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

If you think that is somehow overpowered or unjustified, I don't know what to tell you. That's how 4e works.

I didn't say that it was overpowered or unjustified. I said that 4E makes it difficult to be creative with spells in combat. You tried to prove this wrong with your example.

The fact is that you are using your example to illustrate how 4E spells can be used creatively, but you had to break the rules to do so.

That is far from illustrating your point. It does the opposite. It illustrates my point.

The balance of him doing this in combat is irrelevant. What's relevant to this thread is the fact that most 4E powers are damage dealing and very few are protective, or miscellaneous or illusion or summoning or movement or whatever. If nearly every power is a hammer, it's hard to think like a screwdriver.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Damage is not the be all end all of a character's effectiveness, but you seem to insist that it is.

4E says that damage is the be all end all of a character's effectiveness not me.

Per the RAW there is little if anything to remove fighting effectiveness from an enemy except reducing hit points to 0.
 


My 2e Dark Sun Fighter only did heavy damage because he was specialized in his weapon (which is the equivalent of taking some of the damage bonus feats, or the Kensai PP) and he was dual-wielding freaking longswords. He did 6d8+some ridiculous modifier in damage (I don't recall exactly, but he had like a 22 Str or something, because Dark Sun used higher stats) per round, every round...as long as he hit. Which, since I had my stats pumped up pretty good, he did most of the time.

In case you haven't noticed yet,

In case you haven't noticed yet, nearly all 1E to 3.5 Fighters did a lot of damage. Everyone maxed out their Fighters, or at least IME. In 1E, it was Swords of Sharpness and Girdles of Giant Strength. In 3.5, it was feats, magic weapons, and ability score boost items.

The difference with 4E is that Rogues "backstab" (using the 1E vernacular) nearly every round instead of once per combat and can go around wearing Plate armor if they want to.

4E Fighters have been a bit gimped compared to earlier versions. They do not get strength boost items. They do not as many multiple attacks per round per encounter. They got stickier, but that's it. They've been given a role that they never had before: sticky defender (as opposed to damaging front liner).

The same cannot be said of 4E Rogues. Opportunities for Rogues have opened up quite a bit.
 
Last edited:


4E says that damage is the be all end all of a character's effectiveness not me.

Per the RAW there is little if anything to remove fighting effectiveness from an enemy except reducing hit points to 0.

Except of course that forcing an enemy to attack someone they are least likely to hit AND, if they do, has enough HP [and surges] to shrug it off means that the squishier members of the party that do more damage are kept alive. Keeping them alive keeps them dealing damage and therefore killing the enemy faster.

Similarly a dazed, stunned or unconcious enemy is not fighting as effectively as he would be without those conditions. Having lowered defences or lowered chances to hit reduces his effectiveness. Being knocked prone not only allows people a better chance of hitting him [and sneak attack], but he has to waste an action to get up and may not be able to reach anyone to attack them after getting up.

There are tons of ways to effect an enemies fighting effectiveness temporarily, until they are dead. Many powers that do less damage are better choices because the secondary effects provide more of an advantage than that bit of extra damage would have.

And may I ask, what are the ways in 3e to completely remove an enemies fighting effectiveness? Put them to 0 HP or lower or ... save or die/save or might as well die effects? In 2e? In 1e? Ultimately, IN COMBAT, killing the opponent [or "subduing them"] is always the goal. While dealing damage is obviously part of that, so is withstanding the opponent's attack. If you "win" a fight, but the entire party needs to spend a ton of surges to get back up to full, it is much worse than having the fight go LONGER, but with less damage taken by your side. Killing the opponent as quickly as possible is one method, but making the opponent deal as little damage as possible while you kill him [perhaps more slowly] is an option that makes for the adventuring day being able to last longer, as you conserve your resources better.

But yeah, 4e COMBAT is really just about getting the opponent to 0 Hp. No other game is like that.
 

In case you haven't noticed yet, nearly all 1E to 3.5 Fighters did a lot of damage. Everyone maxed out their Fighters, or at least IME. In 1E, it was Swords of Sharpness and Girdles of Giant Strength. In 3.5, it was feats, magic weapons, and ability score boost items.

The difference with 4E is that Rogues "backstab" (using the 1E vernacular) nearly every round instead of once per combat and can go around wearing Plate armor if they want to.

4E Fighters have been a bit gimped compared to earlier versions. They do not get strength boost items. They do not as many multiple attacks per round per encounter. They got stickier, but that's it. They've been given a role that they never had before: sticky defender (as opposed to damaging front liner).

The same cannot be said of 4E Rogues. Opportunities for Rogues have opened up quite a bit.

At the same time, there wasn't much for fighters to do to BE sticky in previous editions. You could specialize in grappling or tripping. That was pretty much it in terms of tying up a foe. Sure, being next to someone limited their options somewhat because they'd have to provoke to get away from you unless it was 5-foot stepping [which you could get to them again] or they could withdraw. Still, if you weren't lightly armored, most people could outmove you, so the extremely tank-y fighter with high armor ... couldn't move very fast and it was hard for him to be sticky.

The fighter is different. He gained powers in exchange for others. He may not out damage the rogue, unless he's actually getting his multiple attacks per turn [now in the form of OAs and Interupts instead of iterative attacks]. The benefit is that they have a dual purpose ... they can dish out a respectible ammount of damage [the fighter is the go to guy for commander's strike, unless the rogue didn't hit with his sneak attack, or the barbarian shows up] and the opponent either does what the fighter says, or ignores him and the fighter gets to do striker damage.

Just so I can be clear, is your argument that nothing should every change between editions? Or, what exactly? And, in the Martial book, there is the berserking fighter that gets even more extra damage as long as he has temp HP [which involves getting hit in close combat, or using a power and not getting shot up from range ... not hard things to do if the fighter is doing his job by getting into close combat and making himself a nuisance]. The berserking fighter is probably going to be very close to the barbarian as a "striker/defender" hybrid.

Also, one thing that may have been neglected, fighters [at the moment at least] have the weapon talent thing. This means that, outside of a rogue with a dagger, the fighter has a 5% greater chance of hitting than an equally strong paladin or ranger with their weapon. The damage they deal on a hit may be lower, but their chances of hitting are greater, increasing their damage output. The chances of hitting with OAs are even greater [assuming you don't dump wisdom], making that damage likely better than the paladin's divine challenge.
 

In case you haven't noticed yet, nearly all 1E to 3.5 Fighters did a lot of damage. Everyone maxed out their Fighters, or at least IME. In 1E, it was Swords of Sharpness and Girdles of Giant Strength. In 3.5, it was feats, magic weapons, and ability score boost items.
.

I would seriously question that. In 3.5 once you were over level 12 the fighter may have a big number written on their character sheet, but they did not do a lot of damage.

They need to hit whihc fist means they need to get in range.

Evasion was so easy much of the time the fighter was simply out of the combat. Only the casters were in the combat able to achieve something from round to round.
Also the casters were able to do a lot more damage.

I've played casters from the core books only in D&D 3.x and frankly I could break them every time. Add to that obscene magic items and horribly broken prestige classes and there was no point playing anything else.
The fighters are simply left walking about trying to run after things to hit them while the casters swan around doing everything.

the spells had So much utility it meant the casters ould do everything better than the people who were meant to do it. Clerics were the best at fighting and mages could deal obscene damage while under a cover of enormous buffs.
Rituals are now the home of the utility magic; and good. They are accessible by anyone if you want, and they are out of combat

As for arguments about "well good GMs could make anything work ok" Well yes they can, but in 4th ed even average or a bit :):):):) GMs can make a good game.
The reason why Gms can save a game is they know when to say yes and when to say no. But 4th clears the lines so much that they don't need to nearly as often making things more fun for everyone.


The constant buffing in 3.x was insane too. Every door you opened you'd essentially have to cast a million spells before you started.
But the worst of it all was for the GM, because there were so many stupid spells you had to prepare against, and not only that you also had to run monsters as spell casters and they were as hard as PCs to play, but you needed to run 4-5 of them every session. Far too much work.

I have played both casters and mundane characters. Last time I played I picked a rogue. Id occasionally hit and do my 20 points of damage, I had some sneaky combos of magic items and funky swords. Then the mage with his silly broken prestige class would twin cast fireballs dealing 50 damage to 10 targets. It happened all the time. It was dull.
4e everyone can DO SOMETHING in every encounter. it is more fun.

In 4e the GM doesn't have as big a headache = more fun
4e the GMs prep is easier meaning he can spend more time on plot and developement that he would have been spending on looking through spell books = more fun
in 4e Rituals can do all the utility stuff and if you want to take your cahracter down that route anyone can do them. = more fun
and a few classes arnt so far ahead that playing the others is just playing second fiddle to them. = more fun.


The only arguments people seem to have are that "my wizard isn't god anymore, this game is not fun now"
 

And may I ask, what are the ways in 3e to completely remove an enemies fighting effectiveness? Put them to 0 HP or lower or ... save or die/save or might as well die effects? In 2e? In 1e?

Sleep
Web
Hold person
Polymorph Other
Maze

Just a few off the top of my head. Killing and incapacitating are not identical unless a thirst for blood is the primary motivator to every combat.
 

And may I ask, what are the ways in 3e to completely remove an enemies fighting effectiveness? Put them to 0 HP or lower or ... save or die/save or might as well die effects? In 2e? In 1e?

Sleep, Web, Hold, Entangle, Stinking Cloud, Grease, Ray of Enfeeblement, Silence, Blindness/Deafness. Most of the effects did not do damage as well. The caster had a choice. And most of the effects lasted for more than a round or two.

Now, it's do damage and maybe do an effect for a round or two for the most part. Real spell durations are practically non-existent in 4E combat.

The issue is not about doing damage or not. 3E combat was about doing damage. It's about nearly every 4E attack spell doing damage (and lethal damage at that).

You want to capture a Minion in 4E? Good luck. Virtually none of the powers will take him out and not kill him.

Non-lethal damage? Almost non-existent in 4E. 4E is about combat to the death. Every time.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top