Community

So throw 4 Color sprays, and You have maxed out at 20+ rounds of stunned.

Fixed

Out right winning 2-4 combats > doing stuff.

Low level wizards were balanced because they ran out, and needed to evaluate if an encounter needed the spells usage because if you just cast spells you lose fast.

You don't pick between a huge array anymore, but you never run OUT. That's the key. While the 3.0 wiz runs out of spells 4 rounds into combat, you can fire arcane energy all night long.

A crossbow bolt, or mor specificaly alchameical fire, by any other name is still a bolt (or fire).

Minor rants aside, I dont like 4e as a system because things arent open ended for the sake of balance. People claim that there is a differance between classes, yes its the damage and AC. The only things that matter at low levels. The thing is, I dont think they even attemped to balance the game (past heroic)from what I have played. After heroic the game comes appart very quickly.

Whats this have to do with anything? So what if it's easier to hit will over fort, what does that have to do with his ability to slow a solo flyby attacker, preventing it from using flyby and staying out of range? If his attack was -4 to hit compared someone else hitting the AC, then perhaps you'd have a point, but thats not the case. And taking a look at dragons, the one with flyby attack (greens) actually have a will that is equal to their fort (you've been saying fort is always the worst save for so long, you actually believe it is always the case), tied for the creatures worst defense, with reflex being 2 points better and AC an additional 2 points (4 higher then will/fort).

I am saying this strictly on averages of all monsters. Some one did a comparison of total average monster defences fort was (depending on level) between 1 and 6 over other saves and at only 1 point was less then reflex (on a single type of monster) Will is only higher then fort on a couple target types.

Neechen wrote:

Quote:

I also agree with others. New Wiz is balanced...maybe now players will focus more on Roleplaying rather than just spell optimizing.

Cheers.

Read the boards. The ONLY thing anybody talks about is spell optimizing. Dumbing down the wizard's casting options to combat spells and a few narrowly defined "utilities" isn't the way you get people away from character optimization. It's how you encourage it.

[B/]Defining the wizard mechanically within a tactical context encourages tactical role-playing choices.[/b] Gearing all of the wizard's character options towards his "role" in combat is what gears players to think of their characters in terms of numbers and statistics (which is how combat is expressed in D&D). "What orb can I get in conjunction with which armor in order to maximize so and so combination of at-will and daily powers."

Read this thread: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1089310

Balance isn't an issue of what WotC does or does not let you have at your disposal. The only things you have at your disposals are your imaginations. The only balance that exists in any role-playing game is between the PC and the DM.

In other words, [B/]balance is established personally, not mechanically.[B/] Don't complain about things like blood pulse and sleep being broken. It's not like you [I/]have[/] to use them. If they "break" the game then why don't you just tweak the powers themselves, or just avoid them completely?

DMs: Stop competing for power with your players. Are you afraid of your PCs broken combos? Why should you be? Insta-wins don't work in a game that you can't win or lose. You have absolute control over the in-game reality. You can veto or change any combo or spell that you feel detracts from the enjoyment of the game. In fact, that's a big part of what your JOB is.

PCs: Stop competing for power with your DM. Are you afraid that you won't be capable enough to deal with your DM's absolute power over you and the world you interact with? It doesn't matter how high you can get your bonuses because you can't be more powerful than GOD, which is what your DM basically is. This isn't a concern unless he's going out of his way to invalidate or kill your character? If he does do that, then why are you playing with him? As the guy who runs the game, he's the one who's responsible for your enjoyment as a player character.

Or are you just fighting because you only think of D&D in terms of combat? Role-playing isn't about competition. It's about communication. You can do whatever the **** you want within the framework of proper communication. The rules are there (or should be there) to facilitate communication, not to limit character options for fear that players won't be able to communicate properly. No rules system, no matter how streamlined, can completely eliminate guesswork, or situations that call for some degree of debate. The constant griping about this and that class or item being too powerful is more than enough proof of that. Instead of trying to find ways to put a cap on the player or DM's power, the rules should provide us with the proper guidelines for dealing with the with grey area.

Tailor the game to your imagination, don't tailor your imagination to the game.

The game is defined by how the players work together to define the game itself. That's what role-playing is.

J-Dawg wrote:

Who studies a spell and then forgets how to do it again til they take a nap?

The 4E Wizard.

J-Dawg wrote:

I personally always thought the wizards who study and then need to sleep to cast again were weak.

Weak by what standards. Are you defining a wizard's strength by how much damage he can deal or how he controls a battlefield? I suppose that's one way to play a wizard, if you're interested in being a fighter.

gotbrain wrote:

Well said. I think you saw this huge variation in different gaming groups, where some players never even thought or noticed how easy it was to break the game and so their games went smoothly and were fun while other groups had players which could twist the rules like no one's business which had some up in arms for a "fix" to the game, which led to the division in camps for "pro" and "anti" new additions.

Of course I think that depends on what kind of games you play, with friends or in official campaigns. If you were sitting around with a bunch of friends it was very easy to house rule "common sense" in and prevent the game from breaking. But yea, you had to do that with every edition.

I did play with a group of close friends. Once upon a time, we were quite the power gamers. We had animated tower shields. I had a pair of boots that multiplied my base speed by four. There were magic item stores with huge selections. At some point, we realized that this wasn't fun. We never complained, we just [I/]did[/i] something about it.

I don't understand what everybody is so up in arms about. 3rd Edition worked fine enough. 4th edition works fine enough, outside of how it handles magic. It's within our power to narrow options for ourselves, in the event that they're frivolous or overpowering . It's MUCH harder to create new ones. In other words, it's easier to tweak already existing rules than create character options for which there are no rules, or no precedent.

We don't need more add ons or new powers or paragon paths or prestige classes. We need the rules to help us make and edit our own. The constant dependency on new splat books for expanded character options is a tax on more than your pocket book. It's a tax on your imagination.

The larger implication here is that WotC is defining your creative flexibility. They don't have the spell you like yet? "Don't worry, they'll eventually release more books." In this kind of relationship, the gamer's ideas are subordinate to the system, when it should be the other way around. Remember guys, this is role-playing. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. Within [B/]reason[/b]. All we need is a functional and flexible framework in which to customize, create, collaborate, and dream. If there's a strong enough balance between the PC, the DM, and the rules, then that sense of reason can be more firmly established.