D&D 4E Forked Thread: Some Thoughts on 4e

[Milambus]

Two points: One, I don't care about awesome, I only care about interesting and versatile.

Awesome can be a function of interesting and versatility, but thats nitpicking so lets move on.

It really is not about the Wizard being or not being able to do any one thing. It's about the Wizard being able to do things other than damage.

See this is where your argument always falls apart for me. The Wizard can still do many other things than just damage. In fact I would say that he is supposed to do other things than just pure damage.

It seems like if a spell does some damage then you completely dismiss it as just a "damage" spell. While I look at the spell and see the other cool effects it may do in addition to the damage. For many powers the damage is a secondary effect in my mind. "Summon a big wall of fire... oh and do some damage if things get close to it."

It's that Wizards have a small handful of spells which they actually use and it makes them repetitive.

How many spells did you normally have a level 1 in 3.x? At level 5? (I use those levels since they are ones you have used as a comparison before.)

Repetitive appears to be fun for some people. It's not fun for others.

Maybe its just me, but I haven't seen 4e being any more repetitive than 3.x was.

For some people, the fun of playing spell casters in 1E through 3.5 was the fact that the player could focus on a large variety of options. He couldn't cast them all in the same day, but he could mix it up. Now, he can't.

Yes, the wizard can no longer learn an unlimited number of spells now. I agree with you there. But he does learn more than any other class, and can take a feat to learn even more. I personally wouldn't have a problem with a house rule allowing Wizards to be able to have all of the Wizards spells in their spellbook, and just being able to memorize the normal amount per day.

However, one of the main design goals for 4e is to streamline play. Making rounds go faster and making it so that all of the players were equally involved. At higher levels of 3.x a round could be:

Fighter: Umm, I attack the guy in front of me. *rolls dice* (30 seconds elapsed)
Rogue: I sneak up on that guy. *rolls dice* Now I stab him! *rolls dice* (60 seconds elapsed)
Monk: I run up to that guy and Flurry of Blows for 80 attacks! *rolls many dice* (120 seconds elapsed)
Cleric: I heal the fighter... again. *rolls dice* (30 seconds elapsed)
Wizard: Well, I could use this spell... no, wait I could use this spell... no this one is really only good against things that are flying... ok, how about this... (eventually the wizard decides on a spell, 5 mins elapsed)
DM: Fighter its your turn.
Fighter: Zzzzz
DM: *throws something at Fighter*

(Full disclosure, monks are my favorite class which is why he makes an appearance here. In 4e, his place would be taken by a Ranger using the the new quarterstaff feat from the Gladiator article from this months Dragon.)

The player could prep for the unexpected by spending money to make scrolls. He had options.

And I say that he still has options, but yes they have been reduced. Part of that is that we are early into the release of 4e. More Spells will come out for a Wizard. In fact, have you looked at the dragon article a few months back that had new Wizard spells?

That aspect of the game has been neutered and homogenized. When all you have is hammers on your toolbelt, every problem is a nail.

Yup.

By the way, I had a blast playing my Wizard for the first few months. It's just that for myself and other players at my table, the same 'ol same 'ol starting getting old. I can definitely appreciate that people are having a lot of fun playing their wizards.

I have to wonder if it was the encounters that you were facing that forced each of them of them to be solved in the same way. If each encounter is "hit this nail", then all powers look like hammers?

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I'm with you Karinsdad. 4E magic system is boring. The only people that like the new magic system are those that weren't particularly good at the old one or never bothered to play a caster.

Even priests were far more interesting in 3E.

Wow, it's not often that a post is totally irrelevant, completely false, and utterly uncalled for all at once. Seriously, how insulting can you be?

 

[Danceofmasks]

My wizard disenchants plot devices.

 

[AndrewRogue]

Karin's Dad! I do have a direct question for you.

As someone who does understand something of where you are coming from (since 4th has taken me some adjustment to get used to mentally), can you answer a question for me?

How would you reconcile the fact that the Wizard can have a multitude of options/abilities in comparison to the other classes? How do you keep pure versatility from eclipsing the other party members and avoid the "Batman" issue?

Furthering that, could you perhaps explain a little more in-depth what you definitions of creativity and clever spell use in combat amount to? I'm curious to see what you would have considered such in 3.X so that I can understand a little better your issues with 4th.

Thanks. ^_^

 

[KarinsDad]

How would you reconcile the fact that the Wizard can have a multitude of options/abilities in comparison to the other classes? How do you keep pure versatility from eclipsing the other party members and avoid the "Batman" issue?

One option is to put a cost on the miscellaneous spells. For example, using minor ritual spells with the component cost in combat and with no component cost out of combat. This would also allow any PC to use the Rituals if they take the feat and spend the gold.

It's effectively a way to put "scrolls" back into the game system.

Furthering that, could you perhaps explain a little more in-depth what you definitions of creativity and clever spell use in combat amount to? I'm curious to see what you would have considered such in 3.X so that I can understand a little better your issues with 4th.

Illusions are the obvious choice in 3.x. Illusion of a floor over a pit. Levitate combined with an illusion is sometimes good.

Illusions are definitely good against cavalry. Even if the rider knows that a wall is fake, the horse will never charge through it.

Invisibility, even though nerfed in every single version, was good for all kinds of stuff.

Rock to Mud on ceiling over enemies followed by Dispel Magic.

In 2E, Halfling PC casts Darkness 2 feet above the ground. Enemies are blind, Halfling ducks down a bit and can see fine. But that trick got nerfed in 3.5.

Ditto for Silence, but enemies soon figure that one out.

Any sort of stunning or sleep type spell on flying creatures.

We once had a player use Command to tell a guy in plate in a barroom fight to masterbate. The DM rolled to see if the guy knew what the word meant.

Shrink Item on a boulder. Place the small cloth rock above a doorframe. If an intruder enters, say the command word. Boulder drops on foe. Cloth rock can be carried every day and put above a doorframe before sleeping every night.

Grease had good uses. Nobody ever makes it up a ramp that has Grease on it.

Passwall had good uses. Guy on bridge, cast Hold Person followed by Passwall. He has no chance to catch himself.

Tiny Hut = instant invisibility / concealment. Multiple range PCs can shoot / cast spells from inside it and enemies outside have no idea which square to target.

Charms and Suggestions are good.

Even obvious stuff like summoning a monster as flank or to hold the line.


There is just so much more to DND 3.x spells than the doing damage and moving enemies around or knocking enemies prone of 4E.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Illusions are definitely good against calvary. Even if the rider knows that a wall is fake, the horse will never charge through it.

Bloody cavalry!

Calvary was the site of the crucifixion. Soldiers on horseback are cavalry.

In the commentary on the LotR DVDs, Brad Dourif rambles on and on about how the Rohirrim are a nation of calvary, and how one advantage the allied armies have against Sauron is their Rohan calvary, since Mordor doesn't have any calvary... over and over until I just want to shake him.

It's bloody cavalry!

Ahem. Carry on.

-Hyp.

 

[Zustiur]

It all boils down to options.
To achieve homogeneous balance 4E has instituted a fairly clear formula.
[taking 1st level only here just for the sake of brevity]
4 at wills, each dealing [w].
4 Encounters, each dealing [2w]
4 Dailies, each dealing [2w]+effect or [3w]

Yes I know it's more complex than that but follow on for now...

How do you fit an illusionist into that pattern? You need to create 12 1st level spells that use the illusion keyword to... deal damage.

One of the things I've been looking forward to playing in 3E is a utility wizard. One that has very few if any damaging spells. I was thinking illusion would be a good way to go, but that's just one option of many, including a non specialist wizard that happens to choose non damaging spells.
Please explain to me how I can create a utility wizard in 4E? How can I choose spells that aren't 'damage + effect', or just plain damage?

Where are the options to play characters that can incapacitate an opponent without dealing damage?
I feel that this is the essence of KarinsDad's responses. Sure you can be creative with the spells provided. You can recolour them, reskin them and do all sorts of wonderful things with their effects, but ultimately they (almost) all deal damage to grind the creature down to 0hp.

Imagine the pacifist spellcaster in a roleplay heavy campaign - Need to get past a guard? Hold person.
Need to win friends and influence people? Charm person
Need to slow the angry mob without killing or maiming (and thus making them an angrier mob!)? Entangle works well.
All of these options are missing. Not by total omission, but by generalization. The pacifist is an extreme example, and not the crux of the argument on it's own. I recognize that pacifists are not what DND is about. I merely pose it as a way of underlining the point. Some of those spells still exist, but you're restricted to using them so rarely that they may as well not be.

Much as in the threads about craft and profession skills; The point is not that those skills are especially useful in the generic DND game, it's that they provide options to move away from the generic DND play style. More room to move = more potential for fun.

The rules of 4E focus much more heavily on 'find monster, kill, loot' than recent editions (I can't speak for 1E and earlier). That rubs a lot of players up the wrong way. DND has moved from a roleplaying system towards a combat simulator. This is where the MMO feel kicks in. It's an inevitable comparison given the prevalence of such games at present. Personally I prefer the boardgame comparison, because it's a better representation of the balance we're dealing with here.

The massively boosted hitpoints for monsters goes a long way to exaggerate the problem. In my second session of 4E I was already sick of having to wear down kobolds. They're kobolds for goodness sake! Why aren't they dying? Maybe we can get rid of them some way other than knocking down their HP... Nope.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where are the options to play characters that can incapacitate an opponent without dealing damage?
I feel that this is the essence of KarinsDad's responses. Sure you can be creative with the spells provided. You can recolour them, reskin them and do all sorts of wonderful things with their effects, but ultimately they (almost) all deal damage to grind the creature down to 0hp.

Imagine the pacifist spellcaster in a roleplay heavy campaign...

The pacifist spellcaster can use effects that deal hit point damage without inflicting physical wounds.

Hit points are used as a measure of whether or not someone is still a capable opponent. You want to incapacitate them? Do it by removing their status as a capable opponent - by reducing their hit points to zero. That might be by hitting them with an axe, or it might be by sapping their morale with a pacifistic spell that inhibits their will to fight.

Hit point damage doesn't have to mean physically injuring a creature.

-Hyp.

 

[Shadeydm]

However, one of the main design goals for 4e is to streamline play. Making rounds go faster and making it so that all of the players were equally involved. At higher levels of 3.x a round could be:

Wizard: Well, I could use this spell... no, wait I could use this spell... no this one is really only good against things that are flying... ok, how about this... (eventually the wizard decides on a spell, 5 mins elapsed)

This is so clearly a problem player and has nothing to do with edition. Players need to be prepared to take thier turn when it comes regardless of class or edition. I can just as easily type out a paragraph about a 4E fighter who takes 10 minutes counting out squares and deciding where he wants to move on the battlefield or which at will or encounter power he wants to use, which target he wants to mark etc etc. It would be equally as bogus as what you posted here.

Again nothing to do with edition or class, nice try but no cigar...

 

[KarinsDad]

It's bloody cavalry!

Must have touched a nerve.