The Little Raven
First Post
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
The race auras are my least favorite detail so far. +1 to Perception when within a certain radius strikes me as a low-umph fiddly bit which needs to be excised.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E Are 4E powers mimicking poor playability of Dodge?
- Thread starter broghammerj
- Start date
The race auras are my least favorite detail so far. +1 to Perception when within a certain radius strikes me as a low-umph fiddly bit which needs to be excised.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Mourn said:
I intend to give Elves the Trance ability instead. Yes, the Eladrin already have it, but the two races are cousins, and the idea of Elves that need to sleep bothers me. This will allow Elves to keep watch while the party rests, which plays into their perceptive nature.
The Little Raven
First Post
Falling Icicle said:
I'm not sure what I'll do to replace it yet, but I know I'm probably going to ditch it (after I play with it, first). I'll also probably be removing the half-elf... entirely. I don't like when they present half-breeds as full-fledged races, especially when the result is entirely unlike either parent (half-elves seem nothing like either elves or humans).
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
Mourn said:
Wow. This is quite unusual. I'm not used to us being in agreement.
I think that Half-Elves should have been in the Monster Manual, as an example of Half-race rules. I also find it very odd that they don't resemble either parent. I think half-breeds should simply chose 2 racial advantages from each parent (within certain guidelines).
And now that Elves were split into Elves and Eladrin, where are the Half-Eladrin? *Sigh,* I really wish they had just left Elves as they were. There really isn't anything wrong with a race that likes both magic AND hugging trees...
If dodge was +5 to ac, no one would ever, ever forget it.
The bonuses these days are actually relevant. And there aren't that many of them at one time. Sure, the cleric can give you +2 to attack, and the warlord can do the same, but unless you play the game with a giant pile of Leader characters this isn't going to be a problem.
Lets assume a party with only one Leader. Make it a cleric. How many bonuses can we really pile on someone?
The Cleric can basically stick one bonus on per round, that lasts one round. Lets assume that the cleric also has some abilities that provide bonuses for entire encounters. So that's two buffs from the cleric.
The wizard has some buffs. Most of them appear to be things like "minor action to sustain," and they're encounter powers.
So... as far as floating temporary bonuses go, we can expect about 3 MAX from outside your character. Plus the usual stuff like flanking or opponent's who have been penalized in some way, but the DM takes care of the latter of those two.
The fact that so many buffs are 1 round duration or are "minor action to sustain" puts a natural cap on how much can be active at one time. And the fact that bonuses are bigger (which is only reasonable, honestly) makes remembering them something that's worth you're time.
The bonuses these days are actually relevant. And there aren't that many of them at one time. Sure, the cleric can give you +2 to attack, and the warlord can do the same, but unless you play the game with a giant pile of Leader characters this isn't going to be a problem.
Lets assume a party with only one Leader. Make it a cleric. How many bonuses can we really pile on someone?
The Cleric can basically stick one bonus on per round, that lasts one round. Lets assume that the cleric also has some abilities that provide bonuses for entire encounters. So that's two buffs from the cleric.
The wizard has some buffs. Most of them appear to be things like "minor action to sustain," and they're encounter powers.
So... as far as floating temporary bonuses go, we can expect about 3 MAX from outside your character. Plus the usual stuff like flanking or opponent's who have been penalized in some way, but the DM takes care of the latter of those two.
The fact that so many buffs are 1 round duration or are "minor action to sustain" puts a natural cap on how much can be active at one time. And the fact that bonuses are bigger (which is only reasonable, honestly) makes remembering them something that's worth you're time.
Pale Jackal
First Post
Mourn said:
Agreed. Not to mention, as another poster here has noted:
What's better than a half-elf diplomat? 12 half-elf diplomats!
The diplomat thing is inconsequential, but yes, the auras are really dumb.
I will say I am disgusted with the elven perception aura. That kind of garbage should have been shot and buried, small aura bonuses are just plain annoying.
Further, I've seen bards that granted by +3 bonuses to attack and damage (a huge bonus to fighters!!) and they still are forced time and time again to remind the party about those numbers.
So with that in mind, I can agree that situational bonuses can be a bit of a pain to keep track of. But on the other hand, what's the alternative?
I could have day long buff spells on. Sorry, I'm tired of the buff fests that occurred before adventuring sessions. Situational buffs keep combat dynamic, and don't force me to make 16 different annotations to my character sheet every game session.
However, from my thoughts above, I think the concern about situational buffs is very real. The key will be to keep the number of them at any one time small. A couple of buffs I can handle, but if I'm tracking 4 buffs, 2 debuffs and the like, the system starts to fail.
One thing I do think 4e is doing well with is the timing of saving throws. All spell effects occur at the end of the AFFECTED PERSON's TURN. This is important, because no longer do the wizards have to keep track of all the crazy effects each turn. The affected person takes the spell effect, and then rolls a saving throw to determine if the duration remains. Everything is consolidated to that person's turn, which I think will be a welcome change in the new edition.
Further, I've seen bards that granted by +3 bonuses to attack and damage (a huge bonus to fighters!!) and they still are forced time and time again to remind the party about those numbers.
So with that in mind, I can agree that situational bonuses can be a bit of a pain to keep track of. But on the other hand, what's the alternative?
I could have day long buff spells on. Sorry, I'm tired of the buff fests that occurred before adventuring sessions. Situational buffs keep combat dynamic, and don't force me to make 16 different annotations to my character sheet every game session.
However, from my thoughts above, I think the concern about situational buffs is very real. The key will be to keep the number of them at any one time small. A couple of buffs I can handle, but if I'm tracking 4 buffs, 2 debuffs and the like, the system starts to fail.
One thing I do think 4e is doing well with is the timing of saving throws. All spell effects occur at the end of the AFFECTED PERSON's TURN. This is important, because no longer do the wizards have to keep track of all the crazy effects each turn. The affected person takes the spell effect, and then rolls a saving throw to determine if the duration remains. Everything is consolidated to that person's turn, which I think will be a welcome change in the new edition.
IceFractal
First Post
I'm not convinced that "abilities which last one round" or aura-abilities are really easier than abilities with X/level durations. In most cases, those abilties lasted the entire combat, so it was pretty simple to keep track of them - at the beginning of combat (or after the first round), note down your characters attack/damage/AC/saves with buffs applied, and then just use that.
Now you've got to remember that the Warlord just granted you a +3 to attack, and the Wizard granted you a +2 AC, but you've moved more than 30' from the Cleric, so you no longer are getting that save bonus, and the damage bonus you had from last round is gone. And since the modifiers are changing each round, you can't just write down the end result bonus.
As far as consequentiality - sure, some of the bonuses are consequential. But not all of them. The Elf perception bonus is the worst offender, but I've seen lots of +1 or +2 bonuses that aren't worth the work required to keep track of them, and can't just be integrated into characters' stats because they're conditional, or only on some of the time.
Now you've got to remember that the Warlord just granted you a +3 to attack, and the Wizard granted you a +2 AC, but you've moved more than 30' from the Cleric, so you no longer are getting that save bonus, and the damage bonus you had from last round is gone. And since the modifiers are changing each round, you can't just write down the end result bonus.
As far as consequentiality - sure, some of the bonuses are consequential. But not all of them. The Elf perception bonus is the worst offender, but I've seen lots of +1 or +2 bonuses that aren't worth the work required to keep track of them, and can't just be integrated into characters' stats because they're conditional, or only on some of the time.
crow81 said:In 3.5 you had two characters that come to mind that did this the bard and later the marshal. Half the time the bonuses don't get added in and the bard player become a broken record "don't forget the +X" 4e looks like it compounds that with multiple classes adding bonuses every round
If I were you and was set on playing 4e I'd be worried.
Sticking with 3.5 I sleep easier
The major problem with Dodge, is that the DM had to remember the little +1. With most 4E mods the PLAYERS have to remember it. It is much easier for the player to remember everything considering what they want to do, than the DM having to think of the players stats on top of trying to play monsters intellegently against all of the players.
JesterOC
Actually, keep in mind the math behind the system.
A +1 bonus seems to be a CONSISTENT 2 level increase due to the math. For example, a fighter from pre-4E with a +1 to hit from a spell is attacking as a fighter one level higher but in 4E, due to the half-level math, he's actually is attacking as a fighter TWO levels higher than before.
A +3 bonus in pre-4E is akin to a 6 level increase for the 4E character. Thus even the +2 bonus looks like it will mean a lot more than before.
That said, while I don't share the OP's concern directly (The short term buffs/bonuses I have no trouble keeping track of since you used the power DIRECTLY the round before most likely), I do agree with others who hate the Elves +1 Perception bonus.
Seriously, even though the bonus is akin to a +2 bonus pre-4E, the fact that it is situationally limited and that you wouldn't be using the power in the round before is tantamount to forgetting about it.
A +1 bonus seems to be a CONSISTENT 2 level increase due to the math. For example, a fighter from pre-4E with a +1 to hit from a spell is attacking as a fighter one level higher but in 4E, due to the half-level math, he's actually is attacking as a fighter TWO levels higher than before.
A +3 bonus in pre-4E is akin to a 6 level increase for the 4E character. Thus even the +2 bonus looks like it will mean a lot more than before.
That said, while I don't share the OP's concern directly (The short term buffs/bonuses I have no trouble keeping track of since you used the power DIRECTLY the round before most likely), I do agree with others who hate the Elves +1 Perception bonus.
Seriously, even though the bonus is akin to a +2 bonus pre-4E, the fact that it is situationally limited and that you wouldn't be using the power in the round before is tantamount to forgetting about it.
