Am I missing something? Spellcasters and armor?

[Victim]

I think that array is too many points. And wizards don't actually gain all that much AC from wearing heavy armor. A human starting with 16 base INT can get up to 26 INT by level 28 (without going demigod). So he gets +8 AC from INT. With a single feat for leather armor, he gets another +10 from Starleather. So that's +18 AC, instead of +20 from Godplate. Probably +21, since you might as well pick up Plate Specialization.

So yeah, that's a handy bump in AC from going Plate. But it is costing the wizard 3 feats (chain, scale, plate) and stat points that could be going towards other areas. More DEX or CHA open up other useful feats, especially Spell Focus which is handy for most wizards. Plus wearing Plate has some check and speed penalties. On the other hand, Plate does seem to have some of the best special abilities, IMO.

One sort of problem is that Leather Armor almost seems like a no brainer for a wizard. I'm not sure that the Cloth only properties are worth it.

 

[Nifft]

You'd certainly think that was the case from reading a lot of the post around here lately. This race or that race sucks because it has a +2 in the wrong place, I certianly hope a stat bonus doesn't really make that much difference to actually game play. I haven't been able to see the rules yet, but I'm hoping that there will be good reasons to have different stats, that they all offer something. I guess I'll see soon enough.

The player who had the pregen KotS Cleric certainly thinks so. She was frustrated at being unable to hit, at being mediocre as a healer, at having very few effective combat options.

Once the character was rebuilt to actually focus on her attacks, she was able to hit, buff and heal effectively.

4e is a tight game. It requires that you take advantage of all obvious power gaming available. In return, there is very little non-obvious power gaming available.

It's a short learning curve, but you can't ignore it.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Regicide]

So, having a 16 as opposed to an 18 in an ability causes you to suck? If that's the case, then the system is busted. And if you suggest that every character has to start with a 20 in their key stat in order to compete then that's even worse.

Yep. Until the splat books come out there is no way to hit the 2+ to hit like you can in 3E. A 4 difference in a primary stat will be a very large difference between characters. A 20 STR fighter will often be greater than 20% more effective than a 16 STR fighter.

In 3E I would often play fighters that didn't focus on STR and they were fine. Now there is no way. All fighters are going to be cookie-cutter copies of each other.

 

[phil500]

You'd certainly think that was the case from reading a lot of the post around here lately. This race or that race sucks because it has a +2 in the wrong place

adding to what nifft said, someone did a stat analysis of the MM. things go up in a very specific pattern.

one of the things they did to balance 4E was keep everything tight within the d20.

that is, talking about to-hit, theres no more stacking your weapons bonus with a +3 luck bonus from divine favor, a +2 bonus from bulls strength and a +1 bonus from size with the +1 morale bonus of a bless and the +1 from weapon focus.

theres just your STR mod and your proficiency. ok theres other ways, but far fewer.

 

[silentounce]

Yep. Until the splat books come out there is no way to hit the 2+ to hit like you can in 3E. A 4 difference in a primary stat will be a very large difference between characters. A 20 STR fighter will often be greater than 20% more effective than a 16 STR fighter.

In 3E I would often play fighters that didn't focus on STR and they were fine. Now there is no way. All fighters are going to be cookie-cutter copies of each other.

I really don't want to believe you, but I think you're right. That really sucks.

 

[FadedC]

Yep. Until the splat books come out there is no way to hit the 2+ to hit like you can in 3E. A 4 difference in a primary stat will be a very large difference between characters. A 20 STR fighter will often be greater than 20% more effective than a 16 STR fighter.

In 3E I would often play fighters that didn't focus on STR and they were fine. Now there is no way. All fighters are going to be cookie-cutter copies of each other.

Well that's not entirely correct, but it's in the ballpark. Strength will be your most important stat as a fighter, just like it was in 3e (and no amount of feats every really changed that in 3e). Every fighter will want a high strength. However there are many different ways to design a fighter besides stats, and you may not always want to pay for an 18 base in strength given all the things you are giving up.

Certainly though nobody in their right mind is likely to take less then a 16 base in their primary stat for any class they are playing. And most people will tend to bend over backwards to ensure they get a +2 racial stat bump in that primary stat. Actually taking an 18 base though has an extremely high cost which may or may not always be worth it. Even just dropping it to a 17 frees up a ton of stat points.

 

[ZetaStriker]

Weapon based attacks hardly suffer from lower stats. Proficiency bonuses go a looooong way. Taking advantage of Combat Advantage, a 14 Str. Wizard can be hitting 50% of the time(or better, if he goes for a straight Magic Weapon for the bigger attack boost), which is supposed to be about average.

 

[Nifft]

All fighters are going to be cookie-cutter copies of each other.

In stats perhaps. However, there's still style (two-hander vs. shield), power implications of style (e.g.: damage-on-miss or push-on-hit), and the most important thing: group dynamics. (And keep in mind that's one MORE style than 3e actually rewarded: shield dudes lost in 3e, two hands down.)

Even if you have two cookie-cutter sword-n-board push-with-shield Fighters, they'll play differently in different groups. 4e's push, pull, shift, etc. all demand tactical choices that aren't obvious from the power list.

Do you push the brute away from your Warlock, who only has ranged attacks? Do you push the soldier towards the Wizard, so the Wizard can Thunderwave multiple targets? Do you push the artillery towards the Rogue (where his doom awaits)? Or do you flat-out push the leader off a cliff?

The basic unit of battle in 4e isn't the PC. It's the party. Context matters, and working together is rewarded. How you work together is subject to much creativity... even if your build isn't.

(It's funny, I remember when people were complaining that 3.5e was too "build" focused.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[silentounce]

In stats perhaps. However, there's still style (two-hander vs. shield), power implications of style (e.g.: damage-on-miss or push-on-hit), and the most important thing: group dynamics. (And keep in mind that's one MORE style than 3e actually rewarded: shield dudes lost in 3e, two hands down.)

Even if you have two cookie-cutter sword-n-board push-with-shield Fighters, they'll play differently in different groups. 4e's push, pull, shift, etc. all demand tactical choices that aren't obvious from the power list.

Do you push the brute away from your Warlock, who only has ranged attacks? Do you push the soldier towards the Wizard, so the Wizard can Thunderwave multiple targets? Do you push the artillery towards the Rogue (where his doom awaits)? Or do you flat-out push the leader off a cliff?

The basic unit of battle in 4e isn't the PC. It's the party. Context matters, and working together is rewarded. How you work together is subject to much creativity... even if your build isn't.

(It's funny, I remember when people were complaining that 3.5e was too "build" focused.)

Cheers, -- N

But STATS are the character! Really, they're the key defining attributes. Why do you think their one of the first things you create? Yeah, I know personality is not completely stat dependent, but come on.... At first I was hesitant about 4e, but then the more I read the more I liked it. Now, it's starting to go the other way. A person shouldn't be punished with an unplayable character, or have to wait for a splat book to play an effective fighter with a high int and dex instead of strength. And don't say that you can play a strength build rogue, or a ranger, they're not the same things. Well, my first character is going to be a gnome warlord with 16, 10, 13, 13, 8, 18. I guess I'll find out first hand what the effects of such a build will be. Granted, that's still within the guidelines of one of the builds, but I only have a 16 in the key ability.

As to the rest of your post, this is still an RPG right, with a tactical miniature skirmishing element, right? Not the other way around. Your statement that tactical choices are where the variety lies, not how you build your character doesn't allay my fears. That shouldn't be the focus of an RPg in my opinion. Well, at least, it shouldn't outweigh other aspects. Your build, IS your character.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Why don't we just wait and see how it actually plays? I have a feeling multiclassing is going to be HOT with people who choose non-standard builds. I mean, if you're going to play a dex fighter, why not grab some ranger or rogue Dex attacks?