D&D 4E How would 4E improve my game?

[Knightlord]

There isn't really a difference between spells and exploits. Both are limited resources and both do the same things. And the easiest way to explain why exploits are limited per day is to say that they are Ki powered which is simply a other way of saying its magic.

The biggest difference is that spellcasters get the ritual feat for free but we do not know if fighters can also get this feat.
When you compare 4E spells and 4E exploits you will see that the difference is in name only. The Lich can even use his spellmastery power to recharge exploits.

With all due respect, Derren, "Exploits" are covered under the Martial Power Source, and the Martial Power Source states that the manuevers a Martial Character pulls off are the result of training, practice, or sheer skill. Looking at in a Metagaming view, then yes, mechanically, they are similar to create balance, but from a Roleplaying view, they are certainly not. The Fighter swinging his sword and crushing the skull of his enemy is WAY different than the Wizard conjuring a ball of fire to immolate the same foe. And limitation of "Exploits" to per day can easily be roleplayed that the manuevers are difficult to pull off and require a certain situation to be set up that does not always occur or cannot always be set up.

In terms of the Ritual Casting feat, I assume you would need to be able to "cast" spells in order to gain it, and this is no different than in 3E when a fighter multiclassed into a spell caster class substantially and gained the ability to craft various items of power and cast various spells. Am I wrong?

Just my thoughts.

 

[Blackbrrd]

1) Somewhat, but so did Searing Light and Flame Strike in 3e. Think of Lance of Faith as analogous to Searing Light.

I don't quite agree with you there. Searing light didn't do much damage except vs undead. Flame Strike is really powerful, but you don't have that many 5th level spell slots. But that isn't the biggest difference, the clerics Lance of Faith is an at-will power, while searing light and flame strike is always horded by the cleric player.

I have been playing a cleric from level 1-14 in a recent campaign, and I think I might have used searing light once (on an undead), while I have used Flame Strike several times. One third of encounters I am buffing the party, one third I am buffing myself and going into melee, and the last third of encounters I am going ballistic with flame strike and such.

In our recent 4e play test, the cleric player exclusively used Lance of Faith and healing word. It didn't feel like a cleric at all... Lance of Faith is so useful because:
a) its at will
b) it targets reflex (usually easier to hit than ac)
c) it is ranged
d) it does comparable damage to the other abilities

In 3e, wisdom really wasn't that important for the cleric, because only a minority of the spells where offensive and the majority was buff and utility spells. In 4e healing and damage is based on wisdom, so I am quite sure the clerics will have wisdom as their highest score.

 

[mmu1]

If you're having a lot of fun running your current 3E game, stick with it.

Why spend the money and time on something which might or might not be better for you if you're already happy with what you've got? Realistically, is it likely the new rules are so much better that they're going to make the hassle of switching worth it?

 

[timbannock]

There isn't really a difference between spells and exploits. Both are limited resources and both do the same things. And the easiest way to explain why exploits are limited per day is to say that they are Ki powered which is simply a other way of saying its magic.

The biggest difference is that spellcasters get the ritual feat for free but we do not know if fighters can also get this feat.
When you compare 4E spells and 4E exploits you will see that the difference is in name only. The Lich can even use his spellmastery power to recharge exploits.

Or you could say that encounter/daily Exploits are the bada** cinematic maneuvers that a warrior-type can only pull off when cinematically appropriate.

You know, like in most every movie, novel, and even poems (Beowulf?) where the character pulls a stunt that's just crazy, that they don't do every single encounter/day/scene/fight/stanza, and works at that moment because cinematically/realistically/plot-hammer/storywise it makes the most sense then.

Or whatever.

 

[timbannock]

D'oh! Ninja'd by Knightlord

 

[D'karr]

There isn't really a difference between spells and exploits. Both are limited resources and both do the same things. And the easiest way to explain why exploits are limited per day is to say that they are Ki powered which is simply a other way of saying its magic.

The biggest difference is that spellcasters get the ritual feat for free but we do not know if fighters can also get this feat.
When you compare 4E spells and 4E exploits you will see that the difference is in name only. The Lich can even use his spellmastery power to recharge exploits.

If by "isn't really a difference" you mean that they do sort of the same things I would tend to agree. Combat Spells and Exploits kind of do the same thing they mostly do damage to creatures. That is as far as the similarity goes. Utility Spells are a different thing altogether. So to lump them all under the same category is your usual way of being disingeneous.

 

[Knightlord]

D'oh! Ninja'd by Knightlord

Don't you mean "Einstein'd"?

Seriously, that comic was awesome.

 

[Derren]

With all due respect, Derren, "Exploits" are covered under the Martial Power Source, and the Martial Power Source states that the manuevers a Martial Character pulls off are the result of training, practice, or sheer skill.

Which has absolutely 0 influence in game. Mechanically exploits and spells are exactly the same. Likewise stances and utility spells are also rather similar. Fact is, fighters in 4E get limited powers which work in exactly the same way as spells for the wizard.

 

[vagabundo]

Which has absolutely 0 influence in game. Mechanically exploits and spells are exactly the same. Likewise stances and utility spells are also rather similar. Fact is, fighters in 4E get limited powers which work in exactly the same way as spells for the wizard.

Fighter dailies are Reliable and the wizards dailies are not.

One mechanical different from the top of my head.

 

[Fifth Element]

1) Clerics with offensive evocation-style spells such as Lance of Faith. This breaks very far from the D&D norm of wizards with flashy spells and clerics with more subtle spells.

This has always been the theory, but it's never really been that way in practice. Clerics have flame strike and many other offensive spells.

That's something I've always wanted D&D to have: a cleaner division between divine and arcane magic. There are many cleric spells in 3.X (especially in the Spell Compendium) which could easily be wizard spells, but aren't because the books say they aren't.