Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[Shabe]

At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.

Then 4E can't handle that, its a class based system, with those classes fitting into various defined roles, the system is balanced around a party with classes that fill certain roles, theres a section on it in the DMG, if you start veering off from your predefined role then the game reigns you in by only allowing "partial" multiclassing.

On the other hand if you want to blur the lines a bit then you can take on other classes powers with the multiclassing options, if you want a particular feel to the character, urban and city dwelling then perhaps you get skill training streetwise and stealth, but there is no way to have several levels in X and then decide to be Y instead. You have a class and you have to continue improving in that class till the day you ascend into immortality.

 

[almagest]

Survive more than one round in melee.

If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard, as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.

In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)

So, in other words, casters aren't broken because if you specifically plan an encounter around beating them, they're beatable. Ok.

Spell resistance isn't difficult to overcome, you know. A CR 14 Blue Dragon has SR 21. Fighting it at 14th level means a caster needs a 7 to beat it's resistance -- a 5 or 3 if you take spell penetration feats. And how many monsters have dispel magic? And of the ones who do, how many have a caster level high enough to make the check consistently? Also, how many monsters are smart enough to go after a spellcaster instead of the big guy with a giant axe that's running at them?

I guess if you arbitrarily decide that you need to kill the caster or make him worthless to the party, and tailor repeated encounters to ensure this, then you can find ways of doing it. I don't consider it proof that casters aren't much more powerful than non-casters, though. I just consider it bad DMing.

 

[almagest]

At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.

You don't. But coming into a game without at least a basic idea of what you want to play leads to some awfully unplayable characters. In this example, as I said before, you *will* have to do some planning beforehand, otherwise you might end up with a race that doesn't have rogue or wizard as a favored class, and you'd have to work around multiclass xp penalties. You'd also want to avoid a race with a LA or racial hit dice, because they'd further cripple your casting ability.

And again, why not just play a beguiler or spellthief? Same flavor, more playable characters, no shoehorning race into your character concept, and all you'd have to do is have your character make the decision to get spellcast-y one level earlier.

 

[Mort]

Survive more than one round in melee.

If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard

The problem with this argument is:

1) you are actively targeting a characters weaknesses - this works against any character not just the wizard; but

2) unlike most melee classes, a spellcaster (and wizard particularly) can change what his weaknesses are. Depending on spell selection if he encountered something that exploited his weaknesses before he can, very easily plug those weaknesses up in the future. Plus with the introduction of ever more conjuration spells, spell resistance was rarely an issue.

The last more than anything is what made 3e casters (the ones that could pick spells sorcerers etc. not so much) more powerful class over the others.

..., as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.

In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)

In practice any wizard paying attention can make it very, very hard for others to damage him - he can easily have a ridiculously high AC (especially if splat books are involved, though even without them) and descent HP (false life and empowered false life are vastly underestimated). Or forgetting that easily have a flat % miss chance (b/c it's flat it's usefull at all levels making it even more powerful in high level play) Further wizard mobility (with spells such as expeditious retreat, dimension door, and dimension hop etc (splat books) was unmatched.

As for "limited resources" - you're completely discounting how easy scrolls were to make in 3e. Spells such as knock, comprehend languages, prying eyes etc. could be put on scrolls and rarely if ever needed to take up a wizards actual spell slots (yes this costs xp but it works out to a pittance compared to utility, this is even less an issue in 3.5 where experience was given at a higher rate if a character lagged in level).

Sorry, I've both DM'd for and played mid-high level casters and the gap was just too wide.

 

[Lizard]

Spell resistance isn't difficult to overcome, you know. A CR 14 Blue Dragon has SR 21. Fighting it at 14th level means a caster needs a 7 to beat it's resistance -- a 5 or 3 if you take spell penetration feats. And how many monsters have dispel magic? And of the ones who do, how many have a caster level high enough to make the check consistently? Also, how many monsters are smart enough to go after a spellcaster instead of the big guy with a giant axe that's running at them?

We usually fight PC-classed opponents of roughly our level, not random monsters. That does make a difference. In the game I'm in, we rarely fight creatures straight out of the MM; opponents are part of the complex web of allies and enemies we find ourselves in.

I guess if you arbitrarily decide that you need to kill the caster or make him worthless to the party, and tailor repeated encounters to ensure this, then you can find ways of doing it. I don't consider it proof that casters aren't much more powerful than non-casters, though. I just consider it bad DMing.

I'd consider not making sure an encounter challenges the player to be bad DMing.

 

[Thasmodious]

But I do agree with you - I also want to be able to go the straight 50/50, and that seems to be where 4e fell short.

I think six days after release is a bit early to say 4e "fell short" with anything yet. There was a design article or blog a while back dealing with multiclassing and what they felt was good and wasn't. Trying to wedge true 50/50 into the system has never worked very well. In previous editions, capped levels and split XP were necessary to prevent brokenness. In 3e, multiclassed casters too often lost caster levels and found they couldn't keep up with the delicate balance of the game. And when it worked in 3e, it was often broken or at least overpowered. 4e's philosophy is that actual multiclass rules are for dabblers. True x/x are classes. The spellsword will be the first of these, but far from the last. So, as the game moves on in this edition, we should have a lot of options to represent our mixes: dabblers, prestige multiclassing, and the true 50/50s as classes. I hope it bears out this way, anyway.

 

[JDillard]

4e's philosophy is that actual multiclass rules are for dabblers. True x/x are classes. The spellsword will be the first of these, but far from the last. So, as the game moves on in this edition, we should have a lot of options to represent our mixes: dabblers, prestige multiclassing, and the true 50/50s as classes. I hope it bears out this way, anyway.

Agreed! It's time to redefine our terminology. In 4e, "multiclass" means to take those extra feats that allow some dabbling in the other class's powers. If you want a true 50/50 split type class, you need a whole class to accurately represent that.

The design goal looks like it was to make classes balanced and capable of performing their role duty despite what weird combinations of stuff players might come up with. This takes the "accidentally sucky character" out of the mix, something that will help bring in new players. You don't need system mastery to be able to make a character that's at least moderately effective in his role. A new player who sees a feat or power that "sounds really cool!" can't accidentally screw himself and make his character basically unplayable.


50/50 splits generaly either suck at both roles (ftr/wiz in 3.x) or are nearly just as good (sometimes as good or better) at both than their single class counterparts (high dmg ftr/thf). Either you pick two classes with opposing roles and fail, or two classes with the same role and the synergy of the two makes either individually seem a waste. Neither of these seems like a good way to handle multiclassing, to me, to lots of you, and to the designers it seems.

So instead, if you want a 50/50 whatever, wait for them to make a class that does it. Spellsword looks like it'll be our first. And it'll work because instead of taking two classes with opposing roles or two classes with synergistic roles, you've only got one class. And balancing a single class is thoroughly easy.

 

[JohnSnow]

So instead, if you want a 50/50 whatever, wait for them to make a class that does it. Spellsword looks like it'll be our first. And it'll work because instead of taking two classes with opposing roles or two classes with synergistic roles, you've only got one class. And balancing a single class is thoroughly easy.

Agreed, mostly - except the class will be called, I believe, "Swordmage," not "Spellsword."

For the record, I actually look forward to seeing what an arcane defender will look like.

Similarly, I think there's room for an arcane striker that's less like the warlock and more like the old elven bladesinger - a capable melee combatant that targets single foes, but who can do some control as well.

There's some pretty cool possibilities looming out there, but they'll be better as single classes (IMO).

 

[JDillard]

Agreed, mostly - except the class will be called, I believe, "Swordmage," not "Spellsword."

Ack! You've discovered my secret! I don't care one bit about the gish character, never have. It's not my thing. I'm only curious to see how they handle the 50/50 split concept so that I can see how they'll hopefully later introduce the splits I'm more interested in (cleric/thf ftw!).

 

[almagest]

We usually fight PC-classed opponents of roughly our level, not random monsters. That does make a difference. In the game I'm in, we rarely fight creatures straight out of the MM; opponents are part of the complex web of allies and enemies we find ourselves in.

So you can kill a caster with another caster, or an NPC you specifically designed to kill casters? Congratulations, I guess. I don't see how this suddenly balances 3e.

I'd consider not making sure an encounter challenges the player to be bad DMing.

"Challenging" is different than "specifically designed to kill or make a specific character or class useless in a battle."