General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Not really when it is just the same 7 effects mixed with X[W] damage.
You are still only doing one of 7 effects and/or some damage.
Meaning there are only really 8 different types of attacks/powers.
RGB offers 16 million colors, but they are all still made from only 3.
So you are just combining a few rudimentary things to make all these other things.
What if you don't want to do one of those 7 effects, or damage, but something else?
And I am not even talking about how silly some of the powers are. Like Sleep requiring a burst of effect, rather than just being able to put a single person to sleep.
The effects are not all they are cracked up to be.
Meaning there are only really 8 different types of attacks/powers.
RGB offers 16 million colors, but they are all still made from only 3.
So you are just combining a few rudimentary things to make all these other things.
What if you don't want to do one of those 7 effects, or damage, but something else?
You seem to be contradicting yourself. The example that you yourself give provides 16 million outputs from just 3 basic inputs. So why are you complaining that there are only 8 basic inputs in 4E, given the number of outputs that can result?
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Indeed. The first time I saw the power write-up, I wonder how those "odd" spells would work. Would they be relegated to Rituals?
Then I read the Bigby's Icy Grasp write-up. And my skepticism went away.
The concept was sound and still allows those "odd-ball" magical effects that always made D&D magic so different from, say, Shadowrun magic. If you know one Shadowrun combat spell, you basically knew them all.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Then I read the Bigby's Icy Grasp write-up. And my skepticism went away.
The concept was sound and still allows those "odd-ball" magical effects that always made D&D magic so different from, say, Shadowrun magic. If you know one Shadowrun combat spell, you basically knew them all.
True, the D&D magic system is probably one of the most quirkiest, I'm also glad that they conserved some of the quirky spells, though I hoped a bit that they'd tie more powers to the stunt system a bit more explicitly, so you could get more freeform-style magic (I mean it works, but it's a bit clunky).
However, if a rogue, wizard, and fighter, all with proficiency in the same weapon (all of them are eladrin, so they all have longswords) the difference is only the variance in Str score +1 (for the fighter wpn talent). This is a large deviation from the difference in Thac0 or Bab that existed previously. (Again, this was needed to give fighters combat superiority, something technically not needed in an era of fighter powers and class abilities.) The oddity comes in those weird corner cases (lets say our three eladrin all have the same str score, so the fighter is only +1 to hit better than the wizard when making an opportunity attack) though in play it typically seems much more varied (due to wizards having higher int and rogues higher dex, emphasizing those scores over str)
The Fighter's +1 to hit better than the wizard on that opportunity attack if his Wisdom is 10-11. Otherwise, he's got a bigger difference. Plus the fighter stops movement if he hits with that opp attack, and can mark the target whether he hits or misses (potentially enabling a Combat Challenge attack against that opponent later in the turn).
These are much larger differences at low levels than the BAB/THAC0 difference from prior editions, and except for the Wisdom bonus, carry over to other basic attacks with any weapon (melee or ranged). Even at high levels, the difference is pretty big, especially if the Fighter pumps his wisdom. And gets even larger if the Wizard and Fighter don't maintain strength parity. Etc.
__________________ "I gave her an egg, and some flowers, but she still won't marry me!"
The Inclusion Hypothesis: For every x, the statement "x does not belong in D&D" is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonely Tylenol
I didn't sign up to play this game so that I could spend all my time doing clerical work.
Granted it doesn't exist now, but an instant kill spell from a utility spell is what I call creativity!
Unfortunately, that's the kind of creativity that I absolutely don't like to see in my games. Stone To Mud may be a borderline case, there's been more extreme 'creative' abuses of spells in the past. This kind of creativity is part of the reason why 3E became so complicated because it tried to prevent any loopholes.
Thinking of a clever trick that allows a spell to be way more effective than its level indicates shouldn't be possible, even if it seems to be fine by RAW. To exaggerate the point:
Being able to turn a cantrip into an auto-kill spell is not desirable.
Creative uses of spells must always be in line with the spells' level. And it's not limited to spells either. There's a reason the 4E DMG suggests a damage progression for freestyle maneuvers. Thinking out of the box is fun - provided it doesn't imbalance the game.
Not really when it is just the same 7 effects mixed with X[W] damage.
You are still only doing one of 7 effects and/or some damage.
Care to list these 7 effects?
Because I can see powers that do...
Push
Pull
Slide
Force Movement
Heal
Give temporary hit points
Blind
Deafen
Daze
Dominate
Immobilize
Slow
Stun
Knock prone
Weaken
Mark
Deal Damage in the X[W] mode
Deal Damage via zones
Deal Ongoing Damage
Deal damage in other means
I see powers that allow for flight
I see powers that allow for teleport
I see powers that give bonuses to skill checks
I see powers that give bonuses to defenses
and I could go on.
What are these limited seven effects you are talking about?
Unfortunately, that's the kind of creativity that I absolutely don't like to see in my games. Stone To Mud may be a borderline case, there's been more extreme 'creative' abuses of spells in the past. This kind of creativity is part of the reason why 3E became so complicated because it tried to prevent any loopholes.
Thinking of a clever trick that allows a spell to be way more effective than its level indicates shouldn't be possible, even if it seems to be fine by RAW. To exaggerate the point:
Being able to turn a cantrip into an auto-kill spell is not desirable.
Creative uses of spells must always be in line with the spells' level. And it's not limited to spells either. There's a reason the 4E DMG suggests a damage progression for freestyle maneuvers. Thinking out of the box is fun - provided it doesn't imbalance the game.
The thing is that "level" wasn't meant to imply some power rating, but power expenditure.
A level 9 spell took a LOT of power from the mage to create it. Often those effects could be mundane, or tremendous hazards for anyone near it.
The shift is that level is now considered the amount of damage it can do.
Stone to Mud was placed at a level for it to do its job. Create X' sq of mud from stone. The fact the enemy was standing on stone and got trapped in the mud when it was turned BACK into stone was their own problem and poor tactics.
It also in now way imbalances the game because the DM knows EXACLTY what the players are packing, and should be able to be prepared for it. Likewise when the PCs and NPCs/monsters share similar, then the players know what the DM could be packing via the approved list of books that they are on their own to know what to look out for.
The false sense of balance in some power rating being now called level is flawed design. It limits creativity on every level. Basically turning the game of D&D into "Mother May I?"
The DM has a hard road to walk, and that has always been so with the powers of magic, and should be so in that a DM should be able to handle those cases of magic used in a new way. The whole idea of spells only for attack really sickens me more than any well thought out plan I had as a DM getting screwd up because a player outsmarted me. I love for players to outsmart me because that is where the DM gets enjoyment knowing the players have payed attention to both him and the rules, and found something interesting and entertaining to do for all the other players.
I appluad that rather than condemn it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagpuss
Care to list these 7 effects?
Because I can see powers that do...
Push
Pull
Slide
Force Movement
Heal
Give temporary hit points
Blind
Deafen
Daze
Dominate
Immobilize
Slow
Stun
Knock prone
Weaken
Mark
Deal Damage in the X[W] mode
Deal Damage via zones
Deal Ongoing Damage
Deal damage in other means
I see powers that allow for flight
I see powers that allow for teleport
I see powers that give bonuses to skill checks
I see powers that give bonuses to defenses
and I could go on.
What are these limited seven effects you are talking about?
& was a number pulled out of a hat, but your list is padded excesively with the same things over and over.
you have 4 different "move" effects. Push is Pull in the opposite direction. Slide is push or pull in the direction of your choice. All of them are forced movement.
1- Move
So while you can give the effects all special names for little quirks, many are still the same thing.
Move, Buff, Prevent from moving, etc, and you see there aren't really that many things there that powers do.
The point is that the powers focus on only 3 things. Effect, damage, or damage+effect.
In the case of the wizard directly, that is kind of silly. But it requires talking about rituals to fully discuss what a wizard is, and the fact that a wizard was halved to allow all classes to take some of his "powers" is another problem.
The effects wouldn't be so bad to have if they were not built for combat, like all powers are.
"Fly" is even designed with combat in mind for its duration, but at least it has a real timer added to it. to make it something more than another generic combat function.
It is one of the better designed powers because of that. But it needs to lose the Feather Fall effect and let people fall on their own like those forgetting the duration and range should.
The point is that the powers focus on only 3 things. Effect, damage, or damage+effect.
But then so were player's options in every edition in D&D. Just now martial classes like the Fighter and Rogue have much greater access to effects, in earlier editions only wizards had such a range of effects.
Hmm. Is Stone to Mud not an "effect"? Is Entangle not an effect? Is Web not an effect?
What spells of earlier editions did not use a damage + effect concept?
Heck, Trip, Disarm or Bullrush are not even spells, they are plain effects.
And all these powers would also work in 4E. Some are fully replicated, even - Web, for example.
The only difference is that 4E has more powers that mix damage and effect, and less powers that have just one of them.
A power to trip would also deal some damage (and why shouldn't it? Dropping someone to the ground can't be painless for him, nor is he particularly "lucky" or showing favor of the divine...)
Some spells still just create an effect - Web, Sleep, Cure Light Wounds... Others have both...
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
My point in bringing up the combat resolution system is the weirdness of wizards having good "to hits" now, since they need them for magic. In fact, there is little difference between a wizard, rogue, and fighter all striking with a weapon (barring strength score differences)
Well first off unless he's forced to make a Basic Melee Attack, a Rogue is likely to be using Dexterity rather than Strength when he hits with a weapon (unless he's brutal), and the Wizards isn't likely to ever use a weapon when he has much better at-wills to chose from.
The Fighter is also more likely to hit due to his higher strength, access to military weapons and when he does is likely to be doing some secondary effect like cleave or pushing the person back.
Sure there seems little difference if you look at Basic Attacks, but then basic attacks are rarely used by most classes. If you look at the At-Wills and various other powers there are noticeable difference even among the martial class.
But then so were player's options in every edition in D&D. Just now martial classes like the Fighter and Rogue have much greater access to effects, in earlier editions only wizards had such a range of effects.
Why? Did you disallow your fighter and rogue PCs to use magic items? Did you disallow them from capturing someone and tying them up? (Immobile, prone, etc)
How do you do these things OUTSIDE of the powers?
There is no more access to effects, but less as you are told if/when you can create this effect by having a specific power, and the effect going off under the proper terms of the power miss/hit/sustain/etc.
Why? Did you disallow your fighter and rogue PCs to use magic items?
They can now achieve a lot of the effects without dependence on magic items which is a good thing in my opinion. In 3rd Ed particular a character was as defined by his items as much as anything else.
Quote:
Did you disallow them from capturing someone and tying them up? (Immobile, prone, etc)
Nothing stops players tying opponents up in 4th Ed, but now they can do things like land a blow to their leg to slow an opponent. Perhaps you could allow characters to do that in 3rd or earlier editions but there weren't any rules there to support that. There are rules there to support that in 4th.
Quote:
How do you do these things OUTSIDE of the powers?
Skill Stunts, common sense, DM fiat, in other cases you don't allow it. Part of the problem in 3rd Ed and earlier editions was if you allowed someone half an opponents movement by hamstringing them, in one fight, what was to stop them doing it again, and again, and soon a exploit that is effective becomes very boring as it is used so often. There weren't rules to support much more than just hitting the opponent, and where their were (like tripping) those rules could be exploited by certain character builds to lead to very repetitive and tedious tactics.
Quote:
There is no more access to effects, but less as you are told if/when you can create this effect by having a specific power, and the effect going off under the proper terms of the power miss/hit/sustain/etc.
There are better rules to support access to effects. Before it was DM fiat, and what players could get away with, or rules that could be exploited with various builds or characters going nova and resting after every encounter.
Quote:
It is a much more closed system.
Yet actually they have made clearly the option for DM fiat, skill stunts and the like in the rulebooks than ever before, and actually made more options available for more character types than in any other edition.
I'll ask you the same question take something like
Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7 You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Effect: Each target must shift 2 and end adjacent to you, if possible. A target that can’t end adjacent to you doesn’t move. You can then attack any targets that are adjacent to you (close burst 1).
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
How would you do something like that without powers? In 2nd or 3rd Ed?
I'll ask you the same question take something like
Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7 You call your opponents toward you and deliver a blow they will never forget.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Close burst 3
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Effect: Each target must shift 2 and end adjacent to you, if possible. A target that can’t end adjacent to you doesn’t move. You can then attack any targets that are adjacent to you (close burst 1).
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
How would you do something like that without powers? In 2nd or 3rd Ed?
What exactly are you trying to do?
Emulate the entirety of this power?
What is the goal of this power that you wish to achieve in a previous edition. Break downt he components YOU see in it that need to be done.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
