So there will be 1 troll on this thread, I can already tell

[Jack99]

The troll has arrived!!!!


(mostly kidding)



In which edition of dnd that you have played, was the wizard better at fighting at lvl 1 than the fighter? Only difference in 4e is that it doesn't change. Wizards stays (arguably) worse than the fighter (although he does improve vastly) at all levels.

 

[On Puget Sound]

The section on healing and dying is worth a review.
Each character can Second Wind once per encounter. Absent magical healing, that is the only healing you have, and unless you are a dwarf it takes up a standard action. The value of a Leader class (not necessarily a cleric) is that they can trigger healing surges above and beyond Second Wind. You still have to have a surge to spend, to benefit from (most) healing.

Temporary Hit Points can often serve as a healing substitute; many characters have ways to gain them or give them to others. Remember that they do not stack; if you had 3 THP and you gain 5 THP, you now have 5 THP, not 8.

The Heal skill lets you trigger an ally's second wind for them (DC10) if they haven't already used it in this encounter. This works even if they are unconscious.

If they have already used their Second wind and are dying, the Heal skill can still save their life, but it is now a DC15 and only stabilizes them; they are still knocked out.

Negative HP does not equal dead, it means you are dying. Each turn you roll a d20. 1-9= one FAIL. 10-19= no change. 20= a miracle! Spend a healing surge, gain your surge value and regain consciousness. Three FAILS in the same encounter, even if they are from different episodes of unconsciousness, means you die. If the encounter ends, stop rolling death saves; it's assumed that without the distraction of combat your allies can patch you back together.


When you are at negative HP and you gain any HP, first reset your HP to zero then gain them; you don't have to make up the negative points.

negative (bloodied value) = actually dead. So if you start at 26 HP and get to -13, you are dead.

There was probably a way to save your dwarf.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So I played 4e for the first time today

what happened to fighters being better at fighting than wizards?

They are. Wizards are better at casting spells. (Did you miss the weapon proficiency bonusses - easily done). But if you mean to hit, even with the same strength, fighters first get +1 to hit for being fighters, then get to use at will, encounter, and daily powers rather than are stuck with basic attacks. And they mark whoever they attack.

oh, and the healing surges DO NOT replace a cleric, learned that the hard way
(may the dwarf's soul rest in peace, his axe now in the hands of the half-elf)

Heh. Leaders allow you to spend healing surges in combat. Rather than have to wait til the end of the combat.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

So I played 4e for the first time today

what happened to fighters being better at fighting than wizards?

They still are. THAC0/BAB equivalent is always the same; +1 per 2 levels. However, a fighter will have several advantages over the wizard:

1) Fighters gain a +1 bonus to either single-handed or two-handed weapons (depending on the particular fighter).
2) Fighters gain a +2 or +3 bonus to using any weapon they are proficient with (which is all but exotic weapons). Wizards have much worse weapon proficiencies. (A wizard using a dagger gets the +3 bonus, but that's a lot less damage than a fighter, and a rogue gets a a special +1 bonus on top of that while using a dagger.)
3) Fighters boost their Strength, wizards do not.

A 2nd-level wizard using a dagger with a Strength of 10 will have an attack bonus of +4 and deal 1d4 damage.

A 2nd-level fighter with a bastard sword and a Strength of 18 (quite likely, as now even dwarves can get a +2 bonus to Strength) will have an attack bonus of +8 and deal 1d10+4 damage, assuming they're using the weapon in one hand and haven't taken the Weapon Focus feat for additional damage (and that's a weird assumption).

4) Fighters have slightly more hit points, much higher AC and many more healing surges per day. (They also heal more when targeted by healing powers or even when using Second Wind.)

oh, and the healing surges DO NOT replace a cleric, learned that the hard way
(may the dwarf's soul rest in peace, his axe now in the hands of the half-elf)

Yes. Clerics are still useful, and since they heal as minor actions, it means the cleric isn't losing a whole lot of action when someone gets wounded.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Your opinion seems ill-informed.

Please. There is no need to be rude. You'll see from reading the thread that he is brand new to 4e. It may be that he is just comparing wizards doing damage with at wills each round vs fighters doing damage with at wills. You don't know.

So thanks for including a nice example of how fighters are better with weapons than wizards - quite helpful - but your rider was unnecessary and unhelpful.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Please. There is no need to be rude.

Sorry, that was not my intention. I'll remove that.

 

[Herschel]

So I played 4e for the first time today

what happened to fighters being better at fighting than wizards?

and magic item lists would be nice, so I can roll randomly since the little adventure was 100% on the spot

oh, and the healing surges DO NOT replace a cleric, learned that the hard way
(may the dwarf's soul rest in peace, his axe now in the hands of the half-elf)

Fighters are definitely better at fighting up close and personal than Wizards unless.....

You don't have a leader. The fighter generally has higher defenses (save reflex) to go with higher HP and but also draws more attacks. Without a leader to trigger those surges a lot of them get left in the bottle, as it were.

A good, well-rounded party should start with a Leader and a Defender. After that it's pretty wide open, but again, start with a leader and a defender, especially if you're new to the game.

Oh, and did I mention to start a party with a leader and a defender?

 

[Summer-Knight925]

yeah, all we have is a dragonborn fighter, an eladrin ranger and a tiefling wizard

biggest trouble right now is explaing the difference between eladrin and elves, the player still thinks they are the same and took a feat for an elf and an ability, when he had everything else of an Eladrin (face palm), not actually a big deal, just slowed it down a tad bit

but we are going to be expanding the group (from 3! woot!) to hopefully 7 (6 players and a DM), so there is atleast 1 person who wants to be a 'leader', hopefully, perhaps even 2, thatd be great, and 2 strikers could seem worthy of a DM's rethinking of an encounter, not sure if anyone is going to want to play a controler sadly, i mean the wizard is cool and all, and the warlock is....decent...but the legends of our world focuses more on sword less on 'lightening bolt' main characters *cough cough conan, arthur, cough*

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Control build wizards and some warlocks focus more on hit-and-suffer (used to be save-or-suffer) effects. You could portray those as curses. Did those come up a lot in Conan?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Elf = Wood Elf
Eladrin = High Elf

PHB Warlocks have ... issues. And nothing wrong in 4e with an all martial party. A Warlord as your leader, and a Hunter Ranger (from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms) as your controller. No spellcasters at all (or possibly a ritualist).