Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[thecasualoblivion]

A sprinkling of both would be nice. Thanks for calling my concerns about change crap, you are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.

I call it crap because you are being misleading. You are complaining about 4E mechanics when your real problem is the absence of things from 3E.

 

[Lacyon]

I call it crap because you are being misleading. You are complaining about 4E mechanics when your real problem is the absence of things from 3E.

I don't think he's really been all that misleading.

Maybe more hyperbolic than is useful, but not misleading.

 

[WalterKovacs]

1) Rituals are too costly and take too long to cast to come close to being as useful as a power. Utility powers need to available in time sensitive situations or they lose thier utility.

2) Beguiler = trick, misdirect, fool= cool and different type of caster

Beguiler= damage= lame ass might as well be a ranger type of caster.

So it was really lame that the beguiller from PHBII had all those whelm spells that did nonlethal damage ...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I call it crap because you are being misleading. You are complaining about 4E mechanics when your real problem is the absence of things from 3E.

While there were some things in 3E that didn't exactly thrill me the majority of magic still had some variety-at least in 3.0. 3.5 tried to squeeze it out little by little but thats another issue.

The main point I posted earlier:

At the very least, if the essence of what a spell does changes drastically then change the name to match the effect rather than slap "iconic" spell names onto craptastic effects that in no way represent the spell.

Examples:
Charm Person = Psychedelic Shock
Confusion = Orbital Mind Zap
Forcecage = Delaying Shock

I think keeping the old spell names for the effects produced by the 4E versions is far more misleading than anything I have said.

 

[Cadfan]

And the Whelm spells were added specifically because a character who can't actually deal damage doesn't mesh with the vast majority of games...

Anyways, its been surreal, but this is getting stupid. Take a look at the bard's "misdirected mark." It deals damage and has an effect. ZOMG! It must be the same as every other power in the game! Except the effect in question is to fool the target into thinking that it was attacked and "marked" by someone other than the caster. Its a wonderfully themed little "misdirection" attack. But apparently the fact that it does 1d8+Cha damage means we all have to pretend that its just the same as everything else.

The whole game is built like that. Different collections of powers do different things. As of right now, the best "psychic" character is probably the fey pact warlock- and it teleports, attacks its foe's mind and clouds their vision, and eventually learns to completely control their foe's actions. That's theme. It makes the character thematically different from other character types, and even manages to make the character tactically different as well. And it all stems from "damage + effect," because "effect" is a large, catchall category which no rational person could possibly proclaim to be "all the same."

 

[ExploderWizard]

So it was really lame that the beguiller from PHBII had all those whelm spells that did nonlethal damage ...

I can't comment on anything PHB II related. I never bought it or looked through it. I was commenting on a beguiler as a character concept rather than a class.

 

[Dausuul]

Reflavor them. Hit points aren't direct damage, so subtracting them doesn't have to involve flashy explosions and rays. Make them subtle, mental, internal.

You know, I see this a lot. And I wonder how many people are actually willing to do it. Reflavoring an entire class is a lot of work. You might as well say, "Rewrite the mechanics." Well, sure, I can do that, but it defeats the point - if I have to rewrite the book, that proves the book is inadequate to the task.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And the Whelm spells were added specifically because a character who can't actually deal damage doesn't mesh with the vast majority of games...

Anyways, its been surreal, but this is getting stupid. Take a look at the bard's "misdirected mark." It deals damage and has an effect. ZOMG! It must be the same as every other power in the game! Except the effect in question is to fool the target into thinking that it was attacked and "marked" by someone other than the caster. Its a wonderfully themed little "misdirection" attack. But apparently the fact that it does 1d8+Cha damage means we all have to pretend that its just the same as everything else.

The whole game is built like that. Different collections of powers do different things. As of right now, the best "psychic" character is probably the fey pact warlock- and it teleports, attacks its foe's mind and clouds their vision, and eventually learns to completely control their foe's actions. That's theme. It makes the character thematically different from other character types, and even manages to make the character tactically different as well. And it all stems from "damage + effect," because "effect" is a large, catchall category which no rational person could possibly proclaim to be "all the same."

I have not seen any bard stuff. A bard with a high percentage of damage effects is not very bardlike to me. The question of difference here is this:
Are any spells with damage + effect worth casting without the damage?

If the answer is no then effect is just window dressing.

 

[Lacyon]

Are any spells with damage + effect worth casting without the damage?

That depends on whether you want to defeat the target or not.

If the answer is no then effect is just window dressing.

That's an... odd... position to take.

 

[Darkthorne]

Dragon Disciple

Core prestige class. How would this be built in 4E? And yes I know Sorceror is not out. Some of the perks were permanent effects that would now most likely be consider utility powers but now those are limited in duration. Also what could be a valid alternate for the stat increases?