Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[AllisterH]

I tend to disagree with Lizard and Reynard.

In 1e/2e, yeah, there was a good chance you could be left memorizing useless spells but that's because of 3 different things.

1. You couldn't buy magic items. You could SELL them in 1E, but you couldn't buy them back.
2. You couldn't really create magic items, not easily anyway (anyone remember what the PO:S&M recommended to create a simple Philter of Love? It was a bloody adventure in of itself)
3. The treasure tables in 1e/2e were slanted towards the non-spellcasters. Compare the chance of getting a wizard magical item like say a scroll versus a magical weapon/armour in 1e/2e to the same chance in 3e.

Furthermore, I don't think the "Limited" drawback of slots really were a balancing factor. Increasingly past level 7, the monsters in the game REQUIRE that you have magic. So if the wizard is out of his big guns, the entire party has to stop.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that when healing is out, everyone has to stop.

 

[Spatula]

Well, that's what the books assume you're facing at those levels.
So, the core books assumes that a wizard ( or, more in general, a spellcaster ) can kill a monster that should be a challenge for the entire party

Equal-level encounters consume resources, they're aren't meant to be a challenge.

3/4 times /day in 1 round, 45-55% of the time

Old red dragons cast spells at 11th level, and thus have buff spells available to them. Pit fiends & balors have an additional +4 to their saves (unholy aura) and can take a caster out of the fight with one action (power word stun). All three have treasure that they can make use of as well. The tarrasque isn't killed by insta-death attacks.

Now, you can say that those numbers are not appropriate, and "fix them" using higher level monsters. That's fine, but isn't it an admission that yes, spellcasters are indeed unbalanced?

I didn't say the numbers were off because of spellcasters. They're off because a high-level party outputs tremendous amounts of damage each round.

 

[Njall]

Equal-level encounters consume resources, they're aren't meant to be a challenge.

If they only consume 1 spell, then I'd argue they've not served their purpose at all, can we agree on this?

Old red dragons cast spells at 11th level, and thus have buff spells available to them. Pit fiends & balors have an additional +4 to their saves (unholy aura) and can take a caster out of the fight with one action (power word stun). All three have treasure that they can make use of as well. The tarrasque isn't killed by insta-death attacks.

And high level spellcasters have debuff and dispels. So buffs aren't generally a huge problem to them.
Unholy aura can be dispelled.
Assuming a wizard starts with 12 con, by 20th level his Constitution can easily reach 20.
That's 100 bonus HP right there, +4+19d4.
19d4 average to 52 HP, so he has an average 152 HP. Power Word Stun doesn't work unless he's injured.
Furthermore, druids and clerics have far more HP, and a Wizard can easily start with 14 con.
OTOH, the wizard can just cast Gate and summon another Balor/Pit Fiend/whatever to fight for him.

I didn't say the numbers were off because of spellcasters. They're off because a high-level party outputs tremendous amounts of damage each round.

A fighter's damage output against a pit fiend is like 65 damage/round, assuming he can full attack the opponent; if he has to charge, his damage output drops to about 30 damage/round; and he's easily taken out of the fight if the Pit Fiend just casts Mass Hold Monsters (DC 27) a couple of times.
As I said, while four spellcasters can easily dispatch him in 1/2 rounds, a party without a caster can face TPK.

 

[Spatula]

If they only consume 1 spell, then I'd argue they've not served their purpose at all, can we agree on this?

And high level spellcasters have debuff and dispels. So buffs aren't generally a huge problem to them.

And then they're taking actions (and using resources) to dispel buffs - with a good chance of failure - before using more actions (and more resources) to no-longer-quite-one-shot the creature. What happened to only consuming one spell? There's all sorts of situations and counter situations that could happen. What does happen is that the entire party contributes to the fight, which is rarely if ever against a single creature, as that's not a challenge for any group unless the monster is a total bad-ass (economy of actions, yadda yadda).

and he's easily taken out of the fight if the Pit Fiend just casts Mass Hold Monsters (DC 27) a couple of times.

Freedom of Movement & Protection from/Magic Circle against X are pretty much standard issue at the upper levels, both of which negate hold person.

 

[Njall]

And then they're taking actions (and using resources) to dispel buffs - with a good chance of failure - before using more actions (and more resources) to no-longer-quite-one-shot the creature. What happened to only consuming one spell? There's all sorts of situations and counter situations that could happen. What does happen is that the entire party contributes to the fight, which is rarely if ever against a single creature, as that's not a challenge for any group unless the monster is a total bad-ass (economy of actions, yadda yadda).

So 1 spell is unbalanced, whilst 2 spells to end a fight is balanced? 2 spells represent what? 1/10 of a caster's resources for that day, at 1st level?
The system assumes 4/5 fights/day...

Freedom of Movement & Protection from/Magic Circle against X are pretty much standard issue at the upper levels, both of which negate hold person.

And Dispel Magic is a common spell like ability at 19th level. Our Pit Fiend can cast it at will, for example. Furthermore, how does a group of noncasters cast them at a decent CL?

 

[RefinedBean]

Ahem. This is a 4E thread, I believe?

I'm a gigantic fan of the system as far as character creation goes. Whether or not it's true, it FEELS like I have more options to sort through, mechanically.

3E:

Race, Class, Feat, Skills, Weapon, Armor. Oh, and Spells, maybe.

4E:

Race, Class, Sub-Class (or what have you), Feat, Skills, At-Will powers, Encounter power, Daily power(s), Weapon, Armor.

Half again as many choices, and given the nature of character creation in any RPG (except Mechwarrior), making up a character background and history is equally as exciting for 3E and 4E.

Not that I mind 3E, I just always thought it was weird when the next, decade-portion of my life was pretty much spelled out for me, barring something in-game that would necessitate multi-classing or taking a prestige class.

 

[Henry]

So 1 spell is unbalanced, whilst 2 spells to end a fight is balanced? 2 spells represent what? 1/10 of a caster's resources for that day, at 1st level?
The system assumes 4/5 fights/day...

And Dispel Magic is a common spell like ability at 19th level. Our Pit Fiend can cast it at will, for example. Furthermore, how does a group of noncasters cast them at a decent CL?

Here's the problem for me -- all those buffs and debuffs flying around, recalculating ACs, Saving throws, hit point totals, attack bonuses, damage -- and you actually want to have time to PLAY the game, too? I wouldn't mind the buffing and debuffing, IF it didn't affect so many statistics at once. But the higher level the combat, the more you have to play with the stats, independent of actually running a combat.

In the end, a win or loss can be decided by the -1 CON and according hit points the DM forgot to remove because of one extra hit by a weapon of wounding; then the players feel cheated because the DM flubbed a calculation. I don't mind simple addition and subtraction; I do mind having to keep track of a dozen recalculated stats for each monster on the board, and I've been in combats at higher levels (above 15) where I'm not exaggerating. I'll miss my Spell Slots in 4E, but I won't miss the ability buff spells, dispel magics, and ability damages from 3E. I've been toying with including a condition track a la Star Wars Saga Edition in 4E for persistent conditions, because it's a good way to handle such without a bunch of side calculations.

 

[Spatula]

So 1 spell is unbalanced, whilst 2 spells to end a fight is balanced? 2 spells represent what? 1/10 of a caster's resources for that day, at 1st level?
The system assumes 4/5 fights/day...

Right, and the monsters are just sitting there for 2 rounds letting the PCs kill them. Dispels will fail 50% of the time vs equal-level casting levels, in any case.

Furthermore, how does a group of noncasters cast them at a decent CL?

Group of noncasters? Where did that come from?

Here's the problem for me -- all those buffs and debuffs flying around, recalculating ACs, Saving throws, hit point totals, attack bonuses, damage -- and you actually want to have time to PLAY the game, too? I wouldn't mind the buffing and debuffing, IF it didn't affect so many statistics at once. But the higher level the combat, the more you have to play with the stats, independent of actually running a combat.

Yeah, I'm glad 4e basically ditched the whole structure of how buff / debuffs work. It makes high-level 3e a real headache to run.

 

[Marshall]

4E:

Race, Class, Sub-Class (or what have you), Feat, Skills, At-Will powers, Encounter power, Daily power(s), Weapon, Armor.

Heres the thing, from my quick read thru of the classes almost all of those come down to one choice. Sub-class

Want to be an Archer?
You're a Ranger.
You need a +DEX race.
Your At-wills are pre-selected.
Encounter/Dailys might have a "choose between two" but probably not
Your skills come from the Ranger list.
You are limited to a tiny list of feats available to your Race/Class.
Weapon? pre-set.
Armor? Best available. No reason not to.

Almost all of the classes follow the same pattern....Once you determine STR Cleric, your choices are made. Orb Wizard? All set. Axe Fighter? Done. Infernal Warlock?......yada....

I'm not seeing a whole lot of choices that arent made by picking your build.

Come to think of it, I'm not seeing much that makes me think this game was actually ready for publication.

 

[RefinedBean]

Come to think of it, I'm not seeing much that makes me think this game was actually ready for publication.

Fair enough. I'll go down to the store and check out the products you've written, revised, and published, and compare and contrast. You might be right!

At any rate, I do think you have a point there. The build is very much key in the initial progression of your character. However, with the choice of bumping up two ability scores each level, as well as the new multi-class feats for dabbling, I don't see it as much of a problem.

And what with the number of feats, I can be a Plate-Mail wearing Wizard pretty early in the game, or a ranged-attack Cleric, or what have you. Nobody's stopping you from doing this.

And as for Powers, there always seems to be a middle route with most character classes. Warlocks can choose whichever power they want regardless of pact, Rangers can choose powers that can be both ranged and TWF, etc. There's still a lot of breathing room, but it's thrown under the heading of "suboptimal."