Forked Thread: PC concept limitations in 4e

[Phaezen]

I would love to see damage removed from some spells and replaced with cool effects. Simply removing damage without giving anything in return can make spells not worth casting at all.
For example lets remove the damage from the Maze spell and make minimum duration 5-6 rounds or so. That might work.

How about remove damage and give a penalty to the save, which would be more in keeping with the system?

Phaezen

 

[ExploderWizard]

How about remove damage and give a penalty to the save, which would be more in keeping with the system?

Phaezen

That could work great for some low to mid level stuff. For higher level spells there needs to be some fight enders to compensate for a lack of damage.

If a high level spell succeeds the effect needs to be pretty great if there is no damage involved. Otherwise it doesn't feel that great for its level.

 

[monboesen]

I miss being able to have a rogue PC who uses a shortbow or fights with two-daggers

So divorcing concept from class you want:

Good ranged attack with bow
Good two-weapon melee attacks
Lots of skills
Light armor

That is a pretty standard 4ed Ranger. Who for some reason chooses to use daggers instead of swords, maybe to throw them occasionally. Reflavor Hunters Quarry to backstabbing goodness and take the Sneak of Shadows feat to get Thievery.

OR

A pretty standard 4ed Rogue with the two-weapon fighting and Weapon Proficiency (shortbow) feats. Ask your DM to allow shortbow Sneak Attacks, thats a really really small power boost (only difference from crossbow load free vs. load minor).


Both are perfectly viable 4ed builds.

 

[LostSoul]

Reflavouring is fine and very useful, but in this case misses the point entirely. Where are the spells that stun, charm, paralyze etc without dealing damage?

Spells that stun: Any spell that also includes an effect that restricts the target's action - like Immobilize, Daze, Stun, or Prone.
Charm: Any spell that includes a Dominate effect, obviously, but less obviously - any spell that restricts the target's action (showing the "internal battle").
Paralyze: See stun.

Also, any spell that deals damage. When you reduce the guy to 0 hp, feel free to say he's stunned, charmed, or paralyzed.

Where are the spells that boost your allies rather than hinder your opponents?
Where are the spells that feature as non damaging barriers to hold the angry (but innocent) mob at bay while your party legs it?

Boosting allies: Clerics have them. Also, if your DM allows it, Aid Another actions with an Arcana check.
Non-damaging barriers: Any spell that restricts the target's movement. Doesn't matter if it deals hp damage or not, because hp damage does not equal physical damage in the game world.

Explain to me how you can reflavour a spell in 4E to function like solid fog or entangle?

Web, Wizard Attack 5.

 

[Remathilis]

So divorcing concept from class you want:

Good ranged attack with bow
Good two-weapon melee attacks
Lots of skills
Light armor

That is a pretty standard 4ed Ranger. Who for some reason chooses to use daggers instead of swords, maybe to throw them occasionally. Reflavor Hunters Quarry to backstabbing goodness and take the Sneak of Shadows feat to get Thievery.

OR

A pretty standard 4ed Rogue with the two-weapon fighting and Weapon Proficiency (shortbow) feats. Ask your DM to allow shortbow Sneak Attacks, thats a really really small power boost (only difference from crossbow load free vs. load minor).

Both are perfectly viable 4ed builds.

Your closer on the second one; I had an elf rogue who fought with longsword and shortbow in 2e and 3e. He cannot do this in 4e and be viable (aka use his powers) he's forced to go rapier and crossbow. I don't understand why WotC limited rogue powers from longswords (or one-handed blades in general) and from straight bows (but crossbows are A-OK). It reeks of unnecessary fiddling.

I want Sneak Attack. I want Artful Dodger. I want Sly Flourish and other Rogue Powers. I just want to use my longsword and shortbow with them. I don't want to be a ranger to do it.

Perhaps MP?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Anybody else think that some people focus too much on "I did it this way in 3E and 4E won't let me do the same" and too little on "How can I use the 4E rules to create an interesting character?"

 

[Mallus]

Anybody else think that some people focus too much on "I did it this way in 3E and 4E won't let me do the same" and too little on "How can I use the 4E rules to create an interesting character?"

Yes.

But... I also accept that the gearhead style of play that defines characters primarily in terms of mechanical minutia is a perfectly valid, as valid as my own preference for characters w/big personalities and more mechanics-free definitions, so I try to cut the other side some slack.

 

[Engilbrand]

I think that some people missed my point. I don't have my books handy, so I'll make stuff up. It should get the point across.
Let's say that I have a spell that does 3d8 damage and temporarily charms a monster. What I am advocating is the option, whether during combat or not, to remove the damage from the spell and just keep the charm effect that it says. If you want it to deal damage, it does. If not, it doesn't. It's rather simple.
I've heard that Forcecage does damage and puts people in a cage. You could describe a normal one as popping up small or buzzing with energy, so it hurts, or you can create a special one that just puts people in a cage without hurting them. You make the choice on the fly.
Is this sort of option stated in the rules? No. But it's such an easy and minor change to make. It does absolutely NOTHING to change the balance. It does, in fact, give you just a few more options to not hurt people.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yes.

But... I also accept that the gearhead style of play that defines characters primarily in terms of mechanical minutia is a perfectly valid, as valid as my own preference for characters w/big personalities and more mechanics-free definitions, so I try to cut the other side some slack.

Still, but even within the gearhead style of play, isn't it healthier to focus on what can be done with system X as opposed to dwelling on what system Y used to do?

 

[monboesen]

Your closer on the second one; I had an elf rogue who fought with longsword and shortbow in 2e and 3e. He cannot do this in 4e and be viable (aka use his powers) he's forced to go rapier and crossbow. I don't understand why WotC limited rogue powers from longswords (or one-handed blades in general) and from straight bows (but crossbows are A-OK). It reeks of unnecessary fiddling.

You're in luck. Bagpuss just spilled the goods on some of the new feats in Martial Power. There is a racial one that allows Eladrins to use Longswords for Rogue powers and abilities. As for the bow I must say that disregarding a rigidly by the books only DM it is a non-issue.

I guess the message is; have patience. A lot of options and old time favorite possibilities will return with additional books. Should or could they have been in the PH1? Maybe, but there was a strict limit on how much that book could contain, as taste does vary it was impossible to make everyone happy. Personally I'm happy with what they decided to include and might be able to do with an insider subscribtion instead of bying more books.