D&D 4E New 4e Info! GAMA Tradeshow Scoop

[Caliber]

I'm already considering making it a minor action, rather than introducing standard actions that can be used at the same time as certain other standard actions.

Aye, but you get three Minors a round, if you chose to convert your Standard and Move actions to Minors. Think of casting a Touch Attack spell ... it is a Standard action that CAN be combined with an attack ... ie, the touch itself is included in the Somatic components of the spell.

If it really bothers you, I'd suggest you treat these abilities the same ... a Standard Spell that CAN include an attack. But like I said, if the effect only takes place on a hit, best to retain some kind of attack roll to keep the chance of failure.

Hope this helps .

 

[pukunui]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080425a

Sorry but I don't see the relevance. I wasn't questioning the mechanical definition of "ally".

Maybe he was the only one paying attention. Maybe he was the closest. Maybe he was the one whose spirits were so low, he truly needed something to bolster him.

But see this explanation involves one player deciding how other players' characters react to his character's actions, which is not such a great thing in my book. (Please keep in mind that I'm not saying the mechanics do this ... just your explanation of them).

I prayed to my lord Bahamut to bring down a rain of holy fire upon our foes, such that my ally might be bolstered by my show of divine fury with renewed purpose and vigor. To which my lord Bahamut replied "Sorry, you need to attack with your sword to get that effect. How about an AC bonus instead?"

That's what I'm talking about.

Oh, I see. You want the paladin to be throwing around massive Controller/Leader abilities, since that's what AoE damage (rain of holy fire) and AoE healing (healing/buffing all allies) effects are.

Um ... ok? I don't think that's what he was getting at at all.

How about this instead?

PC1: Hey paladin buddy! My strength is failing ... can you get your god to give me a boost?
PC2: Sure thing, comrade! I just need to attack one of our enemies first and then you'll be sweet ...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I prayed to my lord Bahamut to bring down a rain of holy fire upon our foes, such that my ally might be bolstered by my show of divine fury with renewed purpose and vigor. To which my lord Bahamut replied "Sorry, you need to attack with your sword to get that effect. How about an AC bonus instead?"

That's what I'm talking about.

The prayer is not words, the prayer is the attack form. So a specific attack is associated with a specific boon. Does that work for you?

 

[Fifth Element]

If it really bothers you, I'd suggest you treat these abilities the same ... a Standard Spell that CAN include an attack. But like I said, if the effect only takes place on a hit, best to retain some kind of attack roll to keep the chance of failure.

Hope this helps .

It helps a bit, and that's what I'll probably end up doing. But there's the balance to consider - not all attacks have the same chance to hit or cause the same damage. So like I said, I understand why the effects are tied together for balance purposes, but that rationale doesn't hold in-game.

 

[Fifth Element]

The prayer is not words, the prayer is the attack form. So a specific attack is associated with a specific boon. Does that work for you?

Not for a cleric. I can buy that for a paladin, who is expected to be attacking enemies of the faith. I don't like cleric buff powers being tied so explicitly to attacks.

 

[pukunui]

If it really bothers you, I'd suggest you treat these abilities the same ... a Standard Spell that CAN include an attack. But like I said, if the effect only takes place on a hit, best to retain some kind of attack roll to keep the chance of failure.

Hope this helps .

Yeah, that helps a bit for me as well. To be honest, this isn't really that important to me at this time. I want to wait until I've got the actual rulebooks in my hands and have actually had several sessions' worth of playtime under my belt before I decide whether or not to houserule anything. To do otherwise would be a bit hasty of me.

As Fifth Element says, it's not so much the paladin powers that are problematic. It's the cleric ones. Because if you're going to have both paladins and clerics running around smiting people in order to buff their allies, then what's the point in even having the two be different classes? You might as well just combine them into one "divine champion" or something ...

At least the cleric's Healing Word doesn't require an attack. And I actually think the way they've done the paladin's lay on hands ability is perfect. Why couldn't they have done the other buffs like those two things? Buffing Word maybe ... heh heh.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I see your point (Fifth Element) but the D&D cleric is not a traditional priest (of any faith) he is more like a priest in a militant order (The Templars, Hospitalers or the Tuetonic Knights) The palladin is the lay brother and the cleric is the militant priest.

The cleric is not as skilled a warrior as the palladin brecause he spends a lot of time training in the cleric stuff but the basic ethos is the same, no?

 

[The Little Raven]

But see this explanation involves one player deciding how other players' characters react to his character's actions, which is not such a great thing in my book. (Please keep in mind that I'm not saying the mechanics do this ... just your explanation of them).

No, it means I'm saying "Dave, I'm using this power to heal you." If he needs an in-game explanation for why he's receiving the heal and not someone else, I'll deal with it when it happens by presenting him with various options. I am not telling him how his character is reacting. If he wants to throw a fit and accuse me of telling him how his character is reacting, he can walk away from the table. The game is a cooperative one, and people who start arguments over things like that are petty. It's exactly the same as my bard example, which shows that no matter what the power is presented as, there will always be uncooperative douchebags.

How are you drawing that conclusion? That's not what I get from Fifth Element's comments at all.

I didn't realize he switched to cleric.

 

[pukunui]

No, it means I'm saying "Dave, I'm using this power to heal you."

But see that explanation is different from the one you originally gave, which was essentially, "Dave, your character was inspired by my character's heroic deeds whether you wanted him to be or not ... oh, and by the way, you get some temporary hit points." Yes, in a spirit of cooperation, most players will simply go "Sweet! Thanks!" and move on ... but the principle of the thing is that with the latter example, Dave's freedom of action has been violated. It's not a big deal. I was just arguing on principle. I'm not trying to defend douchebag behavior or anything like that.

I didn't realize he switched to cleric.

No worries. To be honest, I hadn't realized that either.


Anyway ... for all that's been said about paladins and clerics being militant champions of their faiths and that's why their buffing comes in the form of smiting ... it still just doesn't do it for me. No matter how you explain it, it just comes across as too metagamey for me. "Bahamut, give me the strength to smite my enemies! Oh ... and, by the way, could you please give my friend over there a temporary boost? I'm such a considerate friend, am I not?"

 

[Caliber]

Not for a cleric. I can buy that for a paladin, who is expected to be attacking enemies of the faith. I don't like cleric buff powers being tied so explicitly to attacks.

I think most people are assuming that the class defining feature (ie, the choice all classes seem to get now at 1st, like a Warlock's Pacts, or a Rogues ability to focus on Str or Cha abilities) of Clerics will be to focus on melee attacks or ranged holy words. The power you are referencing is a melee attack power, thus from the "smite" side of their list of powers. I'm sure other powers will be like the Lance of Faith, more "holy word" abilities.