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

[pemerton]

But, 4e HAS flight in combat. It's once per day (per power), and perhaps that ties into the other thread about the 15 min adventuring day, but...

My quick search through the PHB found a Paladin encounter at 13 (fly Wis mod squares as part of a charge), a cleric Paragon Path daily at level 20 and a Warlock daily at 10 (both give fly 6, the Warlock one removes standard actions, the cleric one gives hover), a Warlock encounter at 15 (no attack), a Warlock 22 encounter (fly at own speed), a Wizard daily at 16 (fly 8, minor to sustain) and then the Mass version of that as a Wizard daily at 22. Wizards also have Levitate at 6 with Sustain Move for quite limited horizontal movement, a vertical cap of 4 squares and an AC/Ref penalty. And there's the chariot as a 22nd level Cleric daily that can carry up to 5 targets. Only the cleric gets the ability to hover (so the others - except Levitate - have to move or else they crash, and they lose Opportunity Attacks).

I don't have the play experience with 4e to confirm this hypothesis, but to me at least that looks like Fly being less frequent, higher level, and (except for the Cleric Paragon Path 20th power) less powerful, and these (presumably deliberate) changes give me more confidence that the design team has better taken account of the availability of fly as a balancing factor for encounter mix and monster abilities.

The fact that they've abandoned the old Manoeuvrability Classes, inherited from the 1st ed DMG, also makes me more confident they've had a serious look at flying as a factor contributing to encounter balance.

From what I gather, folks had a problem with Fly because folks would buy a wand of fly (5X3X750, 11,250gp. 225gp a charge) and then spam it all the time to always be flying. This was such a problem that 4e made flight a once a day thing and moved any actual travel power to higher level.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. But non-constant flying seems to be a deliberate design choice in 4e. Again, the fact that deliberate decisions have been made about flying makes me more confident that the balance issues have been taken into consideration in monster design and encounter-mix suggestions.

This was NOT a problem that the design team recognized in 3.5, since the Warlock has non-stop flight.

I don't know the 3.5 Warlock very well, but I'm sure you're right. In which case I'd have to conlcude - from my own long experience GMing a fly-heavy campaign - that the 3.5 design team made an error.

So, it can avoid encounters (unless those encounters are important) and it can avoid terrain (but not in dungeons so much). In combat it's the same, but now you can only "dominate" combat 1/day rather than paying a gp fee.

Well this is the issue. Deliberate changes to fly of the sort I've mentioned above make me more confident (as I've also mentioned above) that fly won't lead to domination, because I infer that it has concsiously been accounted for in the overall design of the game.

Like I said, never having had this problem, it feels to me like the "I hate warforged because they don't eat, and sometimes I want to starve my players" type of deal.

Having had the problem, I see it as completely different. It's not just an issue of overall tenable storyline (and, as I said above, I don't really care about the overland travel aspect at all - like Warforged starvation, that goes to overall campaign flavour but not to encounter design), it's an issue of tenable encounter design. As a GM I'm happy to work on campaign flavour, but I want the game mechanics to provide me with a bunch of (more-or-less) playable encounters out of the box. That means that monsters have to be balanced to take fly into account. I've stated above what I take to be the evidence (absent sufficient actual play experience) that 4e has done this.

 

[Andor]

I didn't know eggs could fly.

Watch more Mork and Mindy.

...

You know, in my experience flight enable far more adventures than it forstalls.

GM: Oh noes! I can't threaten my party with ants if they fly! No more flight for you!
Players: Uh, okay, but weren't we supposed to check out the abandoned cloud castle next week?
GM: ... D'oh!

 

[Gothmog]

Plus of course the one that everyone seems to be missing is this:

All day overland flight costs the same as a level 5 magic item.

Huh?

MM pg 146. Hippogriff and Griffons cost 1000 gp. The same as a standard 5th level magic item. What level was everyone complaining about all day flying at? *drum roll* 5th!

Ta-da!

Oh well, at least it can't be abused because not everyone has Ride as a class skill. Wait. What? There is no more ride skill? Everyone is automatically fully proficient at riding everything from Steelback Chihuahuas to Needlenosed Landsharks?

Well, they are hard to train, right? D'oh! No more training rules!

Wow I sure am glad 4e cleared that problem up!

Ummm....you do realize ANYBODY in 3e could ride any kind of mount as well? The ride skill was only applicable when you tried to perform some trick with the mount, like attack off it, make it jump over an obstacle, etc. Plus, both 3e and 4e have the Mounted Combat feat, which is what a rider really needs in order to use a mount effectively in combat.

As for training, look at 4e's Nature skill, and you see it covers teaching an animal new tricks or training. The nature of the trick or training is left up to the DM and player, but its there. Again, your arguement holds no water.

Flying mounts are also not the freebie a flight spell is. First, there is the matter of procuring food, stabling, etc for it- and as most are carnivorous, that can be a problem (where do you get 50 lbs of meat per day to feed a griffin?). Flying mounts can also be killed, which means you blew your 1000 gp. You can't "kill" a fly spell, and magic items that provide flight are more difficult to destroy than killing a mount. Mounts also are not perfectly maneuverable, and weather conditions can more easily affect them. Hmmm....looks to me like 4e did make a distinction between its flight and the munchy 3e flight.

As for how flight isn't as uber in 4 combat, look at the monsters a level 5 character in 3e faces compared to the monsters a level 22 character in 4e faces. Very few of the 3e monsters have any inherent way to deal with flying characters. In contrast, almost ALL of the 4e monsters have some way to deal with the flying characters (innate ranged attacks, powers, hindering flying opponents, buffing flying/ranged allies, flight, or teleport of their own.

Using the example given earlier in the thread of ranged ogres, they will have exactly a rat's @ss chance in hell of hitting a flying wizard, since they have crap Dex and their attacks with missile weapons (which would probably be thrown weapons to gain their Str bonus damage) will have crap range (javelin for example has range increment 30 feet). So for example, the 3 ogre with a javelin hurling it at a flying wizard 120 feet away would have a +3 BAB -1 Dex - 6 for 4 range increments, for a whopping grand total of -4 to the attack roll. This example is even being nice to the ogres, assuming the wizard stays 120 feet away- fireball has a 400 ft + 40 ft per level range!!! The 3e wizard can just bop out to a safe range, and repeatedly fireball them or use whatever AOE spell he wishes to destroy them with a few token resistance spears hurled his direction.

In 4e, those same ogres, are a MUCH greater threat to a flying wizard. If they are using javelins (range 10/20 in 4e), they can hit a wizard ANYWHERE he would be in relation to them, as most wizard spells have range 10, with a few at range 20. Now, our little squishy wizard can't be a chicken and stay way out or range and blast with impugnity. The ogres get +13 to attack with javelins, for 1d8+4 damage, or a +11 at 20 square range. And if you notice, ogres are NOT a level suitable challenge for a level 22 character (an ogre skirmisher with javelins is a level 8 enemy). Ratchet that up to a level 22 enemy (a Death Giant for example, or an efreet fireblade or cinderlord) and our wizard is going to be toast pretty quick.

So, I think I've clearly shown that the 4e designers DID think about the implecations of ranged and flying combat much moreso than 3e (heck they thought about EVERYTHING much moreso than 3e), and took steps to avoid the same pitfalls, or at least give opponents viable choices to counter flying/ranged threats. I don't necessarily agree with everything they did in 4e, but overall as a system it holds together much better than 3e IME and IMO. While 3e had some great innovations, it was at its core badly designed, and didn't scale well with character powers and abilities. If folks would give 4e a shot rather than ranting about misinformed opinions regarding the ruleset and actually PLAY the darn thing, we wouldn't have so many flamebait threads with people trying to pick fights.

 

[Toras]

You know what would have made 4e complete? Rules for making new things, and balancing them appropriately. I'm not just talking about crafting rules, I suppose I can live without those.

But rules for creating/balancing new powers, feats, monsters, classes, the list goes sodding on. Frankly, if it had included that we could have made what we missed and frankly perhaps ours would have turned out better. This is what I feel is missing from this and many other games. Guidelines for further sodding development. Oh, and a lack of Rogue's being able to build traps sucks too. (Along with a decrease in wards and other prepared protectives.)

And while I'm here, losing Metallic Dragons sucks if you aren't playing as a Good campaign. If you are using Blackguards and other such, fighting good dragons and other good creatures of purity and light becomes reliavent. I for one resent the anti-evil bias. Also, just because someone or something is good doesn't mean it can't be mislead or disagree with the parties intentions. Such things can lead to conflict.

Other things to be missed do included illusions, enchantments, necromancy, unique transmutations,etc. Not required for a game, but things to miss for genre if nothing else.

 

[Gothmog]

You know what would have made 4e complete? Rules for making new things, and balancing them appropriately. I'm not just talking about crafting rules, I suppose I can live without those.

But rules for creating/balancing new powers, feats, monsters, classes, the list goes sodding on. Frankly, if it had included that we could have made what we missed and frankly perhaps ours would have turned out better. This is what I feel is missing from this and many other games. Guidelines for further sodding development. Oh, and a lack of Rogue's being able to build traps sucks too. (Along with a decrease in wards and other prepared protectives.)

Other things to be missed do included illusions, enchantments, necromancy, unique transmutations,etc. Not required for a game, but things to miss for genre if nothing else.

Yeah, I definitely agree with this. I'd love some guidelines for power creation would be a godsend. Illusions, necromancy, enchantments, etc are coming (in fact, a recent Dragon article put level 1-10 illusions back in) but I do miss them.

 

[Andor]

we wouldn't have so many flamebait threads with people trying to pick fights.

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?

 

[The Little Raven]

A) It lets you skip filler encounters during overland travel.

This was not my complaint. My complaint that it invalidates (not avoids) a ground-based challenge when you have 1/minute per level flight and combat encounters last a few rounds at the most. You're able to avoid a real threat from a good chunk of the most basic MM encounters at 5th level, because they can't fly or have limited ranged capabilities. And 3e's fly was really bad, since it effectively doubled your speed (most characters had a speed of 6 squares; fly gives 12). So, one spell allows you to move faster than everyone as well as avoid terrain, obstacles, and stay out of the range of melee.

I know the immediate response is "Well, use ranged/flying creatures," but that means by 5th level, a very large chunk of my Monster Manuals become effectively worthless.

B) It's tactically broken in 3e yet somehow not in 4e.

Yeah, because it's incredibly limited, and actually factors into the economy of actions to maintain. No more popping fly then being able to fly faster than everyone else can move for the encounter's duration with little restriction (good maneuverability) and no further costs. Now, it costs actions to maintain and isn't available in the early levels.

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.

1. Not all cover protects you from aerial attacks.
2. Hard to outrun someone that moves roughly twice as fast as you and is not hampered by terrain or spacing.
3. Fireball has a crazy range and isn't the most difficult to get behind an obstacle.

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

In the paragon and epic tiers.

If you can't see the huge difference between nearly unrestricted flight by 5th level, and restricted flight at 22nd level (or incredibly restricted flight at lower levels), then there's no point in discussing this with you at all.

 

[Andor]

I know the immediate response is "Well, use ranged/flying creatures," but that means by 5th level, a very large chunk of my Monster Manuals become effectively worthless.

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.

Additionally you always have the option of useing flying monsters as a threat to mobile but squishy casters. If they are in the mountains then there are plenty of wyverns and griffons around who will be happy to eat flying squishies. They don't have to be part of the encounter, just visibly flying off in the middle distance. One encounter with territorial wyverns defending their nest during breeding season and your mages will be less eager to break out the flight.

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.

Yeah, because it's incredibly limited, and actually factors into the economy of actions to maintain. No more popping fly then being able to fly faster than everyone else can move for the encounter's duration with little restriction (good maneuverability) and no further costs. Now, it costs actions to maintain and isn't available in the early levels.

In the paragon and epic tiers.

If you can't see the huge difference between nearly unrestricted flight by 5th level, and restricted flight at 22nd level (or incredibly restricted flight at lower levels), then there's no point in discussing this with you at all.

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

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

Again, if you like 4e, terrific. But why the need to make these pathetic assaults upon 3e to justify your love?

Yes flight was easy to aquire in 3e. 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. It allows the investigation of the cloud castle, or the arial chase through the towers of sharn, or the drow stalgtite city.

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

 

[Scribble]

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

What I saw in my 3e games, was that fly became available so early, you never had a chance to experience fun adventures revolving around somewhat mundane concepts. How do we get into the castle? We could climb, but it's risky.. oooohhhh... There's a clif we have to scale down to continue... It'll be a dangerous climb, but we're up for it. ooooh.

It all becomes invalidated by a simple fly spell/ability that came about too soon.

In and of itself flying is not a bad thing.

 

[Toras]

While I can understand people using Flight to avoid being squished as a caster on an open plane, everything about that screams to me that someone a couple hundred feet up is pretty easy to spot by anything with vision based on movement or scouts.

If stealth, even the most minor concession of sticking to the forest, should be a concern. Especially in a point of light setting, where who knows what might exist out there in the deep forests or high mountains.

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.

Really flight only became a problem when it was possible to reliable do mass fly, which was a great deal higher.