Stride, as their bonuses are very negligible in a non-combat situation).

By these same criteria, the Fighter has a whopping...uh, zero (0). Unless you count Iron Warrior, but I wouldn't. I think you'll find the rest of the classes (possible exception: wizard, I haven't checked) more in the Fighter-Ranger range of Utilities that are useful out of combat. Which is to say, nearly nonexistent.

Ooh, that's what I get for skimming the power list looking for a total number. So the total is 13/21... still a decent amount. As for ranger: Crucial Advice, Skilled Companion, Longstrider... yeah, he doesn't have much. Fighter is definitely at a straight 0 for utility exploits that have non-combat effectiveness, but to be fair he isn't worse off than he was before (and it's kinda hard to come up with out-of-combat utility exploits for a class called "fighter"). The cleric had 3 powers (at a glance, didn't read them all) that aren't healing or protective in nature. I'm guessing the warlord isn't much better off than the fighter (I'm not even going to check), and the paladin not much better off than the cleric.

In converse, however, The wizard, in much the same manner as the rogue, had 14 utility spells at first glance that had non-combat use (not even counting the four cantrips). Warlocks also have 13 as the rogue does (which actually leaves me believing that WotC made sure to maintain to some degree the utility effectiveness that arcane magic has always wielded in D&D).

Considering that, and the fact that most of the utility spells that aren't on the total list (scrying being the biggest one) exist in ritual form, a large amount of the utility that existed in Editions prior is still there if you look for it. It's a shame they couldn't find more non-combat utility for fighters and such, but I have hope for later releases (and if they even release one non-combat utility for the fighter, they are far better off than 3rd Edition was).

Warweaver wrote:

I guess so. I'll always consider "lots of options that other people also get some of" to be preferable to "fewer options nobody else gets".

Well, when you think about the fact that we were previously arguing that classes feel the same, and yet power access barely overlaps especially in comparison to 3rd Edition, I'd say that this is almost an impossible to win scenario. Either they feel identical while having almost completely separate power lists, or they feel unique while having fairly homogenous power access. It's almost lose-lose for the developers.

Warweaver wrote:

I really don't see how that could be any worse than it is now. :P

I really don't see how that could be any better. :D

Warweaver wrote:

Even mechanics that just allow you or your companions to do more damage later? I think spells that assist the team or hinder the enemy's ability to do damage are just fine - as long as they don't end the encounter by themselves. Likewise, I'm fine with straight hp loss being the most common way of taking baddies down (though I wish they'd kept vampire-staking and rakshasa-bolting, myself), but there should be options that contribute in less direct ways than "I deal it some damage too".

Actually, I've already houseruled in vampire-staking in our games. You can't stake it until it's low enough in hit points to kill in one hit (every successful hit counts as a crit with a stake, so as long as it's hit points are exactly equal to 4 + whatever modifiers you get for melee damage, you can stake it), but it can't die until you stake it (it gains immunity to all damage but staking when it hits 1 hit point). You can do the same with rakshasas, werewolves, and more... the key is simply ensuring that you don't create a bypass mechanic to hit points.

Warweaver wrote:

I like the concept too - I've always been a fan of the "magic is sacrifice" school of thought. But reducing it to mere gp values (and high ones at that) seems to do the concept a disservice to me. masochistic Blood mages, addicted Lifedrinkers, giving up your name, or simple fatigue after casting - these are interesting ways to take magic. Straight-up gold for "fairy dust" you turn into magic items (must...avoid...WoW...reference...) is much less so, especially when you calculate the totals to come up with some kind of contrived ban on magic ever doing anything as or more easily than mundane effort. Maybe I'm just a penny-pincher, but when I get Tenser's Floating Disk, I want to use it - not wait three levels for the gp cost to be miniscule.

And if it's a choice between giving it an actual resource cost in-game to ensure people don't go crazy, and leaving it up to the DM to insert "sacrifice fluff" when they want to (but the players being able to use Rituals more often), I know which one I'd rather have.

There are means around it. I can see feats which allow you to use other things besides component materials for casting ritual magic. You could have a feat called "Blood Ritual" which allows you to coup de grace people who are prepared on an altar and gain an amount of "component gp" equal to the hit points lost. They can drain them dry, and bring a few other victims to cast bigger spells. Could actually add quite a bit of flair to the game even, since you could introduce the corrupting effects of blood rituals, as well as neat roleplaying hooks (madman learns blood ritual magic so he can sacrifice a half dozen children to bring back his dead wife).

The reason behind the gold cost is to set a standard. If you want, you can simply have your wizard look for components as opposed to buying them. You can create new component types that fit your setting better. The gold cost just gives you a gauge... something that costs 25 gp in base rules is 1/8th the cost of something that costs 200 gp in base rules... but it doesn't have to be gp that you pay for it.

Warweaver wrote:

You win for that.

I thank you. First thing that popped into mind when you mentioned a free Ice Maze spell. :D

Warweaver wrote:

I don't think Leaping Dodge counts, as it only works in response to an enemy attack. Regardless, the rogue certainly isn't the norm when it comes to non-combat utilities - every time I hear about "every power being for combat" I hear "well except maybe the rogue" tacked on, due to those utilities.

Comparing the Rogue to another common "non-combat monkey" from 3e, the Ranger, we find the ranger with...4, maybe 5 Utilities usable outside of combat (I would count Forest Ghost according to your criteria, but not Expeditious Retreat or Safe Stride, as their bonuses are very negligible in a non-combat situation).

By these same criteria, the Fighter has a whopping...uh, zero (0). Unless you count Iron Warrior, but I wouldn't. I think you'll find the rest of the classes (possible exception: wizard, I haven't checked) more in the Fighter-Ranger range of Utilities that are useful out of combat. Which is to say, nearly nonexistent.



I guess so. I'll always consider "lots of options that other people also get some of" to be preferable to "fewer options nobody else gets".



I really don't see how that could be any worse than it is now. :P



Even mechanics that just allow you or your companions to do more damage later? I think spells that assist the team or hinder the enemy's ability to do damage are just fine - as long as they don't end the encounter by themselves. Likewise, I'm fine with straight hp loss being the most common way of taking baddies down (though I wish they'd kept vampire-staking and rakshasa-bolting, myself), but there should be options that contribute in less direct ways than "I deal it some damage too".



I like the concept too - I've always been a fan of the "magic is sacrifice" school of thought. But reducing it to mere gp values (and high ones at that) seems to do the concept a disservice to me. masochistic Blood mages, addicted Lifedrinkers, giving up your name, or simple fatigue after casting - these are interesting ways to take magic. Straight-up gold for "fairy dust" you turn into magic items (must...avoid...WoW...reference...) is much less so, especially when you calculate the totals to come up with some kind of contrived ban on magic ever doing anything as or more easily than mundane effort. Maybe I'm just a penny-pincher, but when I get Tenser's Floating Disk, I want to use it - not wait three levels for the gp cost to be miniscule.

And if it's a choice between giving it an actual resource cost in-game to ensure people don't go crazy, and leaving it up to the DM to insert "sacrifice fluff" when they want to (but the players being able to use Rituals more often), I know which one I'd rather have.



You win for that.

On the magic is sacrifice bit, psionics isn't, I don't think magic should be either, but I do think that psionics and magic should have been on par with each other (psionic focus shouldn't have applied to metamagic for example). Also, I think they should have done something similar to disciplines with magic, maybe that way the casters wouldn't have been able to do everything but still have a feel of privilege for picking there specific discipline.

axetank wrote:

On the magic is sacrifice bit, psionics isn't, I don't think magic should be either, but I do think that psionics and magic should have been on par with each other (psionic focus shouldn't have applied to metamagic for example). Also, I think they should have done something similar to disciplines with magic, maybe that way the casters wouldn't have been able to do everything but still have a feel of privilege for picking there specific discipline.

You mean like, schools of Magic? Yeah...

Samyueru wrote:

You mean like, schools of Magic? Yeah...

But that only restricted two categories (except for diviners), I mean allowing use of other categories while not banning them outright (just certain select abilities being discipline only).

axetank wrote:

But that only restricted two categories (except for diviners), I mean allowing use of other categories while not banning them outright (just certain select abilities being discipline only).

Kind of like a domain idea, but for non-cleric casters?

Samyueru wrote:

Kind of like a domain idea, but for non-cleric casters?

More like this:

Pretty much, but with a lot more on the domain list.

axetank wrote:

More like this:

Pretty much, but with a lot more on the domain list.

You do know that even psions could get around that restriction right? Every feat passed level 6 for me was expanded knowledge, heck I even took psychic warrior powers.

The way they did it in 4e balances everything while still making the classes vastly different in play.

williamhm75 wrote:

You do know that even psions could get around that restriction right? Every feat passed level 6 for me was expanded knowledge, heck I even took psychic warrior powers.

The way they did it in 4e balances everything while still making the classes vastly different in play.

I did the same thing with my psion, and had the feat which gave me 2 hit points for every psychic feat. I figured that as long as I'm just picking psychich feats, I might as well be getting extra hit points for it as well.

williamhm75 wrote:

You do know that even psions could get around that restriction right? Every feat passed level 6 for me was expanded knowledge, heck I even took psychic warrior powers.

The way they did it in 4e balances everything while still making the classes vastly different in play.

And why should every psion player do the same?

Fabius Maximus wrote:

And why should every psion player do the same?

Not everyone should do the same I personally liked the versatility doing so offered me, however because of it I had no meta psionic feats you could argue it either way. However I do not play 3.5 anymore, nor will I play it ever again.

Fabius Maximus wrote:

And why should every psion player do the same?

Where did Williamhm75 even state they should?

Now children! Lets all get along.

Outlaw68 wrote:

Where did Williamhm75 even state they should?

He didn't. I misinterpreted his posting. Sorry.

williamhm75 wrote:

Not everyone should do the same I personally liked the versatility doing so offered me, however because of it I had no meta psionic feats you could argue it either way. However I do not play 3.5 anymore, nor will I play it ever again.

Actually, the only thing I didn't like about psionics in 3.5 was that you had to expend psionic focus for the metapsionic feats. Maybe having the ability to gain a special version of psionic focus usable for metapsionic feats as a free action a number of times per turn based on your level would have been nice. Then changing that one that lets you expend it more than once on a single power to removing the level limit.

axetank wrote:

More like this:

Pretty much, but with a lot more on the domain list.

So (in a very basic way) you want Wizards to pick a "school" of magic, let's say Fire. And then that Wizard can only pick Fire spells, or a certain percentage of spells he knows has to be fire spells? Then there could be other lists, like cold, sonic, domination etc.

I see where you're going with this, and it could actually help balance the wizard in 3.5. Restricting them to a set list before they even start choosing spells would take a lot of power away from them while still allowing them to contribute to the group in a meaningful way.

axetank wrote:

Actually, the only thing I didn't like about psionics in 3.5 was that you had to expend psionic focus for the metapsionic feats. Maybe having the ability to gain a special version of psionic focus usable for metapsionic feats as a free action a number of times per turn based on your level would have been nice. Then changing that one that lets you expend it more than once on a single power to removing the level limit.

In my eyes, having to spend your psionic focus to activate some feats was the only thing keeping the class from bringing the nine hells to bear on every game they were in.

Then there's that feat that let's you regain it as a move action. Bravo Wizards, bravo.

Samyueru wrote:

In my eyes, having to spend your psionic focus to activate some feats was the only thing keeping the class from bringing the nine hells to bear on every game they were in.

Then there's that feat that let's you regain it as a move action. Bravo Wizards, bravo.

If you're referring to the nova effect, all a DM has to do is use an illusion or put threatening guards to the entrance to make the guy use some power points.

axetank wrote:

Actually, the only thing I didn't like about psionics in 3.5 was that you had to expend psionic focus for the metapsionic feats. Maybe having the ability to gain a special version of psionic focus usable for metapsionic feats as a free action a number of times per turn based on your level would have been nice. Then changing that one that lets you expend it more than once on a single power to removing the level limit.

psionic medatation feat, and if you could do what you want it would be even more broken.

axetank wrote:

If you're referring to the nova effect, all a DM has to do is use an illusion or put threatening guards to the entrance to make the guy use some power points.

Um psions have high will saves, and at higher levels can have truesight permanently, and will do this if they are smart. And no doing what you want would have made psions far too poweful, as is psions were on par with wizards and psychic warriors powned traditional fighters in almost evrery way, now with the power list of 4e the game is balanced, and each class is still very distinctive, heck each class can have 2 or 3 all look and play somewhat differently a dark pact lock, fey pact lock and hell lock will all play very differently.

williamhm75 wrote:

Um psions have high will saves, and at higher levels can have truesight permanently, and will do this if they are smart. And no doing what you want would have made psions far too poweful, as is psions were on par with wizards and psychic warriors powned traditional fighters in almost evrery way, now with the power list of 4e the game is balanced, and each class is still very distinctive, heck each class can have 2 or 3 all look and play somewhat differently a dark pact lock, fey pact lock and hell lock will all play very differently.

Psions powers did not scale in damage. A 10th level wizard's fireball did 10d6 damage. A psion had to pay more power points to make his abilities deal 10d6 damage. Also, prismatic sphere. A psion was nowhere near in power level to a wizard played intelligently.

For further proof I direct you here.

axetank wrote:

Psions powers did not scale in damage. A 10th level wizard's fireball did 10d6 damage. A psion had to pay more power points to make his abilities deal 10d6 damage. Also, prismatic sphere. A psion was nowhere near in power level to a wizard played intelligently.

For further proof I direct you here.

As much of a surprise as this is, I have to agree with PsionX here to an extent. A psion may have gotten more power points than a wizard did spells at each level, but level 7 powers, for example all cost (I think) 9 pp to manifest as their most basic effect. Add in to that fact the fact that psions could not spend more pp on 1 power than their manifester level, and you quickly discover that a psions power is most certainly not all in the damage it can deal.

Samyueru wrote:

As much of a surprise as this is, I have to agree with PsionX here to an extent. A psion may have gotten more power points than a wizard did spells at each level, but level 7 powers, for example all cost (I think) 9 pp to manifest as their most basic effect. Add in to that fact the fact that psions could not spend more pp on 1 power than their manifester level, and you quickly discover that a psions power is most certainly not all in the damage it can deal.

Actually, a 7th level power is 13 power points, and also, in addition to the cap, once you realize how much you'd be burning in the way of power points just to keep up in damage, you see that it's really not worth it to try.

pudgeheap wrote:

Actually, a 7th level power is 13 power points, and also, in addition to the cap, once you realize how much you'd be burning in the way of power points just to keep up in damage, you see that it's really not worth it to try.

Actually I was always beefing powers up to the max I could, but that was because the dm was always pitting us against things 6-9 levels higher than us, and sometimes boosting the power upped the save dc. Which becomes incredibly important at higher levels.

axetank wrote:

Psions powers did not scale in damage. A 10th level wizard's fireball did 10d6 damage. A psion had to pay more power points to make his abilities deal 10d6 damage. Also, prismatic sphere. A psion was nowhere near in power level to a wizard played intelligently.

For further proof I direct you here.

Im not going to look at it, Ive played a psion for 21 levels, trust me I was equal to the wizard most of the time, and yes you do have to pump up powers, but thats easy to do when you get a crazy high amount of pp at later levels, with a 33 int you get a massive amount of bonus pp. Also psions have one power to do what wizards need multiple powers to do, ie psionic domminate, or astral construct, that makes the limited list psions get go much farther, and little known fact psions can learn powers from the minds of other psions.

williamhm75 wrote:

Im not going to look at it, Ive played a psion for 21 levels, trust me I was equal to the wizard most of the time, and yes you do have to pump up powers, but thats easy to do when you get a crazy high amount of pp at later levels, with a 33 int you get a massive amount of bonus pp. Also psions have one power to do what wizards need multiple powers to do, ie psionic domminate, or astral construct, that makes the limited list psions get go much farther, and little known fact psions can learn powers from the minds of other psions.

I'm not going to debate with you over this, take it to the psionics forum and let them explain it to you.

Hey gang!

This is one of those threads that can self destruct because of it's size. I'll close it and open a new one.

Webster wrote:

Hey gang!

This is one of those threads that can self destruct because of it's size. I'll close it and open a new one.

Nooooo! I kept resurrecting it for fun... even when other people just left it to die.

This thread has been closed per VCL request.