D&D 4E An in depth rules discussion on the mechanical problems and breakthroughs of 4e

[Sadrik]

7. Endless magical at-will attacks, should a wizard be able to magic missile all day?

This, as has been said, is a good thing. Rejoice!!!!

I see this is not a problem for everybody.

Let me explain my rationalization.
A wizard should be able to shoot just like a fighter should be able to swing a weapon. No it should be compared to just like a archer can shoot his bow. A wizard can shoot at long range infinitely (knocking down castles and building given enough time). An archer could never do that because he would never be able to produce enough arrows. I fighter couldn't do it because he would break his weapon before decimating the building.

Another spellcaster concept that I enjoy is the concept of caster fatigue. The more they cast the more "tired" they eventually get and then after have an extended rest they get start fresh again.

I don't think casting infinite MMs will do all that much in actual play but conceptually it is a little unnerving.

 

[Sadrik]

3E had at-will spells. They were called wands.

LOL true.

 

[Sadrik]

But that's not stat polarity. That's intentionally rejecting the smart fighter class in favor of the wise fighter class, then complaining that it isn't the smart fighter class. Screw that guy, he's making his own problems.

As a general rule, I've had a tough time figuring out how to assign stats to the characters I've built. This is because I have choices. There are lots of things I could do with the characters, and each route requires different stat allocations. The fact that I can't get everything I want by just huge tossing numbers around is a feature.

Good point my skit example was not good. I'll attempt to illustrate the issue better. The heart of it is being sub-optimal if you want to be smart and quick or strong and tough or perceptive and social.

Why is this? Each stat is in a bi-polar relationship with another when determining your defenses.

STR or CON modifier makes up your FORT defense.

INT or DEX modifier makes up your REF defense.

WIS or CHA modifier makes up your WILL defense.

You can essentially dump one stat and suffer no loss as long as the other is high. If you double up in one area you are far less than ideal. What this will cause is characters to be strong but not tough or tough but not strong etc.

The biggest concern is the relationship between INT and DEX. Characters will almost always choose DEX over INT because DEX effects very useful skills and initiative and basic ranged attacks and keys off a ton of feats. INT only effects arcana, history, and religion and nothing else- no bonus skills or languages.

For most characters there are no mechanical reason to have an INT score of higher than 8. As long as you have a Wizard in the party, they will have all of the knowledge bases covered. If you want to play a character against type (smart fighter or rogue for instance) you are so sub par that it is almost a joke. Being quick is almost always better as seen below.

STR gives: can be used for fort, basic melee attack, carrying capacity, athletics skill

CON gives: can be used for fort, starting hp, healing surge bonus, healing surges per day, endurance

DEX gives: can be used for ref and ac, basic ranged attack, initiative bonus, acrobatics, stealth, thievery skills

INT gives: can be used for ref and ac, arcana, history, religion skills

WIS gives: can be used for will, perception, insight, heal, dungeoneering, nature skills

CHA gives: can be used for will, diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, streetwise skills

 

[Mengu]

It seems that we’ll no longer see ‘off-type’ characters (e.g. tough wizards that can wield a blade and don’t mind going toe-to-toe once in a while.

You are correct. However, I have a feeling they intend to resolve these issues by adding more classes, such as an Arcane Defender, or a Swordmage.

Or lightly armored, dual-wielding Halfling fighters)

This one already exists, and it's called, Halfling Ranger.

 

[Cadfan]

Good point my skit example was not good. I'll attempt to illustrate the issue better. The heart of it is being sub-optimal if you want to be smart and quick or strong and tough or perceptive and social.

Why is this? Each stat is in a bi-polar relationship with another when determining your defenses... [snip]

...You can essentially dump one stat and suffer no loss as long as the other is high. If you double up in one area you are far less than ideal. What this will cause is characters to be strong but not tough or tough but not strong etc.

I understand the reasoning, but I don't see it happening in play. PCs seem to be too busy trying to improve the stats they use for class abilities or the stats they need for feats to get too upset about a redundant +1 fort save. I can see how there would be stat polarity if we were creating PCs in a vacuum without character classes, powers, or feats, but we're not.

 

[Wish]

Additional problems:

No multiclassing, no old-school dual-classing, if you figure out at 4th or even 10th level that you don't really like your class, tear up the character sheet and start over.

Way too many weapon specific powers (feats, sneak attack, etc.). Why can't I sneak attack with a longsword if I take proficiency? No reason, just can't.

Streamlined skill system (mostly - some of the changes I appreciate like combining Stealth, but a lot of it is too dumbed down).

The world is square. Square circles! Argh.

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

This is my favorite mechanical advancement of 4th Edition:

All your character's major mechanical abilities (attacks, AC, defenses, skills, ability checks) are in line with each other.

This means that I can make a Strength-based attack against your AC. Or, I can make a Strength-based attack against your Reflex defense. But, even more interestingly, in some strange circumstance I could be asked to make a Constitution-based attack against your Will defense. Or, I could make a Wisdom-based attack opposed by your Athletics check (don't ask me what that would be). There might be different advantages to using one tactic versus another, and some might be far more commonplace, but it simply wasn't possible in 3rd Edition because attack bonuses were incompatible with saving throw bonuses were incompatible with skill checks were incompatible with ability checks. The DCs asked of each were simply on wholly different scales in the later stages of the game. In 4th Edition, the designers have kept all of these different faculties advancing by level at some baseline rate (1/2 level), and this is very important.

It means that skill checks are actually nothing more than ability checks that you can choose to specialize in for specific circumstances (but not to the huge extent that you could in 3rd Edition).

I see 3rd Edition's major mechanical breakthrough as being the d20 roll: finally, for the first time in D&D's history, there was one single method for resolving almost any task, and it opened up a lot of design space. You can say what you like about non-Vancian magic, about class roles, about new monster design, about skill challenges, but in my opinion this is the single greatest advancement made to the game by 4th Edition, and it can be felt but rarely is it directly noticed by the player. Still, it's in my opinion exactly the sort of thing that Mearls (I think it was Mearls) was talking about when he talked about opening up design space.

 

[ZetaStriker]

The Paladin has several really lame Wis vs. AC attacks that would work wonderfully if they targeted a different defense, and the Cleric suffers from this as well, to a certain extent. The lack of a Proficiency bonus IS a valid complaint for those two classes.

As for the lack of choice thing... everyone who's saying that hasn't tried toying around with the Multiclassing rules AT ALL. I just threw up a front-line Wizard that could knock enemies with his quarterstaff as well as throw down Close Blast and Burst spells and skill from both the Fighter and Wizard power lists. And yes, he had a great AC and almost as many healing surges as a low Con fighter. Multiclassing is alive and well in 4E, it just behaves differently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'd like to address both point 4s and negative 7.

One of the key changes for 4e is this. All the classes are the same. Sure, they're all different, but the more different they are, the more they're the same. They all have the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily powers. That addresses the key problem that caused the perception of class imbalance in 3E: that each class had a different mix of unlimitted and limitted abilities. Wizards had all heavily-limitted, high-power abilities, for instance, while Fighters had all barely-limitted, not-so-powerful abilities. Come up with situtations where limitations could be ignored, and there were huge imbalances. Now, everyone has the same mix of abilties, so as long as you can keep the individual powers balanced, the classes will remain balanced.

That's good - and bad. It's good not just for promoting game balance, but because it makes creating new classes much easier. Just create new powers and features, and you're done, no worries about the class being balanced at a given level or over all 20, if the powers are individually balanced, that's all take care of - heck, the hardest part is probably a good name. It's bad because the classes are less differentiated, and, are no longer differentiated the ways they were before. That could change the feel of the game so much that it's no longer D&D, and it could make 'trying out a new class' less interesting - and thus leave people cool to the game sooner.

Anyway, to get to point 7, yes, the Wizard /must/ have at-will spells that he can cast all day, because every class has at-will powers it can use all day, and all classes must be the same to assure class balance. So the Wizard is really the Warmage - the Warmage fits the new class paradigm, the Wizard doesn't. Similarly, as another post points out, the Fighter is really more like the Warblade or swordsage - the fighter doesn't fit the new paradigm, because he has no daily powers, just feats he can use all day. A character with 18 at-will powers? No way.

 

[Teydyn]

No multiclassing, no old-school dual-classing, if you figure out at 4th or even 10th level that you don't really like your class, tear up the character sheet and start over.

This is different to 3.5e how?
"I dont like my lvl 10 fighter, i want to be a mage, now i multiclass to mage and rock?" Just no, same problem.

Way too many weapon specific powers (feats, sneak attack, etc.).

Good, choice matters.

Why can't I sneak attack with a longsword if I take proficiency? No reason, just can't.

Too unwieldy? "Watch me sneak attack with my Huge 2-handed sword!!! The precision!!!"

The world is square. Square circles! Argh.

Didnt like that at first too, but if you compare the errors on 1-1-1 to 1-2-1, its not THAT bad, i can see their reasoning.