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

[Staffan]

How does the group fly 10 miles in 4E? Flying Carpet is the only solution (TMK). Mass Fly lasts for 5 minutes.

Phantom Steed ritual and an Arcana check of 40 (which indicates a pretty good roll even at level 30), or the Overland Flight ritual from Dragon 366 (20th level, costs 5,000 gp to cast).

Going anywhere you want while bypassing everything that's in the way seems pretty epic to me. Ritual travel options (if you're not determined to actually fly) include:
Water Walk (level 2, walk on water).
Phantom Steed (level 6, conjures mounts that at higher level can ignore terrain, ride over water, and if you're really good, fly).
Linked Portal (level 8, teleports party to a fixed point).
Shadow Walk (level 12, x5 travel speed).
Planar Portal (level 18, as Linked Portal except it can go to another plane).
True Portal (level 28, teleport anywhere).

 

[James McMurray]

Going anywhere you want while bypassing everything that's in the way seems pretty epic to me. Ritual travel options (if you're not determined to actually fly) include:
Water Walk (level 2, walk on water).
Phantom Steed (level 6, conjures mounts that at higher level can ignore terrain, ride over water, and if you're really good, fly).
Linked Portal (level 8, teleports party to a fixed point).
Shadow Walk (level 12, x5 travel speed).
Planar Portal (level 18, as Linked Portal except it can go to another plane).
True Portal (level 28, teleport anywhere).

But (if I'm understanding Karinsdad properly): they're not the same and therefor they're bad. Or perhaps "but there's not 15 different ways to replicate those long range travel options, some of which require "creativity" and so they're just not good enough.

 

[tanj]

Yup. You can trick them (or push them) in 3E. You push them in in 4E. The former is creative. The latter is mundane. Thanks for proving my point.

4E has a different design philosophy than 3E. 3E gives set effects and lets the GM and PCs figure out the result. 4E gives the result and leaves lots of room for the GM and PCs to explain how the end result was arrived at.

How many creative things could we do in 3E that we cannot do in 4E versus how many creative things can we do in 4E that we could do in 3E?

In 4E, the wall spell is just a wall. In 3E, the illusion is a wall or a floor or a table or a wide variety of other interesting and creative objects. And oh yes, we still have the wall spells as well in 3E.

There are so few spells per PC caster in 4E that by definition, it loses big time on the creativity and PC options meters to 3E. Yes, quite a few spells in 4E do damage and do something else. That does not creates skads of creativity options. It creates a small handful of the same ways to be creative. Over and over and over again, combat after combat after combat. Oh, I push him down. Oh, I create difficult terrain. Oh, I daze him. zzzzzzzz

Not exactly, a wall is an end result, difficult terrain is an end result, daze is an end result. Where 4E allows for creativity is in describing how that result is achieved.

I push him down. How?

• I create a distraction and he trips over a small obstacle.
• I call on the spirits of nature to hold his ankle.
• I throw rocks at him.
• I duck and stand behind him while my ally pushes him.

I create difficult terrain. How?

• I stomp my foot and the earth shatters.
• I cause vines to quickly grow and cover the area.
• I throw caltrops on the floor.
• I use my rope dart and swing it through the area to discourage enemies from entering.

I daze him. How?

• I throw a net over him.
• Spirits of nature hear my call, hold this foe and slow him down.
• A good crack on the skull.
• Distracting imagery.

For example the rogue power Blinding Barrage could represent the rogue taking multiple daggers from prepared sheathes that he had previously used to store the necessary projectiles and then needs a significant amount of time to reload the sheathes. another possible description of the same power is a specially prepared crossbow that fires multiple bolts simultaneously, but requires an extended period of time to reload.

The discussion has been about wizard powers, so let's take the example of casting rock to mud and then mud to rock. In 3E the PC could do that through powers explicitly given to them. In 4E the wizard could cast Web and describe it as liquefying the floor and then having the floor solidify around any creature that enters.

4E allows for a different type of creativity. It is possible to be very creative when describing effects, but trying to use specific descriptions to try to eke out an unintended advantage is discouraged.

What I like is that 4E encourages creativity with descriptions, but does not require it. It also makes things much more straight forward to arbitrate.

 

[pemerton]

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

I would have said the opposite. All damage is non-lethal, as it always up to a player to declare that a foe dropped to 0 hp is unconscious rather than dead or dying.

 

[FireLance]

You totally missed the point of his question.

It was not, "How can we sorta kinda maybe do something in 4E that gives us a similar end result to creative spells in 3E?".

The real question here is:

How many creative things could we do in 3E that we cannot do in 4E versus how many creative things can we do in 4E that we could do in 3E?

Actually, for those of us who are playing 4e, I think the former question is more interesting and productive than the latter.

For me, at least, some other relevant questions are:

1. Do you want a game in which a character regularly has a chance to single-handedly end an encounter in one round?
The occasional moment of awesome is great, e.g. the recent example where a character used command to slide a mount and all its riders off a bridge. Continuously using wail of the banshee/finger of death/circle of death/hold monster until your enemy fails its save is not particularly creative or interesting.

2. Do you want a game in which character abilities are described in terms of how they affect the game world, or in game terms?
The former allows for more creativity in the use of abilities, but carries with it the chance that a seemingly minor ability could have a disproportionately large effect. One of the classic (pre-3e) examples was that of casting a light spell "at an opponent's eyes" to blind him. Of course, 3e "fixed" it by ensuring that light could not be cast on a creature ("Target: Object touched") and introducing the equal-level flare spell that dazzled a creature (-1 penalty on attack rolls, Search checks, and Spot checks) for 1 minute if it failed a Fortitude save.

On the other hand, describing character abilities in game terms (the approach taken by 4e) results in much tighter control over what the characters can do, but also less flexibility in the way that the characters can use them. Note that it does not mean that the character's abilities cannot be used creatively. Chess features pieces that have repetitive "abilities" and are heavily constrained in the ways that they can move and attack. Yet, many chess players would say that it is possible to play the game creatively. I think 4e fosters a similar form of creativity: the ability to combine apparently simple "moves" to give yourself a tactical advantage.

I do think that there is some scope for guidelines for a DM to adjudicate alternate uses for powers, e.g. a cleric who wants to use lance of faith to dazzle an opponent or otherwise interfere with his attack instead of granting an ally a bonus to attack rolls.

 

[Milambus]

The end result is not the same because the toolbelt is so tiny. How does one be a mechanic on a car if the only tools one has is a hammer and a screwdriver? Yes, some things can be fixed or maintained on a car, but not everything. To be a good car mechanic takes many different tools.

I agree, 4e has fewer options for the wizard than 3.5 did. I actually went and counted to see how many fewer options he has now. In 3.5, from the PHB the wizard had 371 spells. Wow, yea that quite some versatility. Of course it takes 107 pages to actually detail what those spells do. Well, lets say 60 pages, since the cleric and some other classes have some spells in that section also.

So the wizard gets 60 pages of detail, just for his spells while the fighter gets... 2 pages. Yes, 2 pages. The rogue, he gets 2 and a half pages.

In 4e, the wizard gets 85 spells detailed over 13 pages, a decrease from 3.5. He also get 49 rituals, which take up another 20 pages. But now the fighter can have 11.5 pages, and the rogue gets 11 pages.

And since the core books have come out, WotC has released:
Dragon 364: 9 new spells
Dragon 366: 29 new rituals
Dragon 367: 1 new epic destiny
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide: 25 new rituals, several paragon paths
Adventurer's Vault: 1 new ritual (transfer enchantment)

Oh and the Artificer play test in Dragon 365, which is likely where your utility wizard went.

So I'm sorry that the Wizard doesn't get the top billing that he used to, taking up 20-30 times as much space in the PHB as other classes did. But for some of us that fine, we like that the book and the game is more balanced now.

 

[KarinsDad]

But (if I'm understanding Karinsdad properly): they're not the same and therefor they're bad.[/i]

Then I guess you are not understanding me.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I'm sorry, but using Grease to make a floor slippery is not creative. Using rock to mud to turn rock into mud, and then mud to rock (or diepl magic) to turn it back is not creative. Hardly anything you mentioned was creative.

Truth. It's finesse, but it's definitely not creative.

No, they weren't. Summoning does not do that. Invisibility does not do that. Darkness does not do that.

Luckily for us, Invisibility and Darkness are still in, with Summoning sure to follow.

But utimately, you aren't going to be convinced.

Your arguments really aren't that convincing, honestly. "All spells deal damage, and that makes me mad (although I'll conveniently ignore nondamaging spells with awesome effects like Sleep, Wall of Fog, or even Ghost Sound). I also ignore rituals" isn't a very strong position. Neither, is "wizards should be able to do anything, because."

Oh yeah, and read the rules: knocking someone out is something you can do at-will with no penalties or lame feat trees. So "to the death, every time" is simply false.

 

[tanj]

Then I guess you are not understanding me.

Would it be untoward to suggest that perhaps if people are not understanding you it would be best to elaborate your position rather than merely state that you are not being understood?

 

[ricardo440]

Then I guess you are not understanding me.

__________________
The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.

Can we just look at your sig for a moment.

In 3.x you always readied the action to disrupt the wizard. No doubt.
As a GM you also have mages running counter magic.

By your own logic wizards are broken.


You are really playing the wrong game. D&D was never the game for you, the old what I would call completely broken magic system was a brief refuge for you in 3.x but your problem isn't that they have got rid of it, but that your idea of D&D as a place for creative magic from the wizard and everyone else playing second fiddle is wrong.

Play Ars Magica. It has everything you want, really versatile magic spells that you can use in any number of creative ways limited quite literally by your imagination.
Or Mage, a game where again you bend reality to fit your will.

But both of those games agree in their premise that the Mage is king and everyone else is far far less significant. Therefore they work. Everyone plays mages, and in ars magica your paladin can play second fiddle to the mage because you know next session his bard will be playing second fiddle to your mage.

D&D does not want a class to be king, it wants all the character classes to be fun to play and evenly balanced, so can't have one above all the others.
I really like what they have done with 4th E on the magic front.

Everything you say as a creative use of a spell, I as a GM would balk at. I've spent hours preping interesting encounters and through an obscure set of spells the encounter has been rendered obscelete.
Now once in a while that would be ok, but in 3.x you can do it much of the time. Now even that would be ok, but it is always the same player. So I would not like it because it isn't fun for everyone else. Sure people can enjoy another player doing something cool every so often, but if one class does all the cool stuff all the time, everyone else get quite bored, and quite rightly too.

"Lets play Dungeons and Wizards, mr. GM I delay my action till after the wizard saves us again, Oh I do like the wizard isn't he wonderful!"

Now everyone can do cool stuff. That is their design philosphy, and I think they have done a really good job.