Arcane Power- Wizards Stretched Thin

[satori01]

The following made me weary:


Also Elemental Empowerment (genasi wizard): add Str mod to damage with acid cold, fire, lightning, and thunder wizard powers.

Which you can combine with:

Sorcerous Power- requires paragon mutli as sorc- gain a bonus to the damage rolls of arcane powers equal to your Str or Dex modifier, +2 at 21st.

Elemental Empowerment is a bit problematic as it allows a Wizard to have damage that is closer to Striker Dmg, at the cost of having to chose a very specific race.

I am less concerned with people stacking it with Sorcerous Power. For 1, the table description of Sorcerous power (and several other multi class feats) is wrong.....which will deter many people.

Secondly, Paragon multi classing to be able to add you STR or DEX modifier could be a down grade in power compared to Std Paragon Paths. You miss out of bonus abilities and effectively lose feats to emulate class powers. STR is a waste of a dump score for Wizard. Now Dex is Pre Req for so many good Wizard Feats it is the logical option, but again with so many interesting feats w/ high Dex Requirements, spending 2 feats to M/C w/ Sorcerer is more of a problem.

Did anyone else notice that one of the Familiars grants you the power to speak "Infernal".......way to slip in that 3E language designers
Of course Supernal is just a lame name.

 

[yesnomu]

Infernal -> Supernal is also errata'd.

 

[DonAdam]

The errata is good to know.

I still think gnome phantasmist and elemental empowerment are ridiculous.

Phantasmist would be fine if it didn't stack with implement expertise (given the okayness of implement expertise); then it would be roughly the equivalent of a racial weapon feat.

Elemental Empowerment.... boo for role infringement. Of course, I dislike the the sorc design anyway (extra damage more than once a round + area attacks? really?).

 

[Felon]

This question has nothing to do with the way the power is written. You seem to be of the opinion that the game isn't robust enough for at-will flight.

"Robustness" doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Kiting is a pretty cut-and-dried issue. Sorcerers have a fair amount of range. Many monsters can't match it, and having an extra plane of movement can make closing the distance impossible.

This may be true for you, but whether it is a generalisation that can be validly applied to the population at large is another matter. The most obvious interpretation of "fly Dex mod squares" is just that: you fly for Dex mod squares. At the end of that, you fall, if you're not on the ground. This is without looking at anything else in the books, whether it's flying rules, falling rules, or whatnot.

Then these folks have not been playing 4E, or at least have not been playing 4E for 16 levels.

The rebuke regarding making generalizations are pretty much utterly counteracted by the comments that follow it, which would require one to be the self-appointed arbiter of what's "most obvious" as well as what constitutes experience playing 4e.

Now, the first sentence has the ring of a couched insult, but the latter part of your post encourages me to grant the benefit of the doubt. You inquire as to why something along the lines of an at-will flying utility concerns me when you feel the matter will ultimately resolve itself at each game table. My driving desire is pretty simple. I want to trust that the designers' judgment, I want the comfort of knowing they nip obviously exploitative features in the bud. That way I don't have to feel like I'm fighting against their current, and that's whether I'm DM'ing or playing. It's nice to know that even if the other folks I'm playing with don't concern themselves with a holistic perspective on game balance, at least the guys pushing out the material do. Stuff like flying kites sniping melee-only opponents and unseen servants roaming every hallway poking around for danger chip away at my sense of trust, and would constitute an extremely uncomfortable change in current.

This is particularly true of 4e and its ever-growing catalog of powers, feats, rituals, and so forth. I don't want to have to parse each one, I just want a good vibe about the team of creative folks behind them. They've done an overall good job so far. For instance, you want to use a bag of tricks or your spirit companion as danger delegates? Go ahead, but it will wind up costing somebody some healing surges. With Martial Power, they only thing that jumped out as immediately OTT is the rage fighter build. I hope Arcane Power is similarly trustworthy.

 

[hong]

"Robustness" doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Kiting is a pretty cut-and-dried issue. Sorcerers have a fair amount of range. Many monsters can't match it, and having an extra plane of movement can make closing the distance impossible.

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.

Your rebuke regarding generalizations are pretty much utterly counteracted by the comments that follow it which set you as the self-appointed arbiter of what's "most obvious" as well as what constitutes experience playing 4e.

Well, we're all just shootin' off opinions here. And it is obvious. You fly Dex mod squares. Ignore everything in the rules about fly speeds, falling, and whatnot. Just going from first principles, when you stop flying, you tend to fall.

Similarly, if you have played 4E for any length of time, you know that action costs are a part of what makes the game what it is. So your analogy fails to hit the mark.

Now, the first sentence has the ring of a couched insult, but the latter part of your post encourages me to grant the benefit of the doubt. You inquire as to why something along the lines of an at-will flying utility concerns me, it's pretty simple. I want to trust that the designers' judgment, I want the comfort of knowing they nip obviously exploitative features in the bud. That way I don't have to feel like I'm fighting against their current, and that's whether I'm DM'ing or playing. Stuff like flying kites sniping melee-only opponents and unseen servants roaming every hallway poking around for danger chip away at my sense of trust, and would constitute an extremely uncomfortable change in current.

This sounds like you want to switch off your capacity for judgement as a human DM: to go back to the 3E paradigm of "taking the DM out of the equation". By doing so, you lose the big advantage of p&p over videogaming, namely that everything is moddable. You also go back to a ruleset that looks more like a law textbook than anything related to a recreational pastime.

 

[Felon]

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.

Well, as I said, it's not always about me as the DM. As a player, I have to rely on someone else's judgment. Sometimes it's me as the player trying to enjoy myself by figuring out how to overcome challenges, and then having someone ruin it with his perma-flight or endless suppoly of zero-cost-fodder. A DM might not see anything wrong with this--after all, if the game provides the tools, how can one begrudge a guy for availing themselves of them? And who cares about figuring things out? D&D is about feeling powerful, not clever, right? But I want to play, and I like my group. Just can't always trust them. Good rules for players what good locks do for neighbors.

This sounds like you want to switch off your capacity for judgement as a human DM: to go back to the 3E paradigm of "taking the DM out of the equation".

Not sure how you got that. I do reserve the right as a DM to disallow--as I said, the rage fighter build is out. But I would like to be able to relax and grant the benefit of the doubt rather than feel like there's also some looming exploit that the design team just let slide. As a DM, I'm empowered to clean up messy rules. Doesn't make it a lot of fun. Switch off my brain? No. Trust? Yes, please.

 

[hong]

Well, first off, as I said, it's not always about me as the DM. As a player, I have to rely on someone else's judgment.

Then you ask your DM: "DM, in your game, do you have to land at the end of Dominant Flight"? Keeping this dialogue going is something that is very useful indeed, for all sorts of reasons besides heading off twinkage.

Nothing is ever going to stop p&p gaming from being fully instanced, so you might as well take advantage of that.

Not sure how you got that. I do reserve the right as a DM to disallow--as I said, the rage fighter build is out. But I would like to be able to relax and grant the benefit of the doubt rather than feel like there's also some looming exploit that the design team just let slide. As a DM, I'm empowered to clean up messy rules. Doesn't make it a lot of fun.

There will always be messy rules. 3E tried to get rid of messy rules by expanding the word count of the rulebooks enormously. It didn't work, as a squiz at the 3E Rules forum will show. If anything, it facilitated a mindset where RAW was supreme and should override everything, including commonsense and DM judgement. If 4E can change that mindset, that will do a lot more to make tweaking and cleaning the rules a less painful experience than trying to catch every exploit.

 

[Felon]

Then you ask your DM: "DM, in your game, do you have to land at the end of Dominant Flight"? Keeping this dialogue going is something that is very useful indeed, for all sorts of reasons besides heading off twinkage.

Nothing is ever going to stop p&p gaming from being fully instanced, so you might as well take advantage of that.

There will always be messy rules. 3E tried to get rid of messy rules by expanding the word count of the rulebooks enormously. It didn't work, as a squiz at the 3E Rules forum will show. If anything, it facilitated a mindset where RAW was supreme and should override everything, including commonsense and DM judgement. If 4E can change that mindset, that will do a lot more to make tweaking and cleaning the rules a less painful experience than trying to catch every exploit.

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.

 

[SoulStorm]

I Emailed customer service about the Dominant Winds power. When I get a response, I'll post it here.

For what it's worth Felon, given WOTC's prior treatment of flight, your ruling is probably the correct one. If so, the power is poorly worded and needs to be errated.

 

[fnwc]

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.