Arcane Power- Wizards Stretched Thin

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Everything you say here is pretty reasonable. However, the way I see it, the inter-player social contract is not a replacement for sound game design. Rather, it's another layer. Bother have their place. There will always be messy rules, but there are degrees of acceptability.

And this one is pretty acceptable to me or hong, apparently. And also the designers, I suspect. "You fly n squares" means you fly that distance. You don't get a flight speed. You find it not described clearly enough.

Maybe that means the PHB 3 glossary or the DMG 2 will have a note on that. But in the end, who will that really help? Only those that read the note and don't forget it when its content ever comes up.

That's why player and DM being able to talk each other about unclear rules is so important. If unclear, the DM makes a ruling on the spot.
Or he doesn't, and instead spends a time to consult various rulebooks on the issue of "flying" and figure out what the RAW is.

 

[Kishin]

Has anyone mentioned the flavor text for Dominant Winds? While it is questionable to make a mechanical ruling from flavor text, it might give insight into the intentions of the designer(s).

"Silver winds curl out of nowhere and lift you or an ally briefly into the air."
(emphasis mine)

This makes me believe this power was not intended as an all-day fly, especially given that WotC has been fairly consistent including the verbiage of "fly speed" when appropriate.

They've also said flavor text has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical function of the power, so that kinda shoots down that argument, as much as I am inclined to agree.

/Devil's Advocate on the first part, incidentally.

 

[muchan]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but Arcane Power already has some errata up here.

The noteworthy changes (or re-changes) is that Grasping Shadow is back to 1d8 rather than 2d8, and that Illusory Wall has been turned back into a daily utility power instead of an encounter.

 

[Runestar]

So ban it. You have the power, as a DM. You have the innate ability to make a judgement call of this nature, as a human being and not a computer.

I think the issue here is not so much that a DM cannot ban a power he deems to be problematic, it is moreso that he has to resort to banning in the first place.

The whole point of people shelling out good money for published material is so that we don't to go through the hassle of designing our own material and playtesting it. Rather, we trust that the designers would have done a very good job of balancing the material before releasing it, and we can pretty much just play it right out of the books without first having to pour through every page, scrutinize every ability to the last letter and worry if it is overpowering or too weak.

DM fiat is simply no excuse for faulty game material.

 

[hong]

I think the issue here is not so much that a DM cannot ban a power he deems to be problematic, it is moreso that he has to resort to banning in the first place.

The whole point of people shelling out good money for published material is so that we don't to go through the hassle of designing our own material and playtesting it. Rather, we trust that the designers would have done a very good job of balancing the material before releasing it, and we can pretty much just play it right out of the books without first having to pour through every page, scrutinize every ability to the last letter and worry if it is overpowering or too weak.

DM fiat is simply no excuse for faulty game material.

By the standards of the RPG industry, you will not find a more well-balanced and thoroughly playtested product than D&D 4E. It's balanced to the extent that many ppl who don't like it say that it's boring. Calling it "faulty" is to ignore the REALLY faulty stuff out there, and one ambiguously-worded power isn't going to change that.

You will never find a perfect, fault-free game (just as you will never find a perfect X in most fields outside mathematics). You will always have to exercise DM judgement in deciding what's appropriate for your game, and what sort of exploits you're comfortable with.

 

[SoulStorm]

Balance concerning at-will flight is subjective at best. The soon to be released Champions Online just recently dealt with the persistent flight issue. The original plan was to limit flight during combat, but the player base wasn't very happy with that idea, so instead, they just added more flying and ranged opponents.

I think 16th level is about the perfect time to introduce at-will flight for thematically appropriate classes and paragon paths. It's not about using flight to beat the system. It's about using flight because it's cool, dynamic, and evocative of high fantasy.

Water breathing Genasi are also cool. D&D isn't just a combat game. It's also a fantasy game. When game designers start sacrificing the fantasy elements for the sake of game balance during combat they're cutting off a portion of their player base. Instead of sacrificing fantasy, WOTC should be balancing the system to allow fantasy to flourish. 4e has improved in this regard since its release, but it still falls far short in my opinion. The option to build a character with at-will flight at a reasonable level would be a major step in the right direction. If a particular DM has a less open idea of fantasy, then ban the option in that campaign. But I really wish people would stop trying to imprint their personal idea of a fantasy game onto the entire player base.

 

[MrMyth]

Don't be so hard on yourself. I've a strong suspicion that the consensus here will not be the one arrived at in general gameplay. At-will flight will be taken for exactly what it sounds like it is: at-will flight. Going on about how the power lets you fly but doesn't give you a fly speed is going to sound like pretzel logic.

I'm sure some DMs will let you use it like that. I am ever more certain that the rules do not actually support this. I think baberg's post shows exactly why. Your ruling is inconsistent with the defaults of the rules, all prior powers involving flight, and the concept of the power itself. The opposing viewpoint matches all those things. I think it is safe to say which is the correct ruling.

 

[Herschel]

Gah! My pre-order still has not arrived and the LGS I was at last night was out! I'm looking for Swordmage gpoodies

 

[baberg]

Gah! My pre-order still has not arrived and the LGS I was at last night was out! I'm looking for Swordmage gpoodies

6 new paragon paths

A new Aegis that teleports the target adjacent to you after it attacks and grants CA to everybody until the end of your next turn

New at-will that's sort of the opposite of Tide of Iron for Fighter - instead of moving the target and shifting into that square, you shift and move your target to your previous square

And a fun level 29 ability, "Mirrorblade Army", that makes conjurations of yourself around the battlefield that you can attack and Opportunity Attack through, but they're minions with only 1 HP.

 

[Akaiku]

Don't forget the paragon path attack 20 ability for swordmages that lets you attack everyone you can see for 1w+int... Take that 19/20ths of the invading army of minions!