Jason Bulmahn Speaks about DDXP(His take on the system)

[Zinegata]

Which is the inverse of a per-day ability that can be selected 3 times.

But they didn't say it's a per-day ability that can be used three times in the same day. They said the inverse. Hence, logically speaking, the "Per-Day" label is likely the stricter label.

In short, when they say it's a Per Day ability, it's really something that you can use just once a day.

Your point being...?

Losing schticks takes away some of the uniqueness of each character. Not always a good thing.

 

[hong]

Honestly, what worries me is that the changes seem to be largely cosmetic when it comes to improving tactical combat. The At-will stuff sounds neat and all, but right now it seems to be a somewhat shallow rehash of the "One spell for the right occassion" tradition we're used to in 3.X.

At-will is not there to solve "one spell for the right occasion". At-will is there to solve "no spells at all".

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I was just hoping that there would be more emphasis on movement and terrain usage over picking the right tools in 4E.

Did you just claim that people in 4E combat don't move enough?

 

[hong]

But they didn't say it's a per-day ability that can be used three times in the same day. They said the inverse.

Yes, I know this, because that's what I said.

Hence, logically speaking, the "Per-Day" label is likely the stricter label.

What?

In short, when they say it's a Per Day ability, it's really something that you can use just once a day.

What?

Losing schticks takes away some of the uniqueness of each character. Not always a good thing.

Exactly.

 

[Zinegata]

At-will is not there to solve "one spell for the right occasion". At-will is there to solve "no spells at all".

... Which was solved by weapon usage in 3.X, also known as a basic attack.

Transforming a basic attack into an at-will power that does mainly the same thing is, for the most part, a cosmetic change.

Did you just claim that people in 4E combat don't move enough?

Maybe you could direct me to the good and valid reasons as to why the characters should keep moving in 4E, and then maybe I'll see where the tactical improvements are?

 

[Zinegata]

Yes, I know this, because that's what I said.

Let me to try to explain via analogy.

In Magic, there are spells that can be played at any time (even the opponent's turn) known as "Instants".

However, an "Instant" card is its own card type. It can never be a creature card or an enchantment card at the same time.

Instead, if a Magic designer wants a creature that can be played at any time (even the opponent's turn), they instead use a keyword known as "flash". In short, while Instant cards can't be modded to become creatures, creature cards can attain some elements of Instants through the use of the keyword flash. You also don't need to do both since they just do the same thing.

In this case, we've seen cases where At-will powers can be limited in use per day. But we haven't seen Per day abilities that can be used multiple times per day. Since both actually have the same mechanical effect, it may be safe to conclude that only the former exists (At-will powers that can be used multiple times), while the latter does not.

 

[hong]

... Which was solved by weapon usage in 3.X, also known as a basic attack.

Which is not a wizard's schtick.

Transforming a basic attack into an at-will power that does mainly the same thing is, for the most part, a cosmetic change.

Which addresses the wizard's schtick.

If you had no problem with the wizard firing off a crossbow bolt for 1d8 every round, then this change is unnecessary. If you considered a wizard firing a crossbow as doing un-wizardly stuff, then this change is good.

If you are talking about non-wizard at-will powers, then the distinction between basic attacks used in some tactical situations and at-will powers used otherwise provides a non-cosmetic point of difference between the two.

Isn't pointless arguing fun?

Maybe you could direct me to the good and valid reasons as to why the characters should keep moving in 4E, and then maybe I'll see where the tactical improvements are?

Movement is not always voluntary.

 

[hong]

Let me to try to explain via analogy.

Let me try to repeat: One of the specific points they said they wanted to address in R&C is the nerfing of character schticks, eg rogues not being able to sneak attack many types of monsters. I have trouble foreseeing wizards being unable to boom spell more than a handful of people over the course of their careers.

 

[Zinegata]

Which is not a wizard's schtick.

It is until they get more spells.

Which addresses the wizard's schtick.

If you had no problem with the wizard firing off a crossbow bolt for 1d8 every round, then this change is unnecessary. If you considered a wizard firing a crossbow as doing un-wizardly stuff, then this change is good.

Which again, is just a cosmetic change.

If you are talking about non-wizard at-will powers, then the distinction between basic attacks used in some tactical situations and at-will powers used otherwise provides a non-cosmetic point of difference between the two.

Not really. There used to be things like Cleave, Power Attack, and other Feat-based tactical stuff too.

Isn't pointless arguing fun?

*shrugs* Whatever.

Movement is not always voluntary.

So? Involuntary movement points to the lack of tactics, because you don't have control over your movement .

 

[Zinegata]

Let me try to repeat: One of the specific points they said they wanted to address in R&C is the nerfing of character schticks, eg rogues not being able to sneak attack many types of monsters. I have trouble foreseeing wizards being unable to boom spell more than a handful of people over the course of their careers.

Having Wizards unable to boom more than a handful of people IS nerfing the Wizard.

 

[dm4hire]

My guess is that a multiple per day would be due to it being taken more than once.

I think the proper balance would be to give the wizard fewer at wills and encounters and more per days to give them the diversity they had before since the wizard's difference is suppose to be their spells. It would also give an older feel to to the class similar to previous editions. Right now the wizard feels more like a sorcerer to me.