Dispel Magic

[GnomeWorks]

Guilty of a crime they have yet to commit, eh? Brilliant.

It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?

It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.

Mechanical differences isn't the same thing as thematical differences. It is a b***h to balance, though. Power management exists, not in availability but in choices what power to use. Then it's a case of preference what kind of managament you like most.

Difficult to balance, yes, but then there are actual differences between the classes. This was one of my major frustrations with earlier editions - if you play a fighter in 1e, congrats, you have played out the class. There is nothing new to explore, mechanically; it is no longer interesting to play.

Mechanical differences accentuate and reinforce the thematic and flavor differences. The game is a framework for the setting - in 3.5, you can call yourself a pirate, but if you are using the rogue class as a vehicle to that end, you are still a rogue, and you have all the mechanical ramifications of that decision. If you want the thematic differences to be accentuated and stand out in ways other than claiming "Oh, I'm not a rogue, I'm a pirate," then you need to back those distinctions up with mechanical differences.

 

[small pumpkin man]

It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?

It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.

Pff, this is why you aren't a game designer, most conjurations are summoned things which can be smacked, thus an ability which just gets rid of them is in no way necessary to be able to "do something". Zones are things like grease and icestorm, Martial characters get better physical skills which allow them to operate better inside those effects, the new skill system makes that require less resources to do.

So no, you don't need to resort to that kind of thing to be useful and have something to do.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?

It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.

Nonsense. You could have said the same thing about previous editions of the game, and yet that wasn't the case. You can give everyone useful options without giving any two people the same ability. And it certainly looks like that's exactly what they're doing. If anything, the classes in 4th edition are *more* distinguished than ever before. Instead of every fighting class sharing the same combat abilities (power attack, cleave, etc) and magic using classes having dozens of spells in common, every class in 4th edition gets its own, entirely unique set of powers.

It seems to me that the entire reason they have different power sources is so that they can sum up what would and wouldn't be an appropriate power for that type of character. The difference between the power sources is entirely thematic, but that can mean everything. You won't see Wizards doing overtly physical things nor will you see fighters doing overtly magical things. Why will a martial character be different from an arcane or divine character? For the same reason that clerics and wizards are different, despite both being magic users. Some things are just not thematically appropriate for one or the other to do.

 

[The Little Raven]

It would be badwrongfun for a fighter-type to be unable to end conjuration and zone effects, like the wizard can. After all, we all have to be useful in every fight, and always have something to do, eh?

There is a difference between "useful in a fight, within your role," and "useful in a fight, in any role." Removing/adding complications to the battle/battlefield (conjurations and zones) is the job of a Controller, not a Defender. If you're going to try and harp on the game design, please at least correctly identify things.

It's a symptom of the game design. This will lead to everyone being able to do everything.

Yes, it's a symptom of role-based game design that the roles will become meaningless.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Pff, this is why you aren't a game designer, most conjurations are summoned things which can be smacked, thus an ability which just gets rid of them is in no way necessary to be able to "do something".

Was the personal comment really necessary? You could've made your point without being rude about it.

Attacking a conjured critter is not the same as negating the effect that produced it.

Zones are things like grease and icestorm, Martial characters get better physical skills which allow them to operate better inside those effects, the new skill system makes that require less resources to do.

Getting around an effect and negating it are two different things.

You can give everyone useful options without giving any two people the same ability. And it certainly looks like that's exactly what they're doing. If anything, the classes in 4th edition are *more* distinguished than ever before. Instead of every fighting class sharing the same combat abilities (power attack, cleave, etc) and magic using classes having dozens of spells in common, every class in 4th edition gets its own, entirely unique set of powers.

I'll grant that 4e is giving more options to the fighter-types, which is good. They needed it. Bo9S had some balance issues, IMO, but it's a vast improvement over core fighters.

My issue with what we've seen of 4e so far is that the abilities all seem rather bland and similar; sure, the fluff is different, but the mechanical bits aren't. Most of the things we've seen come in the flavor of "damage + (condition || side-effect || more damage)" - regardless of power source.

Admittedly, most of what we're seeing is 1st-level abilities, which are going to be similar because the range of acceptable damage and side-effects is small at that level. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this is going to persist throughout the levels, because it is easier to balance large sets of abilities if their possible effects fall within a limited space, and that would seem to jibe with the design philosophy that everyone should be about as effective as everyone else.

Some things are just not thematically appropriate for one or the other to do.

...I don't think we're in disagreement, here. There are things fighters should be better at than wizards, and vice-versa.

 

[GnomeWorks]

There is a difference between "useful in a fight, within your role," and "useful in a fight, in any role." Removing/adding complications to the battle/battlefield (conjurations and zones) is the job of a Controller, not a Defender.

I'm fairly certain that a creative reason for a tank having such an ability could be conceived. Or not - explaining things from an in-game standpoint doesn't seem to be in vogue at the moment, so they could just throw it out there with no explanation.

I'm also fairly certain that a situation in which a tank would have no recourse other than to directly interfere with a magical cause (as opposed to its effect: conjuration spell being the cause, conjured critter being the effect) could be conceived. In such an instance, the philosophy of always having something to do comes in, and now the tank has a method of dealing with such things.

Yes, it's a symptom of role-based game design that the roles will become meaningless.

Eventually, yes. Power-creep almost demands it.

I'll make a WoW comparison here, because WoW also uses roles. A class is not necessarily meant to fulfill a single role - a warrior can DPS (striker) or tank (defender). A paladin can heal, DPS, or tank. A priest can spell DPS or heal. You are not shoehorned into a role due to your class selection - most of the classes have options regarding what role they can fulfill.

It is not much of a stretch, then, to think that the same sort of thing will happen to 4e classes - yes, the fighter may default to a defender, but he may be granted access to abilities that allow him to function as a different role. This may even be done to increase support for groups of smaller players. The point here being that it is not beyond imagining that a class that is said to be a specific role will be given, at some point in the future, the tools to assume another one. The roles won't be meaningless, but classes will not be as strictly tied to them as time goes on.

 

[The Little Raven]

"damage + (condition || side-effect || more damage)"

This view of the powers is vague to the point of being meaningless. That's how things were in 3e too.

Fireball - Damage in an Area
Smite Evil - Damage + (More Damage)
Weapon Specialization - Damage + (More Damage)
Sneak Attack - Damage + (More Damage)
Barbarian Rage - Damage + (More Damage)

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm fairly certain that a creative reason for a tank having such an ability could be conceived.

I'm fairly certain one can, too.

The difference between us is that I'm not convinced the designers are violating the role structure they put in place, simply because I can conceive of things that do so. They cemented roles and powers based around fulfilling those roles intentionally, and suggesting that they're already in the process of breaking them (thus, declaring them guilty before the crime) is pure fiction on your part.

In such an instance, the philosophy of always having something to do comes in, and now the tank has a method of dealing with such things.

And again, there is a difference between "always having something to do within your role" and "always having something to do within all roles."

Eventually, yes. Power-creep almost demands it.

Um, no.

Power-creep demands that the level of power increases, not that roles become meaningless. It demands a tank be better at tanking, not suddenly become a healer.

I'll make a WoW comparison here, because WoW also uses roles. A class is not necessarily meant to fulfill a single role - a warrior can DPS (striker) or tank (defender). A paladin can heal, DPS, or tank. A priest can spell DPS or heal. You are not shoehorned into a role due to your class selection - most of the classes have options regarding what role they can fulfill.

Bad comparison, since WoW classes are designed to fulfill multiple roles with the right gear and spec, while D&D classes are designed to fill one role, as of present.

It is not much of a stretch...

A lot of things aren't a stretch, but that still doesn't make it anything but speculative fiction on your part.

 

[GnomeWorks]

This view of the powers is vague to the point of being meaningless. That's how things were in 3e too.

I'll address each of your examples in turn.

Fireball - this affected a circular area, and had the side-effect of setting everything in the area on fire. It had an awkward requirement on its use (you had to be able to shoot the origin of the ball with a growing point, or however they described that).

Smite Evil - thematically appropriate. You deal more damage to a certifiably evil creature. This is not a generic "push 1 square" type of side-effect.

Weapon Specialization - Eh... I'll grant that. But that ties into the lameness that is 3.5 fighters, and this feat was an attempt to make them less sucky, I think.

Sneak Attack - again, thematically appropriate. You have to flank and/or catch them by surprise. You don't gain the extra damage against creatures for which it makes no sense: oozes, elementals, undead. You have to deal real damage, unless you're using a sap.

Barbarian rage - thematically appropriate. You exchange defensive capability for offensive power, and you suffer a drawback when it ends, specifically being fatigued and suffering temporary ability score penalties.

All of these things that you list (aside from weapon spec, which I'll grant you) have "fiddly bits," as it were, that make them stand out. A fireball is significantly different from other damage spells, because it has several nuances specific to it. Sneak attack and barbarian rage both have requirements, restrictions, and drawbacks that are thematically tied to what the ability is trying to represent.

You could argue that these fiddly bits were just that, fiddly bits, which added little to the game in exchange for increased complexity and frustration. I'd grant that, but that doesn't change the fact that removing those fiddly bits makes the abilities more bland and less interesting.

The point I was trying to get across in the post you quoted here, is that the vast majority of abilities we have seen have been "deal [w] and push 1 square," "deal [w] and slow for 1 round," "deal 2[w] and str damage to an adjacent creature." These are fair effects, but they're not terribly interesting, and when you try to cut down on the number of conditions in the game, you are severely limiting the design space, because most of these have been in the "damage + condition" category.

Like I said, most of what we have is 1st-level stuff, which is understandably bland. I'm just worried that the trend will continue throughout the rest of the progression.

The difference between us is that I'm not convinced the designers are violating the role structure they put in place, simply because I can conceive of things that do so. They cemented roles and powers based around fulfilling those roles intentionally, and suggesting that they're already in the process of breaking them (thus, declaring them guilty before the crime) is pure fiction on your part.

I think that it will come down to a clashing of design philosophies - the idea of classes and roles being intricately tied together, and the idea that everyone should have something to do in every situation. Because there are situations in which a defender-type would be completely useless, at the moment, this clash will happen.

I'm not accusing them of doing it now. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if they went that route.

And again, there is a difference between "always having something to do within your role" and "always having something to do within all roles."

Petrification is bad. Rust monsters eating your stuff is bad. Save-or-die is bad.

These particular things are focused on the idea that, if you are sitting at the table, you should always have something useful to do. This is in opposition to the idea that what you can do must be within your role, because - as has been pointed out - we can both envision situations in which no ability from your role is useful in a given situation.

The game cannot have it both ways. One or the other will give. It has to, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not always, perhaps not in the vast majority of cases, but because there are instances in which only one of the two approaches can exist, then one must triumph over the other.

Power-creep demands that the level of power increases, not that roles become meaningless. It demands a tank be better at tanking, not suddenly become a healer.

Look at the 1e wizard spell list, then the 3.5 wizard spell list.

The options available to the wizard across the editions has expanded exponentially (okay, maybe not exponentially, but you get the idea). The wizard has gained access to spells that allow him to trump most other classes.

If you don't like that example, then how about the CoDzilla. A party of four clerics can survive in 3.5 perfectly fine, because the class can reasonably fulfill each of the "roles" in 3.5.

Power-creep can indeed mean that the roles become meaningless.

Bad comparison, since WoW classes are designed to fulfill multiple roles with the right gear and spec, while D&D classes are designed to fill one role, as of present.

Players like options. Some amount of versatility added to the classes is almost inevitable, because of that. Look at any earlier edition. It's the nature of the game for things to be expanded upon. Is it a guarantee that they'll break the roles? No. But it is a strong possibility.

A lot of things aren't a stretch, but that still doesn't make it anything but speculative fiction on your part.

Is there any particular reason that you feel it necessary to bold your comments constantly? It's rather unnecessary; I can assure you that I'm not blind.

Anything either of us says, regarding anything we haven't yet seen, is little more than speculative fiction, so I fail to see your point.

 

[The Little Raven]

Because there are situations in which a defender-type would be completely useless, at the moment, this clash will happen.

The only way a Defender would be useless is if the DM builds encounters where such is the case. That's a problem with the person running your game, not the rules. You're essentially saying that because a DM can make a bad encounter, the rules need to be set up so that characters can completely violate their role in order to correct it.

I disagree.

I'm not accusing them of doing it now. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if they went that route.

You said "This will lead to everyone being able to do everything." That's a little more than saying "Oh, I wouldn't be surprised..." especially since the comment you were replying to was my "guilty before the commission" comment.

These particular things are focused on the idea that, if you are sitting at the table, you should always have something useful to do. This is in opposition to the idea that what you can do must be within your role, because - as has been pointed out - we can both envision situations in which no ability from your role is useful in a given situation.

And, again, you're taking the "poorly built encounter" situation and applying it in a heavy-handed way that then violates the entire purpose behind roles: everyone is not good at everything.

The game cannot have it both ways. One or the other will give. It has to, because these two ideas are mutually exclusive. Not always, perhaps not in the vast majority of cases, but because there are instances in which only one of the two approaches can exist, then one must triumph over the other.

Yeah, it can, because it can expect DMs to make reasonable encounters that involves everyone in the party. Your solution is basically "let anyone do anything," which eliminates the need for roles and classes, which is opposite the design team's philosophy.

Power-creep can indeed mean that the roles become meaningless.

You're conflating power creep with lack of defined roles. The cleric could pull off CoDZilla because they didn't properly define it in 3e, allowing it to become anything the player wanted. An example of power creep are spells in supplements that make core spells useless, not because they move you outside your role, but because they are simply more powerful for the same cost.