Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hellcow" data-source="post: 4122756" data-attributes="member: 15800">But in practice, this means less than you'd think. Because the wizard hasn't been improving his Strength, isn't trained at the skills, won't have magic items to help him with them, won't have used feats to boost them, and so on. Assuming your wizard has a 10 Strength, yes, at level 10 he'll have a +5 Athletics - which means he can probably climb a ladder without worrying about falling off of it. Meanwhile, my Str 20 Shifter fighter with the belt of the Olympian (Note: completely made up item) is sitting on a +15 Athletics, and he's jumping chasms the wizard won't take a chance on and scampering up slopes like a goat. I had the exact same reaction to universal skill advancement when I first heard about it, but in play it's just not that big a deal. What it means is that by tenth level you CAN perform basic actions you would have had trouble with before. You can climb a rope without falling. You can swim a little. You're better at keeping your balance, and more likely to notice the kid trying to pick your pocket. But you're still likely to miss the super-ninja who tries to pick your pocket - who the sharp-eyed ranger who's focused on Perception will spot as easily as he spotted the child pickpocket back at first level. People aren't equally good at all skills. It's simply the case that as you advance, you become capable of handling simpler challenges that would have been difficult for you before. But since you're higher level, you'll be facing even greater challenges - and that's where the specialists will continue to shine. Beyond that, certain skills do have trained-only effects. Joe the fighter may have a +5 Arcana check from listening to the wizard blather on, but he can't use it for everything the wizard can. Yes, but this isn't quite as simple as that. There's tactical and practical restrictions on second wind, and you're always better off if the Leader lends a hand. And if the leader goes down in battle, you've got to start playing things cautiously. I beg to differ. The crossbow is a two-handed weapon. It requires ammunition to use, and needs to be reloaded between use. It has penalties when used at long range. Attacks with the crossbow are made against the target's armor class. Meanwhile, the magic missile doesn't require ammunition or reloading. It has a single flat range. It does force damage, so it interacts with certain targets in a way a crossbow won't. It targets Reflex instead of armor class, which makes a HUGE difference when you are fighting a heavily armored foe (and the vast majority of creatures have a significantly higher AC than Reflex, with the notable exception of rogues and the like). And all of this isn't even getting into the difference that comes into play with feats, since different feats play to magic and weapons. Sure, it's possible for it to miss, which wasn't the case in 3E - but the fact that it targets Reflex means that it's less likely to miss against most creatures, and the fact that it's force damage is significant (as is no ammo, no load, better range, etc.).Beyond that, there is a question of flavor. I assume you're speaking to the common complaint that the 3E wizard uses two magic missiles and then turns to the crossbow, and saying that in 4E is this so different from using encounter powers and then turning to magic missile. Aside from the tactical differences between them, as outlined above, it certainly is to me in terms of flavor. I don't see my wizard as having anything to do with weapons. He's a scholar at the library of Korranberg who doesn't even like to fight. I don't want him to have to carry a crossbow around because if he doesn't, he's going to be utterly useless; I like being able to grumble and say "All right, if I must fight, I'll draw on the blistering arcane secrets I possess - but I do hate to use them in such a tawdry way." It's back to flavor - being able to play the character I want to play. And in this case, I don't want to play the wizard who needs a crossbow to be of any use. Of course, this comes at the expense of your playing the wizard who NEEDS to use the crossbow - but hey, you could certainly make a wizard who CAN use the crossbow, if that's something you want.   But do you understand the difference between the two? Because they do fill completely different roles (the warlock is a striker, the wizard a controller). Speaking magically, the warlock IS still the best eldritch blaster, and the wizard is in fact master of a wider range of magical effects than the warlock. Meanwhile, speaking of unique elements, choice of pact is going to have a significant impact on your warlock. And that's not even getting into rituals. These things don't work the same way they did in 3E, and bear in mind that if all you've seen are 1st level characters you really haven't gotten a sense of the full depth of what these classes do... let alone the range of customization that's possible within a class. But there is depth there.</blockquote>

Verification