D&D 4E Forked Thread: Some Thoughts on 4e


log in or register to remove this ad

I was in a situation where I prepped Dispel Magic since the BBEG was a Wizard Vampire. Day after day, we had encounters, but did not yet reach the final climactic fight. That spell was basically worthless day after day because we did not encounter any conjuration zones. When we finally reached the encounter, I tried using it on one of the Vampire's zones, rolled a 10, and whiffed. I don't mind whiffing as much as I mind the fact that my PC was even more handcuffed than usual for a spell that is fairly worthless for the few times it can come into play (BBEGs often tend to have high Will defense). When one has 20 spells and 1 is worthless, it's not as bad as when one has 8 spells and 1 is worthless. They nerfed the number of times Dispel Magic can be used per day, nerfed what type of magic Dispel Magic affects, and then turned around and slightly nerfed the percentage chance of it working when used. Just like your Wizard with Invisibility, I thought and planned and it didn't do anything. Even if I had made the roll, Dispel Magic is so limited that it would have hardly affected combat.

How is this much different than 3e though? A Wizard in 3E still had to choose between which spells he used. If you chose to memorize another spell over Dispel Magic, and an encounter came up where you really needed that Dispel Magic, then you'd be in the same perdictament no matter if it was 3E or 4E.

The Wizard actually has an advantage to other classes in 4E (just like in previous editions). At least they can pick 2 dailies and have choice from day to day. Some classes may have 2 really good power choices and can only choose one and will never get the option to switch it out from day to day.

Although I do see a concern with spells per day. In 3E you could memorized Dispel Magic x amount of times per day, and in 4E its only once per day (barring any funky Demigod Epic Destiny manipulating). But I think the system is balanced with that in mind. And remember, 4E is still in its first year. As more and more PHBs and spltbooks are released, those options will open up, until they are just as broke as 3E, and then we'll all get to complain about and/or praise 5E :)
 

Say what you like about 4e magic, but I'd take pretty much anything over the buff-fest 3e magic turns into at later levels. Players with literally dozens of buffs running at a time who are virtually useless in combat without them is not fun at all. It's even less fun when you get hit by a dispel magic and have to work out what your character looks like when seven of his twenty-one ongoing magical effects go away.

It feels a lot like people are actually complaining that 4e is balanced in these threads. I for one like that a game at epic levels actually resembles one at lower levels. I like that I can run an epic level enemy against the party that doesn't need to be able to cast 400 different spells ("casts spells as an 18th level wizard", anyone?) or have a full A4 page of abilities. I can just use something out of the book, slap it on the table, and not have to worry about how it's going to avoid some of the ridiculous powers the wizard can just bust out at will. It doesn't matter if he actually uses them or not, the fact that he might decide to be (for instance) flying and invisible for the entire fight means that I (as GM) need to think of a countermeasure for it. And after a while, having to spend ages countering everything a wizard has in his nigh-limitless bag of tricks just gets old.

I like 4e. I'm not sure if a lot of the people who keep hating on it in the 4e rules discussion forum aren't comparing it to some rose-tinted version of D&D 3e that didn't simply break down horribly at higher levels.
 

Say what you like about 4e magic, but I'd take pretty much anything over the buff-fest 3e magic turns into at later levels. Players with literally dozens of buffs running at a time who are virtually useless in combat without them is not fun at all. It's even less fun when you get hit by a dispel magic and have to work out what your character looks like when seven of his twenty-one ongoing magical effects go away.

I agree with the above statement but I'm not sure 4e is the game for me. I'll have a better idea on that once I run a game which won't happen for a while yet. One of the guys from my home group said something this last session that hit the nail on the head for me.

"Somewhere between 3.5 and 4e is a great game"

I think he may be right I just don't know that we'll ever find it. Who knows, maybe 4e will be that game if we keep playing it.
 

How is this much different than 3e though?

It's a lot different. I could Dispel Magic his Fly, his Wall of Fire, his protections, his attack spells. I could cast Dispel Magic multiple times per day.

If I wanted to play a caster that protected the party by messing with opponent's spells, I could. Now I cannot.

Now, the PCs and NPCs pretty much get their powers useable every time. They might not work, but it's difficult to prevent them from being used. Before, I could ready to attack a spell caster with almost any offensive spell and it might mess up his spell. Now, even that does not work.

You cannot see the difference there? Now, it's fire, fire, fire. Before, one could use spells a LOT more creatively.
 

You cannot see the difference there? Now, it's fire, fire, fire. Before, one could use spells a LOT more creatively.

Pretty much every time you say "creative" I just hear "broken". Sure, there are lots of uses for being able to fly for an entire combat. However, it invalidates a large chunk of any character without ranged combat options (like many "mundane" characters), or any character who invested in movement skills like jump, climb or swim. There are lots of uses for being invisible for entire combats at a time, but again, it completely invalidates sneaky characters. There are lots of uses for having an army of servitors to fight for you. However, the "mundane" characters have no way of emulating this within the rules (unless you want to use another broken set of rules such as the leadership feat).

It really sounds like unless your character is able to do a hundred game-breaking things with six seconds of notice, you can't enjoy a game. Perhaps Ars Magica would be more your style? At least in that players who aren't magical are expressely described as inferior to the mages, rather than the extremely fallacious idea of game balance in 3e.

"You mean, I can travel from any point in space to any other point in space?! That's amazing!"

"Ah, but you're forgetting, it will take you... ten minutes!"

"Damn, I thought I had a useful power there for a second, but that time constraint brings it all crashing down!"
 

It's a lot different. I could Dispel Magic his Fly, his Wall of Fire, his protections, his attack spells. I could cast Dispel Magic multiple times per day.

If I wanted to play a caster that protected the party by messing with opponent's spells, I could. Now I cannot.

Now, the PCs and NPCs pretty much get their powers useable every time. They might not work, but it's difficult to prevent them from being used. Before, I could ready to attack a spell caster with almost any offensive spell and it might mess up his spell. Now, even that does not work.

You cannot see the difference there? Now, it's fire, fire, fire. Before, one could use spells a LOT more creatively.

Such non-buff defensive tactics have been a niche tactic in all versions of D&D, and Dispel Magic typically had a 50% or more chance of failing even under optimal conditions.

I am doubtful this line of reasoning will prove persuasive -- the traditionalists will prefer this style of suckage, while the novelty seekers will not care. ;)
 

Pretty much every time you say "creative" I just hear "broken". Sure, there are lots of uses for being able to fly for an entire combat. However, it invalidates a large chunk of any character without ranged combat options (like many "mundane" characters), or any character who invested in movement skills like jump, climb or swim. There are lots of uses for being invisible for entire combats at a time, but again, it completely invalidates sneaky characters. There are lots of uses for having an army of servitors to fight for you. However, the "mundane" characters have no way of emulating this within the rules (unless you want to use another broken set of rules such as the leadership feat).

It really sounds like unless your character is able to do a hundred game-breaking things with six seconds of notice, you can't enjoy a game. Perhaps Ars Magica would be more your style? At least in that players who aren't magical are expressely described as inferior to the mages, rather than the extremely fallacious idea of game balance in 3e.

"You mean, I can travel from any point in space to any other point in space?! That's amazing!"

"Ah, but you're forgetting, it will take you... ten minutes!"

"Damn, I thought I had a useful power there for a second, but that time constraint brings it all crashing down!"

The term "broken" get thrown about quite a bit these days. If playing a game where getting to do really cool stuff that not everyone can replicate every round in an equal way or else whine like a baby with a toy taken away is considered broken then I LOVE broken games.

I can remember a time when fairness and balance could be achieved over the course of a session or even a campaign. Nowadays if anything gets the slightest bit out of whack for a whole round or two its broken and needs to be nerfed. For a game thats supposed to be about playing the role of a hero taking part in an epic story, this turn based fairness equates to blandness. Part of being a good DM is giving every player a chance for some time in the spotlight. Its not something that needs to be dictated by the rules on a per round basis in order to have an enjoyable play experience. The whole me me me-now now now design philosophy has watered down the flavor of all the great things the game was about.

I can handle a "broken" rule that makes a game session memorable a lot better than a "balanced" game that is going to feel the same every session.
 

Pretty much every time you say "creative" I just hear "broken". Sure, there are lots of uses for being able to fly for an entire combat. However, it invalidates a large chunk of any character without ranged combat options (like many "mundane" characters), or any character who invested in movement skills like jump, climb or swim.

Then, how do you explain the fact that the Jump spell, which often will not work because the roll is failed, is a second level Per Encounter power whereas Misty Step is a Class ability? Auto-teleport, 3 spaces up versus a chance to jump up 3 feet. Ethereal Stride works every time and is also a second level Per Encounter power, and also gives a bonus to defense.

How is this balanced when compared to the character who invested in movement skills like Athletics?

Teleport is handed out like candy at low levels. How does this compare to Jump (either the skill or the power)?

Teleport is typically more potent and useful than Levitate, but Levitate is 6th level.

But, you accept Teleport as balanced.
 

I can handle a "broken" rule that makes a game session memorable a lot better than a "balanced" game that is going to feel the same every session.

Precisely.

The design philosophy is all about balance to the nth degree in combat. Heaven forbid if the Wizard could actually cast a Darkness spell. Nope. Nobody else can do that and it doesn't do damage, so it's not allowed.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top