Light's "real" purpose is to negate magical darkness, which is why it is handy; if you need light out of combat, use a lantern.
For being yet another rabid fanboy who just spent the last fifteen minutes vomiting up how ignorant I am and how I've never read the book, you sure did cram your foot deep down your esophagus with this bit.
Here's a hint, go read the power. Page 158. Funny how I don't see a single mention of magical darkness, or how it would even come close to thwarting any of the powers that -do- create magical darkness anywhere else in the book.
Which maybe, if you had the capacity to read, would be why I placed it under the "overcompensation" category. As it stands, it may as well not even exist in the game, it's that useless. There's a difference between balancing a game and rendering something so worthless that there's pratically no reason to even bother with them.
I do not have the books. But, as listed, I would respectively disagree. A character who makes finding out truths a focus will have great use for this spell. Unless gold is much scarcer in 4E than 3.5E, this cost is not out of line for expenditures that adventurers make all of the time.
What is different is that a character needs to have planned to be effective with the spell. So you can be better than a diplomat but only be designing your character that way. I think this was a move to allow low and moderate fantasy games to exist; many of the circumstances in fantasy literature fail rapidly with a 2nd level spell (zone of truth). The same was true of "rise dead" and "teleport" -- which should be less of an issue as well.
I don't know for sure if it will be a good change or a bad change but I think it might end up in "correct amount of compensation" territory. Not sure.
I disagree. I went through the Cleric yesterday VERY throughoughly. Yes, there is some rehashing - the "heal someone when you hit an opponent" power had several variations (heal someone, heal everyone nearby, heal everyone nearby without using a healing surge, heal people even further away...). The "heal all allies in an AoE plus damage all enemies in that AoE" also had a few variants, and I think there were two or three variants of "deal AoE elemental damage plus sustain minor to deal damage each turn".
That said, there were also lots of very unique powers - the Seals, for instance, are all pretty distinctive and all have very interesting applications. Their conjurations are also quite cool and seem like they all work quite well in interesting and distinctive ways. Blade Barrier is a cool power as well, and there were lots of other nifty powers which did a variety of things across the levels. Utility powers seem to be something of a mixed bag; some of the cleric utility powers are awesome and others are a bit lame.
Right, that is what I meant by "front-loaded." You can change the quantity or the number of targets or the range of the power (or even add a status effect if it's a really fancy power), but everything seems to fit a similar mold (at least for most of the Rogue powers).
Looking at the Cleric powers between 4-10 more carefully, you can pretty much separate 80% of the powers into "Target cure XXX damage," "Attack and on a hit, affect the target with (immobility/inability to attack/attack penalty/blindness/push 1 square)", or "Summon XXX of YYY type fighters."
What I (and some other posters) am complaining about is more that there's a lack of creativity with truly "different" powers. That being said, Clerics actually probably have the most "creative variety" that I've seen of all the classes, simply due to the Divine Channeling feats.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
They changed the skill system, so int really couldn't add skills or what have you. Honestly, I don't think it really is a big deal - it is still used for a number of skills and probably feats as well, and the fact that Arcana uses it means that it won't be totally neglected.
To me (and I've played plenty of wizards in the past), Arcana has been and always will be a "luxury" skill. When there's a full party, there's no reason not to have it, but it's never indispensable. Instead of getting a cheat-sheet of the monster's abilities, you can find out the hard way of getting toasted by it first.
Compare that to Diplomacy or Streetwise (based on CHA), which is strictly necessary for a party for roleplaying purposes. Or compare to Perception/Insight (based on WIS), which is almost necessary to not get wiped out by a clever ambush. Vs. DEX, initiative is important, and frankly no party really can go without a wizard, and no party needs more than one master of Arcana.
So all in all, INT is the new CHA.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
You're just wrong, here; monsters are plenty powerful. Remember that the monsters also are likely to save, and this means that on average a status effect will last roughly two rounds on a PCD OR monster. Poison isn't worthless; this is a completely nonsensical statement. It still does things that make it quite worthwhile; ability damage wasn't a good mechanic in the first place, hp damage is fine, and other negative effects on those poisoned are also fine and interesting.
I'll reserve judgement on monster power until I play them, I guess. But what I meant by poison being underpowered is this:
If you chug down a beer with about an ounce of cyanide in it, you're pretty much dead. It's an insta-effect. If you're really the mutant and have hemoglobin molecules that don't chelate cyanide, you will survive. But none of this ongoing damage until you save business. So it's really most simulated by Fort save vs. death. While you could make the initial damage on the poison insanely high, that makes it uber expensive too (and poison damage scales much less well than HP).
Poisons, while useful in combat for ninjas and the like, are still mostly the realm of non-combat subterfuge. The current rules don't reflect this well.
Titanium Dragon wrote:
You're not thinking about it from a balance perspective. Please don't say you are. It is bad to allow players to buy tons of consumables and screw themselves in the long run for a boost in the short run. It is bad for people to have wands of CLW to keep fighting at full HP all the time regardless of how much you throw at them. GP should not equate to HP, simply put.
Your statement reeks a bit of fascism. People in real life can choose to invest in Roth IRA retirement funds, or squander their money today (on things like D&D books ;-) ). It's silly not to give that choice in game.
Also, the problem of "screwing yourself in the long run" silly non-existent, because gold still scales exponentially (every 5 levels of difference in items in 5x difference in price). So you're just marginally screwing yourself in the long run for short-term benefits.
I'd think a much better solution would be potions that don't cost surges, but cost Move actions (which from what I've seen and heard, is plenty important). I'll probably house-rule that if ever I get around to DMing 4e.
I do not have the books. But, as listed, I would respectively disagree. A character who makes finding out truths a focus will have great use for this spell. Unless gold is much scarcer in 4E than 3.5E, this cost is not out of line for expenditures that adventurers make all of the time.
What is different is that a character needs to have planned to be effective with the spell. So you can be better than a diplomat but only be designing your character that way. I think this was a move to allow low and moderate fantasy games to exist; many of the circumstances in fantasy literature fail rapidly with a 2nd level spell (zone of truth). The same was true of "rise dead" and "teleport" -- which should be less of an issue as well.
I don't know for sure if it will be a good change or a bad change but I think it might end up in "correct amount of compensation" territory. Not sure.
I think the big thing you're missing here is the casting time and duration of the spell. It's not really the gold cost (which is still extreme, especially in the levels when you can first get it) nor the feat requirement nor the chance of failure. It's that you have to sit there and spend ten minutes performing the ritual in front of the guy you want to learn the truth from then pray -- pray -- that after you finish the ritual he decides to even open his mouth for the next five minutes. It's not even useful as a forced interrogation method for that very reason; they just have to keep quiet for five minutes after watching you dance around in a circle or whatever else the ritual entails.
It's just insanely overcompensated for the "problems" it used to cause. Making it a Daily Power with a short duration ("until the start of your next turn") would have solved most of those and still keep it as a functional ability; yeah, once per day you can get a bonus to tell if someone is lying to you. Big whoop. But this? It's asinine.
There's quite a few ritual spells that just make you go "huh?" Phantom Steed is another one. You basically have to blow 430gp (including the cost to buy the ritual) in order to summon up to eight horses that last twelve hours (assuming they take no damage). Keep in mind a riding horse only costs 75gp. Sure, once you approach the epic tier the horses gain some advantages such as waterwalking and flying (a whole ten feet off the ground). I mean, sure, it's so-so if someone comes along and steals/kills your mounts while you're off in a dungeon or something... but still? Making it a ritual with such extreme limitations and requirements?
Knock is yet another example. Instead of having it as a Daily power (so as not to constantly get in the way of a Rogue or other master of Thievery having their moments of glory), it's another ten-minute ritual that costs 35gp and a healing surge. I'm not even sure why it costs a healing surge, but it does. And on top of that, all it does is let you use Arcana +5 in place of Thievery for trying to open a door (and you have to succeed at multiple checks in some situations). That's basically a +5 bonus for ten minutes of wasted time and a handful of gold. At least this ritual has a tangible benefit that can't be had any other way (it allows you a chance to unlock things that Thievery alone couldn't)... but yikes.
Just... they just went crazy with limiting stuff. It's completely out of hand in many, many areas. Game balance works both ways; you can't just cripple something completely and call it balanced.
Right, that is what I meant by "front-loaded." You can change the quantity or the number of targets or the range of the power (or even add a status effect if it's a really fancy power), but everything seems to fit a similar mold (at least for most of the Rogue powers).
Looking at the Cleric powers between 4-10 more carefully, you can pretty much separate 80% of the powers into "Target cure XXX damage," "Attack and on a hit, affect the target with (immobility/inability to attack/attack penalty/blindness/push 1 square)", or "Summon XXX of YYY type fighters."
The problem is that this argument isn't really reasonable. There are buffs, debuffs, damage, and positioning. At its core, that's all there is in an RPG. The key to making interesting powers is not really for them to do a variety of things (as there is only so much they can do) as to combine and present them in different and interesting (and distinct) ways, and I think they do a decent job of it. Some of them DO get boring - all of the "Attack and heal" powers are pretty dull. That said, they do their job and are around for the guy who just wants to upgrade that power, as well as just generic usefulness. The rest need to debuff, buff, ect. in various ways, and I think they do a fine job of it. The conjurations are quite interesting takes on getting extra attacks (or defense, or what have you) and I like their execution in general.
What I (and some other posters) am complaining about is more that there's a lack of creativity with truly "different" powers. That being said, Clerics actually probably have the most "creative variety" that I've seen of all the classes, simply due to the Divine Channeling feats.
I think they're fine in terms of diversity of powers. I've liked what I've seen of fighters so far, though some of their powers just don't interest me. Of course, I have a predilicition for very flashy powers, which means stuff like Come and Get It interests me more than solid powers like Iron Bulwark.
To me (and I've played plenty of wizards in the past), Arcana has been and always will be a "luxury" skill. When there's a full party, there's no reason not to have it, but it's never indispensable. Instead of getting a cheat-sheet of the monster's abilities, you can find out the hard way of getting toasted by it first.
I rather disagree; I think of Arcana as a means of moving the plot as the wizard has some bit of knowledge that is helpful or can tell what the evil diagram was supposed to do.
If you chug down a beer with about an ounce of cyanide in it, you're pretty much dead. It's an insta-effect. If you're really the mutant and have hemoglobin molecules that don't chelate cyanide, you will survive. But none of this ongoing damage until you save business. So it's really most simulated by Fort save vs. death. While you could make the initial damage on the poison insanely high, that makes it uber expensive too (and poison damage scales much less well than HP).
Thing is, SoDs are unfun and bad design. The HP system exists for a reason, and there is no reason to do Con damage instead of HP damage.
Your statement reeks a bit of fascism. People in real life can choose to invest in Roth IRA retirement funds, or squander their money today (on things like D&D books ;-) ). It's silly not to give that choice in game.
Also, the problem of "screwing yourself in the long run" silly non-existent, because gold still scales exponentially (every 5 levels of difference in items in 5x difference in price). So you're just marginally screwing yourself in the long run for short-term benefits.
Well, you're screwing yourself for a few levels, and the problem is that this has a very unfun effect on the game. You make others have less fun because your character is too strong, and then when you're too weak you have less fun because you're overshadowed. Yeah, it evens out in the long run, but it is FAR better for it to simply avoid it altogether. It isn't facism, its improved fun. Taking away bad choices with very long ranging consequences isn't a bad thing; people should not be able to screw themselves on their character, only on their actions.
I'd think a much better solution would be potions that don't cost surges, but cost Move actions (which from what I've seen and heard, is plenty important). I'll probably house-rule that if ever I get around to DMing 4e.
You're wrong. Sorry, but you don't really understand the point of the healing surge system.
The entire point of the system is that you have two HP pools - an encounter pool and a daily pool. Healing surges represent your daily pool, and your current HP are your encounter pool. When you use healing surges, you're drawing from your daily pool to refill your encounter pool. The idea is that your encounter pool is considerably smaller than your daily pool. The reason for this is quite simple:
Every combat encounter needs to give you a decent chance of dying if you screw it up, but you should be able to fight in 5 encounters per day for an adventure.
3.5 sucked because, among other reasons, your daily pool WAS your encounter pool. This has the net effect of, if you want people to have 5 encounters that day, ONLY the last encounter will have a real chance of death (and it will be dangerous), and if they choose to rest after the third or fourth because they're "running low", then the last encounter will be rather trivial. The final fight, if it was the strongest, would often lead to a TPK unless the other encounters were too easy (or unless you were cheesing out with magic users and making the game trivial, which is unfun).
The reality is that you have to have healing potions suck your daily pool because otherwise you're going back to 3.x, and 3.x's way of doing things was horrid. Your daily pool simply cannot be your encounter pool, and you should NOT be able to convert gold directly into HP, which is what you're proposing.
Heck, there's even examples where it seems the design team specifically wanted to be a dick to multiclassing.
I'm also a huge fan of multiclassing. The current system *is* a bit unwieldy, but taken from another light, it's not quite as bad as made out to me.
First, the initiate feat. Compare to Skill Proficiency feat. You gain the proficiency, plus a special ability, plus access to other multiclass feats. While some special abilities suck more than others, the Ranger one is actually pretty good, thanks to good skill selection and a 1/encounter +1d6 damage.
The other swapping feats may actually not be that bad either, if simply the result of my "redundancy" argument. Powers for the same class at different levels are very similar excepting some numeric effects, so swapping Deft Strike for Cleave isn't too bad a trade for a Brute Scoundrel rogue.
The paragon path trade kind of blows though, because the paragon powers are generally quite strong.
I think the big thing you're missing here is the casting time and duration of the spell. It's not really the gold cost (which is still extreme, especially in the levels when you can first get it) nor the feat requirement nor the chance of failure. It's that you have to sit there and spend ten minutes performing the ritual in front of the guy you want to learn the truth from then pray -- pray -- that after you finish the ritual he decides to even open his mouth for the next five minutes. It's not even useful as a forced interrogation method for that very reason; they just have to keep quiet for five minutes after watching you dance around in a circle or whatever else the ritual entails.
It's just insanely overcompensated for the "problems" it used to cause. Making it a Daily Power with a short duration ("until the start of your next turn") would have solved most of those and still keep it as a functional ability; yeah, once per day you can get a bonus to tell if someone is lying to you. Big whoop. But this? It's asinine.
Okay, the Phantom steed example sounds really, really bad unless GP is running in streams. The cases where this would be needed are awfully small and I would expect a teleport ritual to always be a better choice (even if more expensive).
I do kind of agree that this makes discern lies useless for a lot of interrogations -- it pretty much falls into the "proving one is innocent" category. Of course, not saying anything could be an indicator of guilt but it makes things much more ambiguous.
I thus do kind of agree that a daily power might have been an alternate way to go. I am very curious to see the rituals in practice and decide if they are a real compensation for utility spells.
If you are a wizard and about to conduct an interview in your office... can you cast the spell, then let the guy in, and have all those bonuses to spotting lies?
Just curious. I mean, do you actually HAVE to do the spell in front of them? I mean, I've waited 5-10 minutes in many a place... you expect that with bureaucrats.
As for the phantom steed ritual... it sounds like it's a great way to get horses for people who are not adventures. It's not going to be useful often, but then again, many 3.x spells were not useful often.
