Removing homogenity from 4e

[fanboy2000]

Difference: Silent Image; Duration Concentration. Illusory Wall; Duration: Permanent. Oh, and there is no size limit either.

I’m not sure what you mean by that, both have size limits:

The wall can be up to 8 squares long and 4 squares high.

visual figment cannot extend beyond four10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level

If anything, Silent Image creates a larger illusion than than Illusory Wall does.

It's admittedly a high level spell, but Spectral Vision (Wizard Utility 16 from Arcane Power) seems to be what you are looking for. It can cause a wall to look like a door (and a lot more), and even resists attempts to pierce the illusion (you have to either make an insight check or be hurt by it to see through the illusion).

Wow, that spell is awesome.

Until the end of the encounter, you mask the terrain around you, changing the appearance of all unattended objects and terrain features. The objects are still visible, but you disguise their true nature, making them look, smell, sound, and sometimes even feel like something else. For example, you could make a pool of lava look like a plush carpet, or make a pile of coins look and feel like mud. If an object is removed from the area, this effect ends for that object.

A creature can see through your deception by succeeding on an Insight check (DC 20 + one-half your level + your Intelligence modifier). A creature automatically sees through the illusion if it takes damage from a disguised object or disguised terrain (such as walking on an illusory carpet that is actually lava).

Hey, after I put the plush carpet over the lava pit (dude, you know I hate lava in dungeons, why’d it have to be lava!?”) can I put a Go board on it? O.k., how about a poker table?

Illusionsists really come into their own at 16th level, here’s another 16th level utility:

Until the end of the encounter, each target assumes the appearance of a humanoid creature of your size, even the appearance of a specific individual you have seen. You can choose a different disguise for each target. A creature can perceive a target’s true form by succeeding on an Insight check (DC 20 + one-half your level + your Intelligence modifier).
As a standard action, you can modify this illusion to cause any of the targets to assume the appearance of a different humanoid creature.

O.k., so the plan is to make Bob look like the Duke and having him crash the party...

 

[SSquirrel]

Each "role" is synonymous with a classic class (defender=fighter, leader=cleric, striker=thief, controller=wizard). Thus, every class is just a variant on the "original" class. (A paladin is a fighter with a different mark, cha as a high-stat, and a healy power. An invoker is a wizard with more radiant powers and a few more buffs. Etc.)

This is not restricted to 4E. Classes throughout the history of D&D have always been "a touch of this class with a shade of this class and this new bit". A Paladin is, at its core, a cross between a fighter and a cleric.

See what they did there? Now, why can't we have a defender that doesn't have to mark his foe? Why not a leader that doesn't have a XX-word healing power?

It's possible we could have these, but that means coming up with alternate ways to accomplish the prime role of the class. If you have a defender w/no mark, how does he hold the attention of the enemy and keep them from wanting to vent on your wizard? If he has no way of holding the enemy's attention then he doesn't fit the role.

More importantly, the psion showed us that we don't need every class to gain encounters, dailies, and/or utilities at the same rate. Maybe it'll open the door for classes flush with encounter-powers (at the expense of dailies) or one who doesn't get many attack-powers, but SCORES of utilities (a jack-of-all-trades class, anyone?)

I guess I feel terrible that these innovations come in year 2-3, leaving the classic classes of PHB 1&2 feeling bland. One wonders if we don't eventually see a "Warrior", "Thief", "Mage", and "Priest" class down the road that feels different from the blander "default" classes we have now...

I guess I don't agree about blandness. I have no problem with the core classes being what they are. Are some of the newer classes different? Sure. Good for them. I don't feel a need to go back and change the base classes. Key word there is base. These are the core of any adventuring group. You don't have to have any of them in your group, but they fulfill many of the basic fantasy tropes.

Some people will want a caster who goes along a more standard PHB progression for abilities and such, someone would rather play something like a Psion. Instituting more differences in the system as time goes on allows for people to get used to the 4E system and then branch out inside of it more as time goes on. Think about it like this. Most people in 2E and 3E would not recommend a wizard to a first time player, they would tell them to play a Warrior or Rogue. This is the same thing. Play one of the classes from the first PHB for a more basic approach to abilities and progression, look at the later books for more diversity. Seems right to me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's possible we could have these, but that means coming up with alternate ways to accomplish the prime role of the class. If you have a defender w/no mark, how does he hold the attention of the enemy and keep them from wanting to vent on your wizard? If he has no way of holding the enemy's attention then he doesn't fit the role.

In some ways, marking is just a limit to the powers and not just an enabler.

If the Fighter could wack anyone that's not attacking him, he would be still very capable of being a Defender. Maybe even more so as long as he can get adjacent to him. (Or if you expand the power to ranged attacks.)

If a Paladin could just pick an enemy that makes an attack against the wrong target to deal damage to, he would still be hard to ignore.

The -2 to attack of course is an additional motivation, but it is not strictly required to achieve the ability to draw fire.

In some cases, it's necessary to reign in the abilities of the defenders. Imagine you had a Swordmage, a Paladin, a Fighter and a Wizard that don't have to use a mark, just spend an Immediate Interrupt or something like that to use their ability.

Enemy strikes Wizard. Swordmage reduces damage. Fighter whacks him. Paladin irradiates him.
Enemy strikes Paladin. Swordmage reduces damage. Fighter whacks him.
Enemy strikes Swordmage. Paladin irradiates him, Fighter whacks him.
Enemy strikes Fighter. Paladin irradiates him, Swordmage reduces damage.
Enemy runs away. Fighter kills him.

Where as now, only one enemy is targeted at the same. This means damage is spread around, not focused, prolonging the combat a little and making actual strikers more attractive, since they focus their damage on the targets they want to hit.

 

[Remathilis]

This is not restricted to 4E. Classes throughout the history of D&D have always been "a touch of this class with a shade of this class and this new bit". A Paladin is, at its core, a cross between a fighter and a cleric.

Yeah, but typically "subclasses" didn't feel much like their parent class. Druids don't feel like clerics, despite being a divine caster with Cure Wounds spells on the list. Likewise, fighters don't at all feel like paladins, rangers, or barbarians. And rogue/thief and bard are as opposite as night-and-day despite having similar HD and skills.

They did this through unique class abilities (wildshape, bardsong), different attack/save progressions, and occasionally borrowed mechanics (paladins turn undead for example). Its a very different beast when a druid can fill a wizard's role (better than the wizard can) or a bard is just a cleric in flashier clothes.

Few people would claim that a 2e (or 3e) fighter played like a paladin. Sure, they both wore heavy armor and fought in melee, but paladins had divine abilities (both in combat like smite & out like detect evil) and a fighter had a boatload of feats (or in 2e, weapon specialization, granting them more attacks/round).

Now? The difference mostly resides how they mark, the exact level of armor worn (fighters can't wear plate; wtf?) and a few minor class tweaks (fighters are OA masters, paladins can heal 2/encounter by burning their own surges). Without getting into a level-by-level breakdown of fighter vs. paladin powers (and what riders/energy those have) the differences end here. Cool divine powers like Turn Undead or Detect Evil? Gone. Paladin spells? Gone. Warhorse? Nope. Weapon Specialization for additional attacks? Not anymore. Bonus feats to specialize in more than one combat-path? Nah, too unbalancing. Chose sword-n-board or two-hander at first level and stay with it. (Want to dual-wield? That'll be $34.99 please. Oh, archery? Play a ranger).

That is the homogeneity of the rules. When a paladin is nothing more than a fighter with a couple tweaked class abilities and powers with different names (which all still deal damage + status effect, with few exceptions) its balanced, its easy to run, and its dull as dishwater. (IMHO, of course).

 

[AllisterH]

*Chuckle*

No matter how many times you write it Remathilis, I always scratch my head.

I never once found playing a 2e/3e fighter different than a paladin. Same thing with ranger and barbarian (the rogue was always the exception as even in 2e, you were always trying to move around and get position), as those things you call "non-homogenity" features didn't make a difference to me when I played the classes AT the table.

Conversely, playing a paladin now (especially visually) plays so much differently than a fighter.

For me I guess, a power that says Push 2 versus Slide 1 is much more of a difference in play than a fighter who gets 2 feats versus paladin who has Detect and Smite evil.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is the homogeneity of the rules. When a paladin is nothing more than a fighter with a couple tweaked class abilities and powers with different names (which all still deal damage + status effect, with few exceptions) its balanced, its easy to run, and its dull as dishwater. (IMHO, of course).

Obviously. In the end, having played both Fighters and Paladins and have seen them in play, they are just not that similar. Their class features are far more different to me then they seem to you. I don't know how this can be, since we probably played the same game and the same rules. But we are not the same persons, and I guess, the way how we perceive things are in fact different.

I suppose WotC would love to understand the difference and find a way to appeal to both. But maybe that's not possible...

 

[SSquirrel]

Yeah, but typically "subclasses" didn't feel much like their parent class. Druids don't feel like clerics, despite being a divine caster with Cure Wounds spells on the list. Likewise, fighters don't at all feel like paladins, rangers, or barbarians. And rogue/thief and bard are as opposite as night-and-day despite having similar HD and skills.

Few people would claim that a 2e (or 3e) fighter played like a paladin. Sure, they both wore heavy armor and fought in melee, but paladins had divine abilities (both in combat like smite & out like detect evil) and a fighter had a boatload of feats (or in 2e, weapon specialization, granting them more attacks/round).

Now? The difference mostly resides how they mark, the exact level of armor worn (fighters can't wear plate; wtf?) and a few minor class tweaks (fighters are OA masters, paladins can heal 2/encounter by burning their own surges). Without getting into a level-by-level breakdown of fighter vs. paladin powers (and what riders/energy those have) the differences end here. Cool divine powers like Turn Undead or Detect Evil? Gone. Paladin spells? Gone. Warhorse? Nope. Weapon Specialization for additional attacks? Not anymore. Bonus feats to specialize in more than one combat-path? Nah, too unbalancing. Chose sword-n-board or two-hander at first level and stay with it. (Want to dual-wield? That'll be $34.99 please. Oh, archery? Play a ranger).

That is the homogeneity of the rules. When a paladin is nothing more than a fighter with a couple tweaked class abilities and powers with different names (which all still deal damage + status effect, with few exceptions) its balanced, its easy to run, and its dull as dishwater. (IMHO, of course).

Druids didn't turn up in our groups too often b/c if we wanted a healer, we wanted the better healer, and that meant a Cleric. I can count on one hand all the druids I gamed with during the 3.x era. Rogue and Bard were extremely similar, the Bard had spells and some other things the Rogue lacked while the Rogue had more damaging abilities. Detect Evil was an alignment based power and thus canned in 4E, thankfully. Alignment has always been one of the worst parts about D&D IMO and you would frequently wind up with one of a couple of extremes:

1)"Detect Evil only works on truly evil things, you won't catch someone thinking something bad"

or

2)"You can tell the farmer is thinking of cheating on his wife, do you do something about it?"

Turn Undead was a nice ability, but it was always weaker than a Cleric's power to start with and Paladins have a lot more Radiant powers now, which damage Undead more than normal attacks. 4E Paladins are actually better equipped to fight Undead.

4E Paladins are the most heavily armored class, but Warriors have access to more weapons off the bat. This was yet another way to allow characters to differentiate their characters via feats. Paladin Warhorse was useless when WotC found most groups were spending lots of times in dungeons anyway. Multi attacks were gotten rid of and seems to have been one of the early decisions that guided development. Alternately to spending $35 to be a TWF, just play a melee Ranger and call him a Warrior

I think we're just coming at the situation from diametrically opposed sides and our experiences don't sync up at all.

 

[Reigan]

In 1989 if you didn't like a rule you would house rule it.

In 2009 if you didn't like a rule you complain about it on the internet.

That's progress.

 

[SSquirrel]

In 1989 (2E) we thought Paladins were an awful class with ridiculous/highly situational abilities so none of us played them. In 2009 (4E) Paladins are great. Progress.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

In 1989, the paladin was a lawful good crusader, a champion of Good and Law, the knight errant who traveled the land to vanquish evil, help the less fortunate, and fight against injustice.

In 4e, the paladin is a cleric in bigger armor and an angsty anti-hero.

This is not progress.