My Thoughts on DnD, and the next Edition (Long, rambly)
- Thread starter Merlion
- Start date
El Ravager
First Post
Hit and do damage, folks. Hit and do damage.
Thats what the attack roll is a check for. Its not that the full plate makes it harder for the attacker to connect with his opponent with his weapon. It makes it harder for that strike to actually do damage.
Hence why the touch attack does not factor armour - because the armour doesn't stop someone from being able to touch you, but it does stop the touch from hurtin.
=====
El Rav
Thats what the attack roll is a check for. Its not that the full plate makes it harder for the attacker to connect with his opponent with his weapon. It makes it harder for that strike to actually do damage.
Hence why the touch attack does not factor armour - because the armour doesn't stop someone from being able to touch you, but it does stop the touch from hurtin.
=====
El Rav
Just a sidenote: Why is it that whenever I see a thread like this one one of the complaints I hear is about spellcasters multi-classing and loosing spell-level effectiveness?
Is it just a holdover form the previous editions when a multiclassed character was quite a bit more powerful for a given amount of XP?
Or do we really want a Fighter/Wizard to be as good as two single classed characters from a power stand point?
I realize there is a high demand for it post 3e release and therefore it was shoe-horned into 3.5 via prestige classes of questionable play balance and showed up in UA also but should there be more bang for your 20 levels as a multi class than single classed character?
I think it is something that has a valid balance stand point for not existing and the system for 4e should not be tweaked to allow such.
Sorry for the mini-rant.
Anyhow back to the topic at hand;
One thing I would like to see in 4e is the continuing clarification of terminology. This occurred to me when I was teaching my wife to play, the current rules use the word "Level" to mean many things. I.E. Your character level is your spellcaster level but not the level of spells you can choose from etc. Perhaps the 9 spell levels should be called circles or some such for clarification.
Another thing fro 4e that I think UA did an okay job on is Undead Turning. The current system is a bit archaic in flow and does not scale well through a clerics lifetime.
I definitely think that more skill points should be given out to characters for each level. It goes a long way to indvdulization.
The Sorcerer definitely need some help to make him unique from the Wizard. I agree that a separate spell list would help in 4e.
Is it just a holdover form the previous editions when a multiclassed character was quite a bit more powerful for a given amount of XP?
Or do we really want a Fighter/Wizard to be as good as two single classed characters from a power stand point?
I realize there is a high demand for it post 3e release and therefore it was shoe-horned into 3.5 via prestige classes of questionable play balance and showed up in UA also but should there be more bang for your 20 levels as a multi class than single classed character?
I think it is something that has a valid balance stand point for not existing and the system for 4e should not be tweaked to allow such.
Sorry for the mini-rant.
Anyhow back to the topic at hand;
One thing I would like to see in 4e is the continuing clarification of terminology. This occurred to me when I was teaching my wife to play, the current rules use the word "Level" to mean many things. I.E. Your character level is your spellcaster level but not the level of spells you can choose from etc. Perhaps the 9 spell levels should be called circles or some such for clarification.
Another thing fro 4e that I think UA did an okay job on is Undead Turning. The current system is a bit archaic in flow and does not scale well through a clerics lifetime.
I definitely think that more skill points should be given out to characters for each level. It goes a long way to indvdulization.
The Sorcerer definitely need some help to make him unique from the Wizard. I agree that a separate spell list would help in 4e.
Merlion said:
Well then in this case you'll be pleased to know that it actually means powergaming.
"powergaming" herein being defined as "taking feats or PrCs not because they make any sense for the character concept or fit your role, but because they grant you Kewl powerZ".
No, in this case it has to do with PrCs and feats. Specifically with how publishers have lost all sense of balance in the case of feats (with things like the "complete book of feats" just being made as a cornucopia for powergaming badness), and their sense of purpose with the PrCs.
PrCs were originally intended to represent specific allegiances to groups or specialized career paths for a character, that gave you an emphasis in one activity to the detriment of the whole.
Example: A "Bunny Wizard" prestige class, who gets bonuses relating to bunny magic but is generally poorer at other forms of magic. This being justified by the fact that to be in the class he must be part of the Grand Bunny Wizard Lodge, or have gone on a bunny-related quest, or something like that.
Today, PrCs AS THEY ARE FOUND IN THE PUBLISHED MATERIAL are just excuses for more powerful versions of classes. Either the people who are writing the books these days are completely ignorant of how PrCs were supposed to have worked, or they are willfully pandering to the powergamers who want more and more powerful stuff in the game.
Example: The Uber-wizard. Exactly like the wizard, only he can kill way more stuff. Justified by the fact that you want to kill way more stuff.
Many of the Forgotten Realms books, and especially the new Eberron setting, are unbelievably guilty of this mentality (especially in Eberron, where the "warforged juggernaut" is nothing more than a super-powerful warforged. It is as justifiable as having the "Really powerful Elf" PrC).
And don't get me started on the abominations some of the third-party publishers come up with for PrCs and feats.
So no, when I talk about "power creep", I'm not talking about a problem with players. There always were, are and will be powergamers. The problem of "power creep" is created when a publisher starts pandering to those powergamers in order to sell more books, leading to a collapse of the overall mechanics of the system.
Nisarg
Well, the problem is that a 10 ftr/10 wiz is a far, far less effective character than a 20 ftr or a 20 wiz; the only multiclass combos involving a major spellcaster and another core class that work (at mid to high levels) are highly imbalanced combos (taking a single level of Sorcerer for True Strike, or something similar). In 3.5e there are a lot of PrC hacks to try and make multi-class spellcasters work. In a hypothetical 4e, I'd rather not need the hacks, though it might take significant reworking of the underpinnings of the magic system.MacMathan said:
Nisarg said:
Well. powergamers have money to spend, and their own particular tastes. There's no reason for them to not get a fair share of product devoted to what they want.
Where you go wrong is the "leading to a collapse of the overall mechanics of the system." The only reason for this to happen is that DMs are stupid.
The Core Rules are pretty straightforward on the idea of PrCs being optional. The existance of powergaming books does nothing to the system overall, as the individual DM has right of veto. If the DM chooses not to exercise that right, it isn't the publisher's fault.
FireLance
Legend
I confess to being one of the guilty ones who keep complaining about multi-classed spellcasters, so I'll field this oneMacMathan said:
.The main problem with spellcasters in 3.xe is that they tend to lose out on quite a lot when then multiclass (apart from PrCs that give +1 spellcaster levels). They lose out on caster level, spells per day and access to higher level spells. Other classes do not lose out so much - fighter type classes still get to stack their BAB and hit points, and skill-focussed classes still get to stack their skill ranks. Multi-class combinations such as Fighter/Barbarian or Ranger/Rogue are still viable.
Thus, the main complaint about multi-classed spellcasters is that they are much less effective than practically any other character of their level. A Clr10/Wiz10 is less effective than a Clr20, a Wiz20, a Ftr20, or a Ftr10/Rog10. Just as multi-classed spellcasters were significantly over-powered in previous editions, they are significantly under-powered now.
There have been many "fixes" to make multi-classed spellcasters more viable, from prestige classes such as the Arcane Trickster, the Eldritch Knight and the Mystic Theurge, to the feat Practised Spellcaster (in Complete Divine) that helps to offset the spellcaster level deficit. However, to me, they are like masking tape on a leaky pipe that really ought to be replaced.
A magic rating system will go some way to solving the problem. I'm thinking a unified spell progression chart will also help so that Clr10/Wiz10 characters can still get access to 9th-level spell slots. What they will give up is access to higher-levels spells. That way, a Clr10/Wiz10 can still throw out a heightened (to 9th level) baleful polymorph and a quickened mass cure light wounds while his Wiz20 counterpart casts wail of the banshee and quickened cone of cold
Umbran said:
As I stated before, houseruling is a natural thing in any system, and particularly so in D20/D&D. However, one can only do so much of having to review EVERY SINGLE feat and PrC saying "this one is ok.. this one is not.. this one is ok.. this one is not.." before you reach a kind of critical mass of unplayability.
Nisarg
Nisarg said:
I do that all the time. No meltdown over the matter appears to be forthcoming.
Another DM I play with says "no prestige classes, period". And another one says "anything goes". Hasn't been a major issue in either case.
There's a general policy of "defend the system, blame the DM" among posters on this board that I rail against from time to time, but in this instance I have to say that a DM should make it pretty clear what kind of optional material isn't going to be allowed in (I actually wrote up a spreasheet for it, but that's only because I wanted to encourage the use of certain PrC's). That alleviates some of the strain of having to rubber-stamp PrC's on an individual basis.
Similar Threads
