D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[Marshall]

We played a game in 3e we called the azrathal show... It had thee most broken
Batman style wizard he was an abjurer and he banned necromancy conjuration

Until prismatic spell levels (7 I think) had no spell that caused damage or really helped anything but def or divination... He carried no weapon... He could not be remade in 4e

A swordmage was perfect for the idea someone had based on him though...

....and this is where 4e lost most of its critics. Its not that you cant do the purely defensive buffer, its that you cant do it with a Wizard and only a small portion of the player base has the imagination to refluff the several classes that can do it as a Wizard. (and somewhat that "power source" ended up being more than fluff)

 

[Mistwell]

When you attack someone, you are doing some type of damage whether it's an actual physical blow or from a spell. If I hit you with a spell that puts you to sleep then I am attacking you and the damage is you are unconscious. Now you can describe damage another way but I look at the what happens after a successful attack as damage. Some posters here want to feign ignorance just to try and won their argument. I stated that in 4th edition you couldn't create a non combative character and I have yet to be proven wrong. Someone tried to do it and wasn't successful.

At the end of the day, we have people just not wanting to admit they are wrong.

"Damage" in this game is not a subjective term. There are all sorts of things that depend on whether or not something is damage. There are two things that are damage: hit point damage (which can be nonlethal or lethal, but both depend on your hit points), and ability score damage. That's it. Anything else is not damage, it's something else. Sleep does not cause damage, it causes sleep (a defined effect). Hold person does not cause damage, it causes paralysis (a defined effect). Levitate does not cause damage, it causes you to levitate (a defined effect). Teleport does not cause damage, it causes you to teleport (a defined effect) Polymorph does not cause damage, it causes you to polymorph (a defined effect). All of these are defined terms in the game. You don't get to redefine it to XunValdorl_of_Kilsek's personal definition of damage. It doesn't work that way, unless you make your own game, or house rule it.

I think what you did was conflate the defined term "attack" with the defined term "damage". Not all attacks cause damage. Some spells have a trigger for an attack, but not a trigger for damage. Other things trigger from damage. It's sometimes important to know the difference. For example, you'll need to know the terms pretty well to play that prestige class that requires that you not damage creatures (I think that's what it says, been years since I read it).

Playstyles are subjective, but "what is damage" isn't subjective, it's a game rule.

 

[Marshall]

By that definition, EVERY spell could be a combat spell, with the exception of read magic.

Well, yes. Isnt that what gets praised about pre 4e spellcasters? That you can use all these cool spells to do things they are not intended to?

But on a more serious note, Levitate is a 100% defense against melee monsters and Fly is enhanced movement speed as well as entrance into the 3d environment.

Fun fact: when you insist everything looks like a nail, you naturally wonder why people buy screwdrivers and wrenches instead of hammers.

Buff spells are buff spells, if someone is going to insist that Astral Seal, Direct the Strike, Hypnotism or Flame Arrows are attacks that cause damage.... I can point out just how nail shaped a lot screws and rivets are.

Not in 3.0 on. You can only cast it on objects, not people.

3e made that more clearly defined, but Light has been used for attacks.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

....and this is where 4e lost most of its critics. Its not that you cant do the purely defensive buffer, its that you cant do it with a Wizard and only a small portion of the player base has the imagination to refluff the several classes that can do it as a Wizard. (and somewhat that "power source" ended up being more than fluff)

try again please...

I am a big proponent of refluff... my bow ranger is a martial striker with a bow... I call that the same as a fighter with archery feats in 3.5... I even go farther and ran a Dresden Files game were (almost) everything was refluffed to fit the setting...

I ran a 4e game that there was no such thing as magic and the gods were anctiant aliens without the PCs knowing ahead of time and had to explain a Warlock, and Avenger, a Priest and a Ranger as my party... ok the ranger (scout I think the one from essentials that had the burst 1 that wasn't a burst one) didn't need any refluff... but the other three had to learn in game what they really were... and have it all be psionics. talk about a crisis of faith...

so no I'm not a 4e critic... in fact I get group with the other side more often then not.

so help me out, what class is an abjurer?

He had protective spells and divinations and lots of know skills, and didn't summon or mental maniputlate he just put up defenses...

 

[Mistwell]

Ah, here it is, the feat, "Vow of Nonviolence". "You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such foes through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. " So according to XunValdorl_of_Kilsek, does sleep and hold person violate the vow of the feat?

 

[Jacob Marley]

When you attack someone, you are doing some type of damage whether it's an actual physical blow or from a spell. If I hit you with a spell that puts you to sleep then I am attacking you and the damage is you are unconscious. Now you can describe damage another way but I look at the what happens after a successful attack as damage. Some posters here want to feign ignorance just to try and won their argument. I stated that in 4th edition you couldn't create a non combative character and I have yet to be proven wrong. Someone tried to do it and wasn't successful.

Damage is hit point reduction. Using a different definition when you're talking about a game with rules about damage is not helpful.

Incenjucar is mostly correct. The definition of damage is 3.x and 4e is pretty clearly laid out in the 3.5 Rules Compendium, page 17; and in the 4e Player's Handbook, page 276. Damage typically refers to the reduction of hit points, but also includes ability damage and energy drain. Sorry XunValdorl_of_Kilsek but your personal definitions are not relevant when we have actual game text.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ah, here it is, the feat, "Vow of Nonviolence". "You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such foes through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. " So according to XunValdorl_of_Kilsek, does sleep and hold person violate the vow of the feat?

I wasn't the one addressed, but since I have been grouped as enemy to all sides (man the middle sucks sometimes) I want to say It depends...

If I am DMing and a mage takes that feat and cast hold person then another player kills the held target I will give the mage a warning "That violated the vow but through no fault of your own... consider that..." if it happens again I would tell the Mage he may want to swap the feat... a third time I would bring the hammer down (I don't remember the negative for breaking the vow) same with sleep...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Incenjucar is mostly correct. The definition of damage is 3.x and 4e is pretty clearly laid out in the 3.5 Rules Compendium, page 17; and in the 4e Player's Handbook, page 276. Damage typically refers to the reduction of hit points, but also includes ability damage and energy drain. Sorry XunValdorl_of_Kilsek but your personal definitions are not relevant when we have actual game text.

then lets redevelop the question as intended (althought not well worded)

Can you take spells in 4e with little to no combat use but large misc use... even if you could creatively use them in a fight, you would have to have DM approval, no text in game is ment for combat? better?

 

[Remathilis]

Well, yes. Isnt that what gets praised about pre 4e spellcasters? That you can use all these cool spells to do things they are not intended to?

I go back to my chair analogy: A chair's primary use is to sit in. Because I could pick one up and hit you with it doesn't make it a weapon by definition.

But on a more serious note, Levitate is a 100% defense against melee monsters and Fly is enhanced movement speed as well as entrance into the 3d environment.

Its 100% useless in a dungeon with 10 ft ceilings. That's why I hate to call it a defensive buff. Its useful only when the situation is right, but as I said above, just because I can use it as a form of defense doesn't make it a combat spell, merely a spell with uses in combat.

Buff spells are buff spells, if someone is going to insist that Astral Seal, Direct the Strike, Hypnotism or Flame Arrows are attacks that cause damage.... I can point out just how nail shaped a lot screws and rivets are.

Hey, I'm not the one calling sleep damage!

4e has a lot more spells that are "combat" spells. I won't disagree there. I also saw its possible to but a non-combat (or at least, nonlethal) wizard as well. Points to them.

My point is that people are defining terms in very broad nets. If Sleep is a damaging spell or fly a combat buff, then no spell (or few spells) actually qualify as non-combat, which makes the definition useless. If I'm playing the wizard and I say "I'm prepping lots of combat magic" you're probably going to assume I have spells like Magic Missile, Fireball, or Summon Monster; not Light, Fly, or Dispel Magic.

3e made that more clearly defined, but Light has been used for attacks.

The problem when you're not arguing specific editions: I can argue from a d20-era PoV, you can argue AD&D, and someone else can argue 4e and we can use semantic tricks (like how light once had a combat use) to prove the other wrong.

 

[Sage Genesis]

then lets redevelop the question as intended (althought not well worded)

Can you take spells in 4e with little to no combat use but large misc use... even if you could creatively use them in a fight, you would have to have DM approval, no text in game is ment for combat? better?

Yes, but you can't exclusively take such spells. In addition to spells with little to no combat value you would also have spells with some to exclusive combat value. This was done intentionally. (Although strictly speaking you don't have to take powers so you can refrain from learning some spells, it's just that doing so wouldn't increase your non-combat utility.)

I don't think anybody ever claimed otherwise though? Everybody here knows that 4e makes combat competence all but guaranteed. The debate seems to center more around whether that's a good thing and whether this combat competence comes at the expense of non-combat competence (it doesn't).