Deep Blue 9000 said:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220478
This thread is a good example of my point. Two pages of spells are released. Hong and Fourthbear cheer that wizards are nerfed (assuming that these two pages mean they are). This is no different from the OP complaining about all the damage spells from what we've seen. And in both cases, I believe their assumptions are reasonable and valid.
Well, let's look at these on a case-by-case basis, in the order presented in that thread:
Mirror Image:
3e: You create up to eight false targets that can completely protect you against being targeted by attacks or spells with a success rate proportional to the number of images.
4e: You gain +6 to AC. Every time you are attacked, this bonus diminishes by 2.
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Resistance:
3e: Gain resistance 10 versus one of a list of 5 energy types
4e: Gain resistance equal to your level + your Int modifier versus one of a list of 10 energy types
Weaker in 4e? No.
Frostburn (13th level spell; compare to Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, 6th level 3e spell)
3e: Do between 11d6 and 15d6 cold damage in a 10 foot burst. Freeze things.
4e: Do 3d6 + Int cold and fire damage (note: unclear whether this damage has both the cold and fire types or is instead 3d6 + Int cold and 3d6 + Int fire) in a 10 foot burst. Do 5 damage to anyone still in the area of effect in the next round.
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Mesmeric Hold (13th level spell; compare to Hold Monster, 5th level 3e spell)
3e: Make one creature helpless; creature may save each round to shake off effect.
4e: Do some damage, render up to 3 creatures unable to use move actions; creature may save each round to shake off effect.
Weaker in 4e? Probably. More targets, but helpless is a much worse condition.
Prismatic Burst
Not really any good matches for 3e spells, skipping this one
Thunderlance (13th level spell; compare to Chain Lightning, 6th level 3e spell)
3e: Do between 11d6 and 20d6 damage to one target, half damage to a number of secondary targets equal to your caster level.
4e: Do 4d6 + Int damage in a 25 foot line, push each target 4 squares.
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Bigby's Grasping Hands (15th level spell; compare to Bigby's Clenched Fist, 8th level 3e spell)
3e: Attack with force effect for 1d8 + 11 damage, or bull rush target, or hold target back
4e: Do from 2d10 + Int to 4d10 + 2*Int to up to 2 targets.
Weaker in 4e? No, except that it can't be used to interpose, as Clenched Fist can.
Blast of Cold (15th level spell; I could compare to Polar Ray, but let's compare to Cone of Cold, 5th level 3e spell)
3e: Do from 9d6 to 15d6 damage to all enemies in a 60 foot cone.
4e: Do 6d6 + Int damage in a 25 foot line, immobilize or slow those affected, save ends.
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Otiluke's Resiliant Sphere
3e: Create an indestructible sphere (4th level spell)
4e: Create a destructible sphere (15th level spell)
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Prismatic Beams (15th level spell; compare to Prismatic Spray, 7th level spell)
3e: Fire 7 beams, 3 of which are save-or-die, 1 of which is save-or-insane, 1 of which is save-or-planeshift, and the rest deal 20, 40, or 80 points of damage. Targets in a 60 foot cone are struck by one or two beams.
4e: Targets are struck by 1 to 3 beams, each of which does 2d6 + Int damage, and 5 ongoing damage (save ends).
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Wall of Ice
3e: Create a breakable wall. Crossing broken portions of the wall does 1d6+caster level damage. (4th level spell)
4e: Create a breakable wall. Attacking the wall does 2d6 cold damage. (15th level spell)
Weaker in 4e? No, but you get the 3e version at level 7, rather than level 15.
Displacement
3e: Attacks miss the subject 50% of the time (3rd level spell)
4e: An attack misses the subject (16th level spell)
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Fly
3e: The target can fly at a speed of 60 feet for 1 min/level (3rd level spell)
4e: You (and only you) can fly at a speed of 40 feet for 1 round or up to 5 minutes if you spend actions maintaining it. (16th level spell)
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
Greater Invisibility
3e: The subject is invisible for 1 round/level, and can attack while invisible. (4th level spell)
4e: The subject is invisible for 1 round. A minor action may be used to preserve the subject's invisibility. The effect ends if the subject attacks. (16th level spell)
Weaker in 4e? Yes.
We also know that certain very powerful effects (namely Wish) are completely gone. The claim that 4e has nerfed the wizard is supported by evidence, and fairly convincing evidence at that. This evidence follows comments by the designers that led us to predict that the wizard would be nerfed even before we saw evidence of this. However, the claim that it is not possible to do non-lethal damage is not supported by evidence. It is groundless speculation.
Now, let's look a little closer at what the OP is doing. He is speculating that 4e will Fail To Deliver. It doesn't really matter what the specifics are, because he's not the only one doing this. He, without reference to evidence, is suggesting that 4e will be written in a way that produces generally negative results, and which will detract from everyone's play experience. By spreading misinformation (sleep does damage) and starting groundless rumours (there is no way to do nonlethal damage in 4e), he seems to be making an attack against the edition for whatever reasons he has to do so. This is negative behaviour.
However, if a poster makes a groundless speculation that 4e will contain some feature that will be really excellent and which will improve everyone's play experience, he is not engaging in negative behaviour. He might be in error, but his error is merely wishful thinking, rather than pernicious slander. He may spread misinformation, but he does not want to rally an attack against either 3e or 4e. He's just groundlessly optimistic. Naive, perhaps, but not trying to start a fight.
I think that trying to get people together to hurl invective at the new edition without ground is a much worse behaviour than trying to get people together to be happy about an unreal feature of the edition. It causes more fights, spreads more negative feelings, and is generally a more aggressive and combative stance.
Those who have a problem with 4e, and whose beef is grounded in actual information, have a valid case to make, as long as they acknowledge that their problem may be only due to their having no access to the sections of the rules that solve their problem. However, this caveat also applies to people who are pleased about the implications of revealed information--those implications may not hold true once we have the entire rules. But neither of these stances is pernicious in the way that the OP's position is.
) this is a system you could get hours and hours and hours of enjoyment (or grief) out of.
