Class being penalized for doing its thing?

[Glyfair]

There's always a 'least satisfying and/or useful' action you can take. If before it was (for wizards) using their crossbow, now ( it sounds like) it will become throwing an acid splash every round.

I don't remember where I heard the discussion, but I remember ties to the warlock. Probably they'll have an eldritch blast ability. It will also likely scale with level, but not as fast as the warlocks does.

 

[pawsplay]

I think wizards should have to pull out crossbows. In most fantasy fiction, mages don't cast spells all danged day. Eldritch blast is okay for the warlock - there is a conceptual reason for it - but wizards should not be zotting people every round.

Instead of not penalizing wizards by making them pull out the crossbow, how about making using a crossbow not a penalty?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Probably they'll have an eldritch blast ability.

Mm? I expect it'll be kinda auto-reserve-feats (like, with no feats required), for all caster-types.

The Cleric could then heal everyone up to half, no matter what.

The Mage could blast stuff, virtually any old time. Not for heaps, but probably better than the poor old crossbow.


edit --- Maybe not. Then players would have to remember to keep a spell back, if necessary.

 

[SavageRobby]

There's always a 'least satisfying and/or useful' action you can take. If before it was (for wizards) using their crossbow, now ( it sounds like) it will become throwing an acid splash every round.

Unless the idea that it's a spell that is having almost no effect on the encounter somehow compensates for having little or no effect in an encounter.

Also, why won't this conversation happen? "We need to rest. I used all my fireballs in the first two encounters and only have my acid splash ability now."

Not saying they don't have solutions for this, just wondering what they might be.

I keep thinking that, between the way they've described encounters and encounter setup, and moving the paradigm from per day to per encounter, that the new expectation is going to be that the party will start every encounter fully healed and fully stocked in terms of spells/powers. This kind of scheme becomes far simpler to plan for and manage from a DM's POV, and would also reduce PC dependence on magic items.

What this kind of system would mean in terms of traps and such I'm not sure. Perhaps traps stop doing HP damage and focus more on ability drains or power suppression?

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

What this kind of system would mean in terms of traps and such I'm not sure. Perhaps traps stop doing HP damage and focus more on ability drains or power suppression?

Well, I've seen mention of encounters being expanded, apparently, to things like mountain crossing, etc. More like scenes in a movie.

Maybe traps would be the 'monsters' in such 'encounters'. Though that could be stretching things.

 

[Klaus]

I think wizards should have to pull out crossbows. In most fantasy fiction, mages don't cast spells all danged day. Eldritch blast is okay for the warlock - there is a conceptual reason for it - but wizards should not be zotting people every round.

Instead of not penalizing wizards by making them pull out the crossbow, how about making using a crossbow not a penalty?

I see wizards rarely facing any "running out of spells", except in D&D-inspired fiction. Harry Potter and his friends (the most popular wizards in the present day) can cast few spells, but they could do it all day long.

 

[Stalker0]

It means exactly this, they don't want people to have less fun because they have to fill necessary roles.

Current dnd needs a healer. But for most people playing a healer is boring. I'm a cleric with all of these cool spells, and they go to waste because I have to heal.

Playing a tank is boring for some people. I just mark off damage on my sheet. Its not the thrill of doing massive damage with a big weapon.

What they will likely do is make it where healing no longer consumes magical energy used for other things. The cleric can heal and still kick ass.

For the tank, they may include offensive options within the defense. The iron heroes armiger is a good example of this, the more you hit him the cooler he gets.

 

[Zephrin the Lost]

But isn't the real question of a cleric being torn between using his spells for healing or for kicking ass based just as much upon on possible actions being limited per round as # of spells per day? Even if a cleric can heal all day, it still may be what he ends up doing all day because he's the only guy who can do it, and that's all he has time for because the tank and skill monkey keep getting pasted.

I wonder if anyone who knows the whole story is getting a kick out of our efforts to reverse-engineer 4e. :\

--Z

 

[Remathilis]

The typically perceived drawback to the major core classes, and REAL drawback to each.

BARBARIAN:
* Perceived: A warrior who isn't skilled (lack of feats), and is lightly armored that deals and takes punishment.
* Real: A guided missile on legs that if it doesn't kill the enemy, it will take enough damage that ending its rage will kill it.

BARD:
* Perceived: Jack of all trades, master of none.
* Real: You guys do your things, I'll just stand in the shadows and help you look cool.

CLERIC:
* Perceived: Spells focused on defense, so that the cleric can buff and fight as needed.
* Real: Ok, who needs healing THIS round?

DRUID
* Perceived: Awesome natural powers held back by neutral ethic and limited armor.
* Real: Ok, who needs healing THIS round?

FIGHTER:
* Perceived: I'm the best pure warrior and tank, but I have no special features beyond feats.
* Real: I'm out damaged by the bbn, out tanked by the paladin, and all I can do is roll to hit each round.

Monk:
* Perceived: I'm a lightly armed skirmisher capable of delivering terrible blows, but relatively easy to hit.
* Real: Flurry of Misses

Paladin:
* Perceived: Holy knight bound by a moral code, but gets divine powers.
* Real: I'm not sure my code will allow me to do this, so you better find some way of convincing/fooling me or do it without me.

Ranger:
* Perceived: Lightly armed skirmisher and survivalist who is not a front line fighter.
* Real: Paint a bullseye on your chest, since light-armor + d8 equals easy target.

Rogue:
* Perceived; Not a great combatant nor a caster, but I got mad skillz!
* Real: Another undead attack? I'll sit back here and watch guys.

Sorcerer:
* Perceived: I know few spells, but I can cast them all day long!
* Real: No, I don't know that spell. Or that one. Or that one either.

Wizard:
* Perceived: I have fewer spells, but I can learn them all!
* Real: No, I don't have that spell memorized. Or that one. Or that one either.

Of course each class has a weak spot, but many of them AREN'T the ones the designer assumed they were...

 

[pawsplay]

I see wizards rarely facing any "running out of spells", except in D&D-inspired fiction. Harry Potter and his friends (the most popular wizards in the present day) can cast few spells, but they could do it all day long.

"I have the Excellent Prismatic Spray."

And if Gandalf could do that ray of light thing all day, wouldn't he?