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

[Remathilis]

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).

Welll....

The initial debate that in AD&D and 3e, I could make a wizard that know's no combat magic. A diviner or something. And that I can't do that in 4e. Some people have chimed in saying they CAN make a 4e mage with no attack magic, but did so by giving him lots of non-lethal (sleep/hold) or indirect (charm/buff) attack magic. That caused some to people to claim that non-lethal/indirect magic is still damage and/or combat magic, with varying degrees of what constitutes an attack, damage, or combat spell. Since then, its been a semantic debate over the meanings of "damage", "combat" and "combat spell" with some snide ad hominems tossed in for good measure.

Everyone on the same page?

And as an aside, every time I read your username, I read it as "SEGA Genesis."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Everyone on the same page?

if that ever happened one of the Mods would have a heart attack...

And as an aside, every time I read your username, I read it as "SEGA Genesis."

I do that too...

 

[Sage Genesis]

Welll....

The initial debate that in AD&D and 3e, I could make a wizard that know's no combat magic. A diviner or something. And that I can't do that in 4e. Some people have chimed in saying they CAN make a 4e mage with no attack magic, but did so by giving him lots of non-lethal (sleep/hold) or indirect (charm/buff) attack magic. That caused some to people to claim that non-lethal/indirect magic is still damage and/or combat magic, with varying degrees of what constitutes an attack, damage, or combat spell. Since then, its been a semantic debate over the meanings of "damage", "combat" and "combat spell" with some snide ad hominems tossed in for good measure.

Everyone on the same page?

And as an aside, every time I read your username, I read it as "SEGA Genesis."

I was the one who made that non-lethal mage and it was in response to Marshall, backing up his own response to GM when he claimed you couldn't make a 4e mage with more than half non-damaging powers. Just want to set the record straight, it wasn't done to prove anything about your diviner.

The following, however, is.

The way I see it, your definition of your diviner rests on a negatively phrased condition. This character can't do combat magic. (Leaving aside for a moment the debate about what combat magic is.) In 4e, which wanted to remove trap options and accidental power imbalances, that is not a character you can viably make. I say this as someone who likes 4e, in case that matters. It was not designed for that sort of thing.

4e took a different route by defining characters in a positively phrased condition. In other words: this character can do a lot of divination magic. And yes, with the proper rituals (and maybe the Divination Mastery feat) you can make a diviner. A good diviner, even. There's plenty of divination rituals to work with, some even allowing divinations that previous editions didn't have.

It's just that your diviner would also be able to contribute in a fight. If you adhere to a negatively phrased definition of your character, that is a problem. If you adhere to a positively phrased one, it isn't. (NB: the word "negative" is not used here as a synonym for "bad" but as an "absence".)

Personally I adhere to the positively phrased definitions. To me, it's like buying a cheese and finding they threw in a free bottle of milk with it. The cheese is the same, it's not any smaller or of lower quality, I just happened to get an added bonus. But I respect that for others this might be different and I don't intend to convince people that they must adjust their point of view.



And about the name thing, yeah that's part of the joke.

 

[Mistwell]

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...

You can stop there. That part is covered by the feat.

"If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow. You may ask a defeated creature to give you an oath of surrender or noninterference in exchange for its life. If the creature breaks this oath to you, you can allow your allies to deal with the creature as they see fit without breaking their oaths or your vow of nonviolence. "

So, the feat is clear. Causing a foe to become helpless is not damage and does not break the vow, in itself. But allowing them to then be killed does break the vow - which is what I said earlier, is that it depends on what you do with the paralyzed or slept victim, and the spell itself is not damage.

Here is the full text of the limit:

[sblock]To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes. You may not deal real damage or ability damage to such foes through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, pain effects, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death, suffering, or great harm. Your purity is so great that any ally of yours who slays a helpless or defenseless foe within 120 feet of you feels great remorse. Your ally takes a -1 morale penalty on his attack rolls for 1 hour per your character level. For each helpless foe slain, the attack penalty increases by 1, to a maximum equal to your character level. The duration of the increased penalty starts from the latest slaying. You may ask your allies to give you an oath that a helpless foe will not be slain. If the oath is sworn, an ally who later breaks the oath takes the penalty for doing so as if you were present. If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow. You may ask a defeated creature to give you an oath of surrender or noninterference in exchange for its life. If the creature breaks this oath to you, you can allow your allies to deal with the creature as they see fit without breaking their oaths or your vow of nonviolence. If you intentionally break your vow, you immediately and irrevocably lose the benefit of this feat. You may not take another feat to replace it. If you break your vow as a result of magical compulsion, you lose the benefit of this feat until you perform a suitable penance and receive an atonement spell.[/sblock]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was the one who made that non-lethal mage and it was in response to Marshall, backing up his own response to GM when he claimed you couldn't make a 4e mage with more than half non-damaging powers. Just want to set the record straight, it wasn't done to prove anything about your diviner.

I will admit to being flipent and being wrong...

The way I see it, your definition of your diviner rests on a negatively phrased condition. This character can't do combat magic. (Leaving aside for a moment the debate about what combat magic is.) In 4e, which wanted to remove trap options and accidental power imbalances, that is not a character you can viably make. I say this as someone who likes 4e, in case that matters. It was not designed for that sort of thing.

witch by the way is awesome... If the price of looseing traps is to loose a few other options, I could deal with it...

Personally I adhere to the positively phrased definitions. To me, it's like buying a cheese and finding they threw in a free bottle of milk with it. The cheese is the same, it's not any smaller or of lower quality, I just happened to get an added bonus. But I respect that for others this might be different and I don't intend to convince people that they must adjust their point of view.

Yes, the problem comes when someone looks and says "Well the milk isn't really free... so how much am I paying for milk I don't want? could I get double the cheese if the milk wasn;t there?"

And about the name thing, yeah that's part of the joke.

cool

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You can stop there. That part is covered by the feat.

"If you leave a helpless foe to be killed by your allies, you have broken your vow. You may ask a defeated creature to give you an oath of surrender or noninterference in exchange for its life. If the creature breaks this oath to you, you can allow your allies to deal with the creature as they see fit without breaking their oaths or your vow of nonviolence. "

So, the feat is clear. Causing a foe to become unconscious is not damage and does not break the vow, in itself. But allowing them to then be killed does break the vow - which is what I said earlier, is that it depends on what you do with the paralyzed or slept victim, and the spell itself is not damage.

I stand by my post, I would not if they played it straight count either as damage, and inless openly out of game discussed I would only give a warning the first time another PC killed someone... but I am pretty forgiving of this type of thing.


I also let players take back actions like this, so if the Player that kills someone was like "Oh man I didn't think about that..." I would let him take it back...

 

[Mistwell]

I stand by my post, I would not if they played it straight count either as damage, and inless openly out of game discussed I would only give a warning the first time another PC killed someone... but I am pretty forgiving of this type of thing.


I also let players take back actions like this, so if the Player that kills someone was like "Oh man I didn't think about that..." I would let him take it back...

You should read the full set of limitations I put in the cut (maybe you missed it as I was editing). You're free to make it a house rule of course, but I don't think the feat as written leaves any room for doubt. Causing a foe to become helpless through a sleep or hold spell, in itself, is not damage and does not break the oath. If someone then causes the helpless person death or damage, then it's a different story - but it's not the spell in that case which is breaking the oath, it's the later action.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I will admit to being flipent and being wrong...

In your defense (yeah, flip-flopping like a champ here!) the mage I made wouldn't be possible with just the first PHB. The mage is possible in 4e, meaning the state of the edition as it currently stands. A lot of people were put off 4e by their first impressions back in 2008 and aren't aware of how the game has improved. Which is perfectly understandable of course. I don't expect people to keenly follow and purchase supplements of an edition they initially have no interest in. I just wanted to demonstrate that the 4e of today is not the same as the one on launch.

 

[Marshall]

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...

Oops, Sorry. I was just taking the opportunity of your post to point out where some of the mis-information about 4e comes from. I guess it could have been read to infer that it was aimed at you, not my intention.

As to which class is an Abjurer, it depends on what you think an Abjurer is.
Pure defender? One who absorbs attacks/damage? Yeah, a shielding Swordmage works very well.
Defensive buffer? Artificer works wonders.
Area Warder? This, you can actually stick a Wizard into and there are plenty of Prismatic X powers to fill that style.
White Mage? Thats a pacifist cleric....

But as Sage said, you're going to end up with something useful to do in combat and its probably going to look like an attack, indirect or not.

 

[Incenjucar]

I will say that it's a perfectly legit criticism that 4E didn't offer as many atypical options as it could have, making many forms of play houserule-only, and that we could have used some Dragon articles designed to make combat-inept builds for those who want something less violence-oriented. This is also true of other editions, of course, since I don't think Rangers got many Bubble Bath spells, but 4E ensured that every character was combat-capable regardless of their focus, while other editions made no such guarantees of competence.

That said, this is a content issue, and not a system issue.