Forked Thread: Rate WotC as a company: 4e Complete?

[The Little Raven]

Actually my immediate response is 'use terrain.' A dense forest, a cave, a building, the morning fog, any of these negate flight as a useful way to assault the monster de jour without risk.

So, put the onus of compensating for an overpowered ability on the DM, instead of correcting the game design that created the problem? Nah.

I can't think of a polite way to put it, but if you really don't have the imagination to deal with flight, perhaps you should reconsider GMing.

Having to compensate for a level 5 power that has the ability to break an encounter completely is a sign of poor design. Maybe the people that designed it should reconsider their line of work.

Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?

Scale of adventure?

And frankly 'minor action to maintain' to not much of a limit, except for warlocks who need that minor action to apply their curses. Oh, guess what?

Some of them require other kinds of actions to maintain, and it can factor into the tactical nature of the economy of actions. You might say it's not much of a factor, but have you actually played the game much, and actually had to decide between sustaining an ongoing effect or performing another action instead, both of which are tactically viable for you?

The warlock flight spell doesn't require an action to maintain. And of course both spells can be used through wands.

The warlock flight spell being Shadow Form, right? The spell that prevents you from performing a standard action while under it's effect, which pretty much means no attacks. Or Cloak of Shadows, which allows you to fly for one turn and specifically prevents you from affecting any creature or object for two turns. Or Wings of the Fiend, which is an epic level ability to fly for an encounter (which feeds into the warlock being a mobile class).

But why the need to make these pathetic assaults upon 3e to justify your love?

Pathetic assault? Now you're just getting desperate and silly. A number of us have pointed out that we didn't like 3e's handling of flight, which spurs a bunch of you 3e-lovers to rush in and tell us that it's exactly the same as in 4e (which it isn't), and when we spell out the exact differences and why we didn't like it, you throw a tantrum about how we're bashing 3e.

Yes flight was easy to aquire in 3e.

And that's the problem.

And of course, since class levels were available to monsters, it was then just as easy for the monsters to have it. This is a feature, not a bug.

Requiring the DM to compensate for bad design choices is not a feature, it's a bug. And a bad one.

It allows the investigation of the cloud castle, or the arial chase through the towers of sharn, or the drow stalgtite city.

4e flight (through mounts, flying carpets, etc) allows this without invalidating tactical encounters or piling loads of extra guess-work on the DM to compensate for it.

If there is a more primal fantasy than flight I don't know what it is.

Immortality.

 

[jadrax]

You guys really need to pick a reason flight is broken and stick with it.

This might have more weight if you did not seem to somewhat schizophrenically be arguing both that Flight is not a problem in 3rd Ed simultaneous with Flight is a problem in 3rd Ed and 4th Ed hasn't fixed it.

 

[Obryn]

Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?

(1) At higher levels of combat, more stuff flies and more stuff has ranged attacks.

(2) IIRC, any caster's max range with just about anything is 20 squares/100'. Most spells have a range of 10 sq./50'. Missile weapons' long ranges go out to a maximum of 30 squares/150'. It's much tougher for a caster to stay out of range when they can't pelt spells well beyond missile weapons' maximum ranges. If anything, 4e should worry about flying longbow-rangers.

(3) Long range with a missile weapon is only -2 to the attack roll, not -10 or higher. Against lowish-AC casters, this is less of a big deal in 4e.

(4) Worst case scenario, 4e has the "heavy ranged" weapon category, which uses Strength as the attack characteristic. So, beefy bad guys aren't nearly as crippled at range.

-O

 

[Andor]

Having to compensate for a level 5 power that has the ability to break an encounter completely is a sign of poor design. Maybe the people that designed it should reconsider their line of work.

The only way an encounter can be 'completely broken' is if the PCs manage to claim the reward for the encounter without expenditure of resources or effort.

The reward in this case has to be either monetary or plot related since of course the PCs don't earn XP for an encounter which doesn't actually challenge them.

If the creatures lack both the intelligence to use cover, and the hands to wield ranged weapons what monetary reward follows their defeat? Valuable hides? Too bad the mage fireballed them eh? Most creature of even animal intelligence will run from a flying threat btw. That's why they can herd wild animals with helicopters.

If the encounter is important for plot reasons and does not involve intelligent creatures, time pressure, terrain, or a fragile prize to be rescued them I fail to see how non-flying PCs were to be challenged either since they could just sit 300 yards away with a long bow and plink the stupid thing to death, whatever it was.

In all earnest, give me this encounter that 1 flying PC ruins at level 5. I'm curious to see what it is, and why it's so central to your games.

This might have more weight if you did not seem to somewhat schizophrenically be arguing both that Flight is not a problem in 3rd Ed simultaneous with Flight is a problem in 3rd Ed and 4th Ed hasn't fixed it.

Heh. I'm saying that if flight troubles you, 4e only delays your woes slightly, if at all, since flying mounts are available starting at about 5th level. Personally I am untroubled by flight, and am rather puzzled why some are.

Yes, the existance of flight changes the game, but flying PCs have been around for about 30 years now and if the GMs of the past could cope the GMs of the future will do likewise.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Andor. I am pretty freaking far from being a 4e fan and supporter. Seriously, you aren't doing yourself any favors here.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Pathetic assault? Now you're just getting desperate and silly. A number of us have pointed out that we didn't like 3e's handling of flight, which spurs a bunch of you 3e-lovers to rush in and tell us that it's exactly the same as in 4e (which it isn't), and when we spell out the exact differences and why we didn't like it, you throw a tantrum about how we're bashing 3e.

Is that how you remember it?
I thought I mentioned Flight was missing, then you pounced on me, then I clarified that I meant Freeform flight, then you ignored that for a while, then the arguement about how flight was a problem (for some people) went in.

So to clarify my original point, 4e removed freeform flight because it didn't fit on the grid (and by that I mean the mini/ grid based combat encounter). You agree, but find that to be a good thing.

So we have two camps:
1) Folks that never had a problem with flight
2) Folks that had a problem with flight.

The rules were the same, only the groups were different. We can maybe agree that the rules were "open to abuse" and that a DM could plan around them, but some don't think they should have to.

Sound about right? Or did I miss something?

 

[Gothmog]

You mean like yours?

You guys really need to pick a reason flight is broken and stick with it. So far in this thread I've seen:

A) It lets you skip filler encounters during overland travel.
B) It's tactically broken in 3e yet somehow not in 4e.
C) "Superman" flight is not heroic.

We've also established that 4e still lets you skip filler encounters with flying mounts and low-level teleportal travel.

Flying is flying. If your ogres are dumb enough to stand there and let a wizard drop fireballs on them in 3e, then they will stand there and let a wizard drop rocks on them in 4e. Running for cover is running for cover in either edition.

4e still has superman flight. It also has flying chariots, sprouting wings, and whistling up an angel to carry you around like a holy rickshaw driver.

Will just one 4e fanboi explain to me why it's impossible for you to like 4e without hating and attacking 3e?

4e is disappointing to me, but I don't hate it. If I was offered a slot in a game I would play it, although I would prefer 3e.

Why do 4e fans have to act like 3e killed their child and raped their dice?

This is bordering on the surreal/absurd now. I'm not personally trying to bait or antagonize anyone on the boards, and while I like 4e and enjoy playing it, I'm not a 4e fanboi. For example, I'm not a fan of the 4e town portal/teleportal travel at low levels. Sure, at high level, thats ok- make it a ritual, but low level to me should be about trekking through the wilderness and having some random encounters, discovering some haunted ruins, etc. What some folks consider set piece encounters or trivial because they didn't relate directly to the adventure at hand, I see as potential chances for character growth. 4e has some issues and problems, but nothing near the level of what 3e had.

So, I'm not a big fan of flight- never have been. But as to your points:

A) Yep, flight can let you skip overland travel encounters, which isn't my thing. Thing is, this occurs later in 4e, which means the PCs don't have the ability to circumnavigate encounters as easily up until that point.

B) Flight is pretty definitively broken in 3e, or at least highly abusable at the least- and I posted an exhaustive example why, the numbers involved, and how each situation could play out with ranges in each edition, etc. I'm not sure if you're even trying to debate that 3e monsters and characters had fewer effective options to deal with this- because its really not debatable when you look at the evidence. Hurling a javelin with a -4 in 3e vs a +11 in 4e is a HUGE difference in effectiveness and likelihood of success. And yes, your point that the ogres or targets could use cover is valid, and something they absolutely should do. But 3e wizards had more spells per day and more ways to neutralize the terrain or cover advantage, and/or make their own terrain to block their enemies in and just blast at their leisure (wall of fire, wall of force, and other terrain mod spells). And once those ogres get to cover, they are still in deep- they still have no effective way to deal with the wizard while he drops spell after spell on them. In short, 3e wizards and spellcasters in general were too freaking powerful in comparison to monsters and non-spellcasters.

C) Superman flight isn't heroic- its superheroic. Flying at will from prolonged periods rarely, if ever shows up in myths and fantasy literature. It clearly is the province of superheroes- and I don't want a superheroic fantasy game. If I did, I'd play Exalted.

Yes, 4e has a flying chariot for overland travel, AT 22nd LEVEL! Yes, you can grant flight 8 to another character AT 22nd LEVEL! Flight in 3e is a 3rd level spell, and wands with flight can easily abused creating th F-16 fireball shooting wizard of death (and I saw this multiple times during the 3e era). Flight in and of itself in the game isn't wrong, and some folks like it. But when the wizard is dominating every fight and keeping other players from having fun using the same tactics over and over ad nauseum every fight (something that was common not only with wizards, but clerics and druids as well in 3e), and the designers didn't consider that possibility, the game is suffering from poor design. The point of the game is to have fun, and when the game becomes unfun for the other players, there is a problem. Yes, you can houserule away the problems to some degree, but that doesn't change the fact the game is flawed. This is just one of the ways 3e was flawed and poorly considered, and while 3e made some great strides forward in streamlined mechanics, much of the core design and assumptions used seems rushed and poorly considered to me if the goal is a game that is fun for all players and the DM.

I don't hate 3e. I don't like it, because it can't do much of what I want out of a fantasy RPG without a ton of work and modding, but its not worth my time to hate a game. I do think the designers of 4e looked at people's complaints about 3e long and hard, and tried their best to make a game that makes sense, is fun for all players involved, and solves a lot of the game-breakers of previous editions by slaughtering some sacred cows. For me, 4e simply is a superior game to 3e in every regard.

So don't take people criticizing 3e (or 4e) so personally. Its not like any of us here wrote the rules for the game. No game is perfect. 3e was a decent system for its time, and had some great innovations, but it had flaws, and clapping your hands over your ears and singing "LALALALALA" doesn't make it not so. 4e isn't perfect either, but its a damn sight better designed and more thought out than what has come before.

 

[VanRichten]

Also, with regards to "Larger reach"; a diagnial square counts as two squares in 3.5. So unless the flying wizard is right above them, the reach isn't as useful.

Actually the RAW states that the diagonal rule only applies to movement not to attacks. You can find this information in the PHB, under the combat section. I would quote the pages but I don't have the book in front of me.

Yes, you can buy flying mounts. But, that becomes difficult. The mounts have to be fed, can be killed, and certainly don't give you perfect maneuverability like fly does. You cannot, for example, use a mount to constantly overcome terrain difficulties like you could with an Overland Flight spell.

Flight did not give you perfect maneuverability in 3.5E. If I am correct it gave you average.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the "ways of dealing with flight" problem. Most don't consider that a simple Hold Person spell will stop the wizard. And that is a very low level spell.

This was asked a while back in a dragon magazine (issue unknown). The questioner asked if a wizard were flying and he were to fall under the effects of a Hold Person spell would he float in mid air or would he just fall to the ground.

The answer given was that he would just float in mid air. The reason sited was that Fly is used mentally. The wizard is mentally deciding where he wishes to go with the power of the spell. And since Hold Person halts all physical action by way of a "mental freezing", the character cannot will himself to move. Just as he cannot will his legs to move.

Now I can imagine many of you are going to state that you as a DM has to now put in a character to fit this problem. But let me remind you that it is easily possible to find someone in a CR 5 setting who can cast such a low level spell.

 

[racoffin]

Moreover, unless the wizard is digging deep for the wealth to buy wands or scrolls of it, there is a distinct limit to the number of 3rd level spells he can cast a day. 1 Fly is one less fireball or lightning bolt. It means that even if he is flying, the rest of the party likely isn't. And unless the wizards a dick, he cares enough about the party to be close enough to support them.

I gotta go with Toras on this. While I can understand that some people might abuse Fly and thus it could be a problem in some games, I'm less convinced that whichever version of D&D is broken with regards to Fly. It is one of those problems I hear about here, but I haven't seen firsthand (I daresay like many of the problems I've heard about with the various versions of the game.)

I don't think this is a 3e or 4e problem. I think this is a gamer problem/incident. I'll pause here as I'll need to fork this off to pull in a few other problems from other threads and try to tie my thoughts together coherantly.

 

[pemerton]

Which means the problem is delayed, not removed. Why is it a problem at level 5 but not level 16?

As I said in my last post, and as others have posted, because at 16th level monsters can handle it. Especially in light of other changes (to speed, range etc) in 4e.

Flight did not give you perfect maneuverability in 3.5E. If I am correct it gave you average.

No. It gives Good, which allows hovering.