Tiers Excerpt (merged)

Since the things I had in mind have already been said...

I absolutely LOVE that the anabola is out of the arts! Looking at the woman with the hammer in the picture, she has large arms, but there is no spandex- clothing revealing ripped biceps! I had a large problem with that in the 3e art, that almost all male specimens of the humanoid kind had body builder muscles. If the art will look like that in the future, I'll be happy as a clam!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arkenos said:
[...]

Using these average values, fighters and clerics get much less hp at high level than in 3e, rogues get about the same and wizards slightly more.
In 3e the hp difference between wizard/fighter is 90 vs 210
In 4e the hp difference between wizrad/fighter is 101 vs 150

However, healing surges are not taken into account here and are likely to be a big deal on overall combat endurance, so actual hp number comparison is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Given that healing surges heal 1/4 of a characters HP ~6+Con modifier times per day, healing surges are definitely a big deal.

A level 20 fighter will actually have 512 total HP in a day (including all healing surges, and assuming a total amount of 6+con modifier healing surges just like the rouge). A level 20 wizard will actually have 308 total HP in one day, and even then thats still assuming that the wizard with have the same number of healing surges as a fighter (which as per the DDXP characters is not true). From the DDXP characters it seems like the wizard, like the rogue, gets 6+con mod healing surges, but the fighter gets 9+con mod. So the fighter could still heal for an additional 111 HP bringing him up to 623 total HP for an entire day.

The difference between the fighter and the wizard is still significant in terms of HP, you just have to account for all factors.
 
Last edited:

Jack99 said:
So in 3.5 several spells are problematic. In 4e, they still exist, at least in name (please notice that a spell like Mirror Image has changed considerably, while retaining it's name), but most are now rituals (which we don't know how work), and yet, you still "conclude" that they will ruin plots.
.

We know from this preview that there is a divination like ritual "Divination rituals such as Consult Oracle grant access to knowledge they might otherwise not have" and "include more and better kinds of divination, including the ability to spy on distant beings with Observe Creature". Also teleportation is also in "Epic characters can use True Portal to transport themselves instantly anywhere in the world"

Also I never thought that those spells were problematic. its the other people who constantly whined that spells like those ruin their (imo poorly thought out) plot.
 
Last edited:

ShockMeSane said:
There will always be spells that are a problem for a certain Campaign/DM/Playergroup. No edition of D&D will ever solve this.

And smart DM's will do what they have always done, which is castrate/remove problem spells which adversely effect the gameplay of their campaign. I'm really not even sure why this is such an ongoing discussion on this forum. There are such a plethora of ways to deal with the issue from the mechanical (What? Your teleport didn't work? I guess the area you attempted to Scry was under a powerful illusion or enchantment), the diplomatic (listen buddy, its a deal breaker for me to DM for you if you are going to constantly try to find ways to abuse my campaign, so we're going to pretend X spell isn't castable if you want to keep gaming with us), or the downright nasty jerk (oh, your attempt to summon the Dark God through your Gate was scrambled by the mighty "Artifact of X", and your Wizard is disintegrated. If there was anyone in the world who could cast Wish, we could maybe get him back but I'm afraid there isn't, go over to the corner and re-roll).

I've never had anyone leave one of my campaigns over my removal or "nerfing" of a spell I didn't like from a DM'ing perspective, but even if I had, it would have been a small loss. Or really, some kind of gain.

Sure there are groups of players/DMs who love Teleport Without Error/Scry/Gate/Wish etc etc, and more power to 'em. I'm just saying, if you are offended by any particular spell, it's about a one minute long discussion with your group about how it will effect the enjoyment of the campaign to remove it.
I think the 4E tier system is a nice approach to this issue. The "game-breaker" spells still exist, but they belong to a clearly defined tier. If you don't like them, don't go there.

I dislike nerfing spells or even banning them. Published adventurers might assume I have them. (If they don't anticipate their (ab)use, bad for the writer). My players might have wanted to use them. They also might have effects I like. It's too arbitrary.
If I know that I can find certain spells only at certain tiers, it's a lot easier to work with them. Either I consciously change the way the adventures work (like implied in the excerpts), or I avoid these tiers in the first place.

In a way, this was possible in 3E, but the levels range of "game-breaker" or "tier-changing" spells wasn't clearly defined (and in some cases, I'd say they also came to early.)
It also wasn't guaranteed that anyone had them, so either you accounted for them and made the scenario impossible (at least very difficult) without them, or you did not, and make the scenario to easy (and possibly boring) with them.
For any individual group, you usually might have been able to work this out, but for adventures from other sources, this wasn't so easy.

As an example:
Fly is available at 5th (character) level, scry at 7th, teleport at 9th. All 3 spells notably change adventure design. With fly, certain kind of obstacles can be totally avoided, even if used in combat. With fly, the obstacle is a "resource drain", without it, it might be unsurmountable. Scry allows you to spy on people you haven't met yet. You could use Scry as a prerequisite for advancing the storyline, but if the PCs don't have it, they have to jump through hoops to get the info. Or you didn't take it into account, and a whole subplot of your adventure can be scrapped. Teleport allows a party to reach a distant location very quickly. The spell could be the only mean to reach the evil cultists in time to stop their ritual. Or it breaks your whole overland-travel part where the PCs would have found allies, foes and information to further the plot.

Every element that can be foiled by magic must be used before that point. This gives you sometimes a a very short level frame where you can use this elements. Every element that requires a certain type of magic could also be an element that doesn't work for your particular party at hand. In the end, you have a lot of elements that might no longer work, or don't work with your specific party.

With the explicit tier denominations, you don't run into so many problems. At the Heroic tier, you can count on every overland-travel and bounty hunting investigation to work. At Paragon Level, you can use half a mile wide chasms, and have the PCs attack two cultist bases spread over half the continent in two days to stop their World-Ending Ritual.
 

med stud said:
Since the things I had in mind have already been said...

I absolutely LOVE that the anabola is out of the arts! Looking at the woman with the hammer in the picture, she has large arms, but there is no spandex- clothing revealing ripped biceps! I had a large problem with that in the 3e art, that almost all male specimens of the humanoid kind had body builder muscles. If the art will look like that in the future, I'll be happy as a clam!

Also I really like the look of the White Dragon. It honestly looks frightening.
 



I think this bit:
(You can also use the NPC Ability Scores table on page 187 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.)
is a good indication that we will be seeing opponents statted with PC classes as well as using monster design stats.

Oh, and the article is all kinds of awesome. Bring on the holy day!
 

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I think the 4E tier system is a nice approach to this issue. The "game-breaker" spells still exist, but they belong to a clearly defined tier. If you don't like them, don't go there.

I dislike nerfing spells or even banning them. Published adventurers might assume I have them. (If they don't anticipate their (ab)use, bad for the writer). My players might have wanted to use them. They also might have effects I like. It's too arbitrary.
If I know that I can find certain spells only at certain tiers, it's a lot easier to work with them. Either I consciously change the way the adventures work (like implied in the excerpts), or I avoid these tiers in the first place.

In a way, this was possible in 3E, but the levels range of "game-breaker" or "tier-changing" spells wasn't clearly defined (and in some cases, I'd say they also came to early.)
It also wasn't guaranteed that anyone had them, so either you accounted for them and made the scenario impossible (at least very difficult) without them, or you did not, and make the scenario to easy (and possibly boring) with them.
For any individual group, you usually might have been able to work this out, but for adventures from other sources, this wasn't so easy.

As an example:
Fly is available at 5th (character) level, scry at 7th, teleport at 9th. All 3 spells notably change adventure design. With fly, certain kind of obstacles can be totally avoided, even if used in combat. With fly, the obstacle is a "resource drain", without it, it might be unsurmountable. Scry allows you to spy on people you haven't met yet. You could use Scry as a prerequisite for advancing the storyline, but if the PCs don't have it, they have to jump through hoops to get the info. Or you didn't take it into account, and a whole subplot of your adventure can be scrapped. Teleport allows a party to reach a distant location very quickly. The spell could be the only mean to reach the evil cultists in time to stop their ritual. Or it breaks your whole overland-travel part where the PCs would have found allies, foes and information to further the plot.

Every element that can be foiled by magic must be used before that point. This gives you sometimes a a very short level frame where you can use this elements. Every element that requires a certain type of magic could also be an element that doesn't work for your particular party at hand. In the end, you have a lot of elements that might no longer work, or don't work with your specific party.

With the explicit tier denominations, you don't run into so many problems. At the Heroic tier, you can count on every overland-travel and bounty hunting investigation to work. At Paragon Level, you can use half a mile wide chasms, and have the PCs attack two cultist bases spread over half the continent in two days to stop their World-Ending Ritual.

Oh, you and I are both in agreement that 4th editions "Tiering" of the movement abilities, rather than as you said having them arrive at roughly 5th level in previous editions, is a vast improvement. I think it definitely allows some nice options for running a campaign only in the Heroic/Paragon/Epic tier for players that want a certain feel for the duration of their campaign.

I only ever create my own campaigns when I DM (and don't use established settings like FR, etc for them either) so perhaps I am in the minority. I don't say that to cast any kind of judgement, merely to emphasize that for my group, tailoring certain spells to a campaign has always been a pretty easy task for me. Really, I imagine that with spells like Flight/Teleport coming so much later in 4E, the only real workarounds I can foresee taking advantage of are things like anti-teleportation glyphs protecting the keeps of powerful villains, etc etc, which I've pretty much always done anyways as murdering the BBEG in their bathtub is fairly anticlimatic.

Overall I'm quite excited, and I wish the next update was from the Rituals section ;)
 


Remove ads

Top