I've been studying 4e again lately. I've never enjoyed playing the game and a big reason for that is
1.) You get to do 'at wills' as often as needed. In addition to that, you get encounter powers, dailies, etc. In any particular combat, you may well have some encounters/dailies/etc. that aren't applicable and you quickly burn through the ones that are applicable. This means that you're stuck using your at wills over and over and over ad nauseum.
2.) In earlier versions of the game, you could figure out creative uses of spells. The spells in earlier versions are very flexible. There are a lot of options and opportunity for coming up with tricks. In 4e, the powers are very specifically and narrowly defined and powers (such as illusions) which couldn't be very specifically and narrowly defined are just removed from the game.
These two facts have made it impossible for me to, in any way, be mentally invested in the game.
However, this post isn't just a rant. Several of my friends are playing 4e and I'm in a place where my gaming opportunities are severely limited. It so happens that these friends' game is one I could actually manage. So, how do I reduce the impact of the two points listed above so that I can get more invested in the game?
LilithsThrall wrote: So, how do I reduce the impact of the two points listed above so that I can get more invested in the game? [snipped for brevity]
There's some good questions here. Let me see if I can help:
LilithsThrall wrote: 1.) In any particular combat, you may well have some encounters/dailies/etc. that aren't applicable and you quickly burn through the ones that are applicable. This means that you're stuck using your at wills over and over and over ad nauseum. "At-Will Spam." But I don't like Spam! This is primarily a problem at lower levels. By level 9 you've got a full compliment of stuff to do, and you only get more past that point. Even by level 5 you've got a pretty significant selection. Granted, this is pretty in keeping with other systems, where you start out with a limited amount of nifty things and get more, but there's still room for improvement. In a low level game I absolutely feel where you're coming from on this.
A. Themes. Not included in the original rules, they were first introduced in Dark Sun, and very recently expanded beyond that. Not all of the new ones are well designed, sadly, but it's something. Themes generally provide some very minor bonus and an additional encounter power at level 1--because this encounter power is usually slightly below the effectiveness of a class-granted encounter power, it provides very little in the way of "power creep" and mostly just gives some additional variety to lower level combat. You can speak with your friend about these if they're not already using them. Despite being branded "Dark Sun" material, the original themes are easily re-flavored to fit any setting.
B. Multi-Pass. Class. I meant class. Several multi-class feats grant an additional power usable as an extra daily or encounter power. Again, some are not as well designed as others, but the encounter powers are along the lines of at-wills, reigning in power-creep, so your DM isn't having to readjust the system to keep up with your character.
C. Get a fever for the flavor. As most powers have a very flexible relationship with their associated descriptions, feel free to redescribe them... constantly. I've played with folks who had wizards that never in their lives cast "magic missile" but spent a lot of time popping off "Bartleby's Unerring Pebble," "Bigby's Unfaltering Expressive Digit," and the like. Again, probably something to talk to the DM about, as some folks get all bent out of shape when you go renaming things--then again, other folks will really enjoy the creativity and effort put into your descriptions.
D. Pimp My Encounter. Numbers have changed on a few things since the original release. Opponent hitpoints and defenses have gone down a bit, although the damage has been moved up a little to compensate. This results in combat that's resolved a bit faster, meaning that most fights don't take as long as they would have otherwise--which leads to less instances of "I'm outta cool stuff, looks like it's my at-will X again." The GM may already be using this errata, but if not, you may want to make him aware of it, and why he may wish to use it. It's available for free on the WotC website.
I have a couple house rules on this, but since you'll be playing and not running, they're probably not going to be much help unless your GM is pretty open to suggestions.
LilithsThrall wrote: 2.) In earlier versions of the game, you could figure out creative uses of spells. The spells in earlier versions are very flexible. There are a lot of options and opportunity for coming up with tricks. In 4e, the powers are very specifically and narrowly defined and powers (such as illusions) which couldn't be very specifically and narrowly defined are just removed from the game. While not an entirely fair characterization, I get where you're coming from here, too.
A. Life, the universe... Everything. Page 42 of the DMG. Start reading. ^_^
B. Permissive/Inclusive vs. Exclusionary. They have narrowly defined mechanical effects inside combat. Outside, that's up to you and your DM. I've used my hexblade's icey-armory daily power to freeze up the larder at an inn (providing cold beer in the process) punched and wrestled a stubborn donkey into moving, and done some things (that I probably am not allowed to be explicit about) using Acrobatic Strike, among other amusing "abuses" of power. Because the descriptions are up to you, and the system is generally intended to run on a "why not?" as opposed to a "you need a feat for that" basis, the powers are a bit more flexible than you might think. :) Again, talk with your GM about how they run their game.
C. Magic is special... but so are some people who aren't. Aside from the older abuses of summons and the like, in many games illusions can function less of a "spell" or "ability" and more of a "question of player skill at justification vs. DM's ability to say 'quit hijacking my game.'" Not that everyone did this, but it is a very easy thing to do. Sometimes limiting magic is necessary because, as The Man said:
E. G. Gygax wrote: If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly. Yes, some wizardly things are a bit more restrained, and for a number of reasons... But there are still many ways to enjoy creativity within the game--especially with magic.
I hope this helps, and if there's something I can clarify, or a question i didn't fully get, don't hesitate to ask.
LilithsThrall wrote: I've been studying 4e again lately. I've never enjoyed playing the game and a big reason for that is
1.) You get to do 'at wills' as often as needed. In addition to that, you get encounter powers, dailies, etc. In any particular combat, you may well have some encounters/dailies/etc. that aren't applicable and you quickly burn through the ones that are applicable. This means that you're stuck using your at wills over and over and over ad nauseum.
2.) In earlier versions of the game, you could figure out creative uses of spells. The spells in earlier versions are very flexible. There are a lot of options and opportunity for coming up with tricks. In 4e, the powers are very specifically and narrowly defined and powers (such as illusions) which couldn't be very specifically and narrowly defined are just removed from the game.
These two facts have made it impossible for me to, in any way, be mentally invested in the game.
However, this post isn't just a rant. Several of my friends are playing 4e and I'm in a place where my gaming opportunities are severely limited. It so happens that these friends' game is one I could actually manage. So, how do I reduce the impact of the two points listed above so that I can get more invested in the game?
Point #1: This is mainly an issue in the first few levels, when you only have one encounter and one daily power. By mid-heroic, if you assume the typical 5 round encounter, you've got time for 3 encounters and two different dailies, and no real sense of being stuck using the same attack over and over again. If you do end up in long, grindy battles, you may want to consider discussing it with the DM - it is possible they are throwing encounters at you that are too high level, or overloaded with tough and durable monsters rather than a good mix of enemies.
Early on, if you find yourself being worn down by using the same At-Wills over and over again, keep in mind you have other options - Bull Rush, Grapple, Charge. And, most importantly, you can always try interesting combat stunts. This ties in to your concerns about powers 'only working as written' - the DM has some guidance for handling actions the rules don't cover. So if you are tired of using Cleave on the goblins over and over again, feel free to tell the DM "Alright, I've had enough! I tackle the big one and hammer him in the face with my shield until he gives up!"
You'll probably need to roll some Strength checks or Athletics checks, and failure might end up with you on the ground being danced on by goblins - but the option is (usually) there.
It does somewhat depend on the DM. But the 4E rules themselves give the DM the guidance to handle such situations, and encourage them to say yes when you try something interesting. Especially if playing with friends, stunts like that will usually be welcomed rather than frowned upon.
Point #2: I can see how the presentation of 4E powers might make them feel too codified to use in creative ways, but that option is totally there! It's just, as always, that it is largely in the hands of the DM. The DMG even has a handy table that gives the DM some encouragement and guidance on how to adjudicate using powers in creative fashion.
Now, you aren't likely to be able to instantly win an encounter with one creative use of a spell, unless the DM goes for that. But you can certainly get into it more than just casting the same thing over and over again. For example, if you are fighting enemies in a shallow pool, the DM would likely allow you to try and use Ray of Frost to freeze a section of the lake around an opponent - but would be unlikely to let you use to it simply freeze an opponent solid.
For spells that do interesting things in a more out of combat fashion, Rituals tend to fill in that role. They are, admittedly, more limited than earlier spells, usually due to the components and time needed to cast them. But they can cover a lot of useful situations, and can definitely be used in creative ways.
In addition, since the release of the PHB, they have filled in more of the 'missing' areas. Arcane Power, as well as the new Heroes of the Fallen Lands, has produced a number of illusion powers as well as enchantment powers. You can even specialize as an illusionist or enchanter.
I'm certainly not going to claim you'll get an identical experience to playing an earlier edition. But many of your concerns come down more to how a certain DM might run it, rather than limitations of the system itself. Again, I can't encourage you enough to talk about these issues with the DM and see what they think. And if they are welcoming of it, then just play the way you always have - ask if you can try something neat, and see what they say.
LilithsThrall wrote: 1.) You get to do 'at wills' as often as needed. In addition to that, you get encounter powers, dailies, etc. In any particular combat, you may well have some encounters/dailies/etc. that aren't applicable and you quickly burn through the ones that are applicable. This means that you're stuck using your at wills over and over and over ad nauseum. This is similar to a melee attack in 3.5/PF. It might help if you imagine it like this. Just that you have multiple At-Wills instead of just one way of melee attacking.
LilithsThrall wrote: 2.) In earlier versions of the game, you could figure out creative uses of spells. The spells in earlier versions are very flexible. There are a lot of options and opportunity for coming up with tricks. In 4e, the powers are very specifically and narrowly defined and powers (such as illusions) which couldn't be very specifically and narrowly defined are just removed from the game. All the stuff that is wholly dependent on DM fiat and not on rules can still be done, because...amazingly, and surprisingly...it depends only on the DM, not on rules :)
Also, what RedJack said. (Great post!)
As Red-Jack suggested, flavor. This was something I learned from the Hero System. The mechanics are one thing, flavor is completely different. It is more explicitly spelled out in Hero.
It could also simply be a matter of expectations. If a GM is resistant to creative use of a 10 foot pole, the mechanics can only go so far. No rule book is going to explicitly spell out all of its possible uses. At some point, you are going to trust your relationship with your GM that the world works similarly to the real world (or at least the cinematic version of the real world).
I am not an expert, but as a DM and player, there are a couple things I have noticed to help take the grind out.
1. Lower the hit points of creatures, increase their damage, and grant creatures more interesting abilties.
2. Efficient use of initiative. Playing 4E at any level is equivalent to playing previous editions with spell casters at any level. So basically, everyone is a caster. Therefore, just imagine what happens when players can't make up their mind.
3. Efficient system to track conditions, because they come and go every round. This ties into initiative for the DM and what happens to creatures, and how players book keep.
I never played a low level 3.5 Fighter - because I hate doing the same thing over and over again. So, saying that a low level 4e character isn't different from a 3.5 Fighter doesn't improve my opinion.
Minor cosmetic changes - like renaming Magic Missile - aren't what I'm talking about. Nobody pays attention to renaming spells. Creative application of a spell's effect in order to solve a problem in an innovative manner is what I'm talking about and using a ray of frost (which ordinarily does damage) to freeze water instead is the kind of thing I'm interested in. But, I don't want to feel like the only reason it worked was because the GM was feeling gracious with rule 0. I get no sense of accomplishment with that. Instead, I feel like a charity case.
LilithsThrall wrote: But, I don't want to feel like the only reason it worked was because the GM was feeling gracious with rule 0. I get no sense of accomplishment with that. Instead, I feel like a charity case. And what's the difference to illusion spells in 3.5 that you mentioned above?
LilithsThrall wrote: I never played a low level 3.5 Fighter - because I hate doing the same thing over and over again. So, saying that a low level 4e character isn't different from a 3.5 Fighter doesn't improve my opinion. Well, I wouldn't call them equivalent to a 3.5 fighter at all... Well, perhaps some of the new Essentials "martial" builds are that simplistic, but in general, no.
As I'm sure you've noticed, even basic at-wills have some varied effects. Some of them are equivalent to first and second level spells or martial equivalent moves at level 4 or 5 with some special feats tacked on.
These are granted literally at will, in addition to the very simple things like Basic Attacks (which are quite true to their name.) meaning that a first level character has a small selection of basic moves to exploit, aside from basic combat maneuvers like "hit it with a weapon" or charge/bull rush/grappling/etc.
Page 42 (and associated sections) also allow for quite a bit of variety as well, expanding beyond the powers spelled out on the page to alternate improvised actions and uses. Are they as good as an at-will? No, generally not, because your character hasn't trained and practiced these things--that's why they're improvised. ;) But then they can be quite tactically amusing.
Beyond that, there are (of course) the encounter/daily powers, with the option to get a few more depending on race and feat choices. These would be closely analogous to a 3.5 wizard's spell selection at level one, but with generally more availability, reliability and effect. A 6th level wizard (with a decent Int) is looking at 7 0-level spells, about a dozen higher level spells, of which half are going to be first level. A 6th level 4e wizard has a few cantrips himself, which are exceptionally flexible in use, and unlimited in usability. Their at-wills are also not limited in use, so they're not done with them after 6 or so uses per day, nor do they need to balance combat usefulness versus utility. They've also got 6 other spells available to them, with utility and daily spells being swappable from a double sized list. If every "utility" you choose is daily, then at least two of those spells are usable a number of times per day.
Now, I'm not saying one is better than the other, but there's a lot more parallels to be drawn here between 3.X caster advancement than "I hit it with something... harder" advancement. :)
LilithsThrall wrote: Minor cosmetic changes - like renaming Magic Missile - aren't what I'm talking about. Nobody pays attention to renaming spells. Creative application of a spell's effect in order to solve a problem in an innovative manner is what I'm talking about and using a ray of frost (which ordinarily does damage) to freeze water instead is the kind of thing I'm interested in. But, I don't want to feel like the only reason it worked was because the GM was feeling gracious with rule 0. I get no sense of accomplishment with that. Instead, I feel like a charity case. These effects are not applied in 3.5 by any more or less genuine application of written rules than they are in 4e. :) In other words, if you're claiming it's "charity GM fiat" in one, it's "charity GM fiat" in the other.
To be honest, it appears you prefer Pathfinder over 4E, and there is not much value in discussing the differences in both systems to help grind in 4E, i.e. how combat can slow down for various reasons. I do believe the DM has the biggest influence in regards to grind, and keeping the adventure fluid and interesting, but the players have to like playing the system as well. If a player is not interested, any adventure or game system will be a "grind" in a broader sense.
I was not a 4E supporter for at least 3-6 months. But I do play Pathfinder again, so I can appreciate the differences.
LilithsThrall wrote: Creative application of a spell's effect in order to solve a problem in an innovative manner is what I'm talking about… I am a bit fuzzy, but I do not think Ray of Frost explicitly states how much volume of water it will freeze nor how that interacts with the environment. Most of the spell's effect revolves around doing damage. Renaming the spell is only a half step towards redefining the fluff of the spell.
What I am suggesting is re-skinning (Hero calls it Special Effects) the spell. Take any spell that basically does damage. You can skin it as a Ray of Frost, Fire Jet, Acid Sphere, Mystic Bolt, Electric Arc, or even one of these.
If it better engages your creativity, get your GM's permission and write up the details of how your new re-skinning interacts with the environment. For instance, you can say the boxing glove exerts X pounds of pressure so you can push buttons from a distance. The Fire Jet will ignite all flammable materials in its path.
LilithsThrall wrote: But, I don't want to feel like the only reason it worked was because the GM was feeling gracious with rule 0. I do not see how this would be any different than your Ray of Frost example. The GM is still going to make a call based on your described effect and how it would likely interact with the environment. Unless it is specifically detailed out, at some point it comes down to an arbitrary GM call.
A GM could say you can not freeze water because the Spell does not state it can do that. I think most of us would say that is a bad call and breaks immersion, but if you can not trust your GM to craft a believable world, you have bigger issues.
And it seems I completely forgot to mention (I think it's from the DMGII?) some guidelines specifically laid down on allowing player to use their abilities out-of combat. It specifically references skill challenges, but the principle is more broadly reaching than that, of course.
There have been several times in my own campaigns that a player has said "uh... can I use X to do Y?" with nary an enemy in sight. My general reply is an enthusiastic "Hell yes," but that's me. What's important is that this is based not on house rules, but on precepts included within the game itself, and, of course, strongly suggested by common sense.
As a rule of thumb an appropriate use of something available at will is a +2 bonus on a roll, using an encounter power is an automatic success, and blowing a daily is considered an exceptional success, or multiple successes--it's a task that the character is obviously suited for, and there's no reason to deny them the opportunity.
As CourtFool points out, if you can't trust your GM to behave in a fair manner or create a world you can believe in, there are much bigger issues at stake. I'll add that none of them really relate to the system used, and would be present under any ruleset.
My 2 cents.
Do less studying & do more playing. Reading through the power descriptions, they can seem dull & limiting. And on their own, they probably are. However, I've found 4th Edition is less about what one player does and more about how that player/character works with his friends/party-members. That is one place where one can find the opportunity for creative use of powers. Figuring out how your powers interact with those of your party-members to best effect in the particular situation you find yourselves in.
Having said that, there are still plenty of opportunites for a player/character to shine. These come from knowing your character, the character's capabilites, the way the game plays, and keeping your eyes open for opportunities. In the main 4E game that I play in, we have a Warforged Bard that when the game started up was much mocked for being sub-optimal. No more mocking now that we've seen that in the hands of that player, the character is a fight-swinging beast. That player has through clever play, saved the party on numerous occasions where things looked really grim. I'll note that he wasn't always this way, and was initially, somewhat deserving of the ribbing he got. However, through play he learned how to build his character to suit both his preferred style of play & how to best work with the characters we "forced" him to work with. (I think it's worth pointing out, our GM was pretty lenient about letting us rebuild/modify our characters as we progressed & figured out powers & the rule system. Not necessarily so that we could min-max, but so that people could replace powers they were finding useless, frustrating, or just plain ineffective.)
One other thing to keep in mind is that while you might feel limited by the number of powers your character acquires through his class, don't forget that the magic items one picks up can also add to your arsenal of tricks/cool things to do.
I hope this ramble helps even though it doesn't directly address your stated concerns.
LilithsThrall wrote: I never played a low level 3.5 Fighter - because I hate doing the same thing over and over again. So, saying that a low level 4e character isn't different from a 3.5 Fighter doesn't improve my opinion.
Minor cosmetic changes - like renaming Magic Missile - aren't what I'm talking about. Nobody pays attention to renaming spells. Creative application of a spell's effect in order to solve a problem in an innovative manner is what I'm talking about and using a ray of frost (which ordinarily does damage) to freeze water instead is the kind of thing I'm interested in. But, I don't want to feel like the only reason it worked was because the GM was feeling gracious with rule 0. I get no sense of accomplishment with that. Instead, I feel like a charity case.
Sure - one reason I mentioned discussing it with the DM. That can help you ensure your expectations are on the same page, rather than wondering every time you try something interesting whether he'll be in the mood to run with it or not, and whether what you are accomplishing is because you choose a good tactic or because the DM was just being nice to you.
Fortunately, as has been mentioned, 4E provides some guidelines for the DM. Page 42 in the DMG gives a table with DCs and suggested damage numbers. It doesn't give too much advice on what conditions are reasonable to throw around, but some fan guidelines exist out there and it isn't too hard for the DM to come to some conclusions on their own. Exact details will always be left to the DM, but... it's hard to get around that, and one tends to just need to trust the DM will be fair and impartial. And, honestly, that's true of anything going on in the game.
Also, I didn't mention it before, but Terrain Powers are one way a DM can also set up some 'anti-grind' in encounters. They are basically pre-designed stunts like we describe, which the DM figures out in advance so it is easier to encourage their use. So if you enter a room that has a rickety chandelier overhead and some bubbling potions over a stove, take it as an inventation to try and make use of those!
Matthew Koelbl wrote: You can even specialize as an illusionist or enchanter I'd like to hear more about this.
LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: You can even specialize as an illusionist or enchanter I'd like to hear more about this. Some of the recent material in the Essentials line was designed to recapture elements of earlier editions for 4E. Some of this was done through the flavor of abilities and other minor elements, but we also saw more simplified fighters and the return of spell schools (if not in quite the same fashion as before). 4E mechanics are mostly preserved, but familiar elements do make a return.
Now, the new fighter builds would probably be the opposite of what you are looking for, given that they really do just stand there and swing their sword the same way all day long. But some folks want that, so they've got it!
The new wizard build - the Mage - is basically the same as the standard 4E Wizard, except that they get a few extra options for how much they can store in their spellbook, and they give up Arcane Implement Mastery in return for benefits in a school of magic. They can still choose from all of the (many) wizard spells already out there, but they get extra benefits with spells that have the appropriate keyword for their speciality.
Heroes of the Fallen Lands presents the Mage, along with the options for the Enchantment, Illusion and Evocation schools. Heroes of Shadow adds the Necromancy and Nethermancy (the study of shadow magic) schools. A Dragon article presents a highly-specialized Pyromancer option.
At level 1, you get some apprentice mage benefits in your school. These are largely combat related effects - you can manipulate people a bit more with your enchantments, distract them a bit more with illusions. At higher levels you get additional bonuses, including your powers directly enhancing your skills - Enchanters gain bonuses to Bluff and Diplomacy, for example.
In addition to all this, we also see the return of some powers more designed for out-of-combat uses. Some of them come back in a more abstract 4E approach - Suggestion returns, but the way it works it lets you use Arcana in place of a Diplomacy check. So you still manipulate someone through magic, but without quite the precision of "follow this exact phrase".
On the other hand, other powers return almost identical to their original forms. Instant Friends makes someone a trusted friend for 1d4 hours, aiding you as best they can without endangering themselves, though it makes it very easy for you to manipulate them. Spectral Image lets you make illusions in pretty much the same exact fashion you could in past editions, though it is a stationary illusion. But as an encounter power, you can basically make illusions all day long!
And these are both level 2 spells, so available quite early on.
LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: You can even specialize as an illusionist or enchanter I'd like to hear more about this. These are available through Essentials builds. The wizard (and other magical classes) in Essentials are actually not nearly so simple as many of the essentials martial builds are, so you still have a fat load of choice--in addition, spells are cross compatible, so an Essentials wizard can easily pick out stuff from the PHB1 and a PHB wizard can snag a spell out of Essentials.
The Essentials variant is called a "Mage" and doesn't have Ritual casting as a default (but it's available through taking the feat) or implement mastery, but does gain some nifty class features aside from that. Illusion specialists basically add an attack penalty to their opponents with every hit, while enchanters apply a lot more forced movement than normal, which is pretty nifty--you haven't lived until you've play "chessmaster" with a passle of frustrated orcs. ;)
By the way, that sort of thing is what wizards are absolutely spectacular at. They can plop out the occasional lightning bolt of lightning bolt-y fury, sure, but the folks I've seen who really enjoyed their wizards were doing so more for their ability to (quite literally) control and reshape the battlefield than focusing on blasting away with the damage.
EDIT: Alas, I have been (quite expertly) ninja'd! However:
Matthew Koelbl wrote: In addition to all this, we also see the return of some powers more designed for out-of-combat uses. Some of them come back in a more abstract 4E approach - Suggestion returns, but the way it works it lets you use Arcana in place of a Diplomacy check. So you still manipulate someone through magic, but without quite the precision of "follow this exact phrase". It's a bit closer to the old d20 Charm Person, also known as "Power Word: Howyoodoin'?"
RedJack wrote: EDIT: Alas, I have been (quite expertly) ninja'd! Revenge for your ninja'ing at the top of the page, wherein we start our posts with almost identical sentences. ;)
A 4E Illusionist: Let's go ahead and give an example of what an Illusionist can look like in 4E these days.
Level 6 Human Mage
Str: 8, Con: 11, Dex: 14, Int: 19, Wis: 10, Cha: 16
Class Feature: Spellbook (You can learn multiple spells at each level, choosing each day which ones to memorize.)
Class Feature: Illusion Apprentice (Enemies you successfully use illusion against are at a penalty to attack you the following round.)
Class Feature: Illusion Expert (You gain a bonus to Bluff and Stealth checks.)
Class Feature: Enchantment Apprentice (When you enchant a creature into moving under your control, you can steer them even farther.)
Class Feature: Cantrips (Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation)
Class Feature: Suggestion (An encounter spell wherein you use arcane magic to make your words more persuasive.)
Skills:
Arcana: +12
Bluff: +13
Diplomacy: +11
History: +12
Insight: +8
Stealth: +12
Feats:
Sly Dodge: You count as a rogue for the purpose of prerequisites, you gain training in the Bluff skill, and you can use your cunning to slip away from opponents during battle.
Phantom Echoes: When you successfully use an illusion power against a creature, you gain combat advantage against it so long as it succumbs to that illusion.
Illusionary Stealth: When you successfully use illusion powers against enemies, you can also use it to aid your own attempts to sneak away.
Wand Expertise: Spells you cast through a wand are more likely to affect your enemies, and walls and barriers provide little defense against your spells.
At-Will Spells
Beguiling Strands: A strand of scintillating colors and gleaming lights clouds your enemies’ minds and forces them to move away.
Hypnotism: You briefly enchant an opponent into moving where you want, or into attacking one of his allies.
Phantom Cage: You trap an enemy in an illusionary cage of spikes, ravaging its mind with psychic damage.
Magic Missile: A bolt of magical energy unerringly seeks its target.
Encounter Attack Spells (4 known, 2 memorized per day):
Grasping Shadows: At your command, the shadows reach out, grab hold of your foes, and wreath the area in darkness.
Illusory Obstacles: You create dangerous illusionary terrain, disorienting and impeding foes who believe in it.
Hypnotic Pattern: A swirling pattern of colors appears before your foes. Their eyes glaze over as the pattern enthralls them and lures them closer.
Maze of Mirrors: You envelop your enemies in an illusory labyrinth of mirrors, which conceals the world around them.
Daily Attack Spells (4 known, 2 memorized per day):
Horrid Whispers: Your enemies are seemingly beset by dreadful noises. Desperate to find the source, they are oblivious to the true threat posed by you and your allies.
Phantom Chasm: Your enemies shriek in terror as, at least in their mind’s eye, a bottomless pit opens beneath their feet.
Phantasmal Assailant: You craft an elaborate image of a deadly assassin whose blade cuts deeply into your foes.
Visions of Avarice: The illusion of a fabulous treasure appears out of thin air. Your enemies throw aside caution to seize it.
Utility Spells (4 known, 2 memorized per day):
Spectral Image: You make a complex but mostly stationary illusion of a creature or an object.
Phantasmal Terrain: You make safe terrain look dangerous, and dangerous terrain appear safe - all to the detriment of your enemies.
Disguise Self: With a snap of your fingers, you suddenly look like someone else.
Spectral Hound: You summon the ghostly image of a powerful mastiff that follows you protectively.
Rituals Known:
Magic Mouth: You leave a magical message that awaits the conditions you have set.
Last Sight Vision: You create an auditory and visual replay of the last few moments before the death of a creature.
Fool's Gold: You create an amount of illusionary gold that seems real... for a few hours.
Dark Light: You create a magical light that illuminates the area around you - but cannot be seen from a distance.
Hallucinatory Item: You create the illusion of an inanimate and stationary item (of small to huge size, depending on your magical skill) that lasts for 24 hours, and appears to be real to those unable to see through the spell.
Deathly Shroud: You magically disguise yourself as undead to all except for the most intelligent undead monsters.
LilithsThrall wrote: Matthew Koelbl wrote: You can even specialize as an illusionist or enchanter I'd like to hear more about this. I'm going to sound a note of caution here because you sound a lot like you'd like to be playing PF but only have a 4E game available. 4E is not PF, it just isn't...and you can't make it become PF. Sure there are a certain number of options, especially in essentials, that are more like 3.5 then some other options but, in the end, it won't be the same. This is important because if you go into the game expecting it to be PF then chances are your not going to come away a happy camper.
I'm also want to emphasize the elements of some of the posts that talk about how the DM chooses to run their game. Philosophically 4E runs on DM fiat with guidelines. One of the big time effects of this is that there are a wide variety of styles of play open to any given gaming group. This is influenced very heavily by the DM but most groups have 'cultures'. In other words your talking about sitting down with another group of players. Truth is if you want to get along with them and have it that a good time is had by all then your going to have to play within their style and we don't really know what that is.
In 3.x/PF the rules put a significant amount of effort into defining the style of the game but this is much less the case in 4E so the kinds of styles a group might be playing under is pretty wide. You should probably arrange to play with this group for a bit and see if what they are doing is of interest to you. Now you may be able to influence the group more toward the style your interested in, but make sure that they are interested in at least exploring that.
In particular one can do a lot with page 42 but there is a pretty wide range regarding how much its used. For some groups page 42 is an emergency backup when what is taking place in the game forces them to improvise, while others might practically live on that page. If you say I hit him with my shield your DM might be all set to handle that...or might look at you funny and slow the game down to a crawl while trying to adjudicate your 'crazy' action - which will not endear you to the other players.
I'd figure out what this groups culture was like and hesitate long and hard before ever telling a group that they are 'doing it wrong'. Page 42 is there and its certianly can be used but not every one uses it a lot and there are even a fair number of different ways to actually use it, all of which are perfectly valid.
I read an article on Wizard's website about combat length and the "grind" in 4E fights. And while there are plenty of solutions out there, the most simple and effective one I saw was...
Double all damage for all PC's, monsters, NPC's etc.
Every damage type is doubled. Ongoing, magic, melee, ranged, minion damage. Everything. You just roll stuff as usual and mutiply by two.
It speeds up combat a lot, and makes it way more risky and keeps your PC's on their toes.
Pop'N'Fresh wrote: I read an article on Wizard's website about combat length and the "grind" in 4E fights. And while there are plenty of solutions out there, the most simple and effective one I saw was...
Double all damage for all PC's, monsters, NPC's etc.
Every damage type is doubled. Ongoing, magic, melee, ranged, minion damage. Everything. You just roll stuff as usual and mutiply by two.
It speeds up combat a lot, and makes it way more risky and keeps your PC's on their toes.
Well its worth noting that the OP is not really talking about Grind as we understand the term in 4E
Grind = A combat where the PCs victory is a forgone conclusion but many rounds of combat remain before its all sorted out. Its key that the PCs are cognoscente that they have already won this fight.
Its also worth pointing out that Grind, by and large, ended with the publication of MMIII and all monster books after that point. It can still technically happen but its an isolated incident. Hence avoid doubling damage etc. from any of the more recent monster books and in fact its a good policy to strongly favour more recent monster books in encounter design. Monster Vault in particular has most of the monsters that where originally found in MMI so DMs should probably more or less replaces the MMI with Monster Vault. You can treat the MMI as an advanced DMing monster book - those monsters are good under certain circumstances but a DM needs to be able to eyeball the statblock and decide if it fits the bill on a case by case basis working under the default assumption of 'avoid if I'm not sure this is what I am looking for'.
Uf you do happen to be using monsters from an older book there is official errata on how to update them (though I tend to just eyeball them and then play with the stat block in a word processor to get to the look and feel I'm aiming for).
LilithsThrall wrote: I never played a low level 3.5 Fighter - because I hate doing the same thing over and over again. So, saying that a low level 4e character isn't different from a 3.5 Fighter doesn't improve my opinion. If your a human then you get 3 At-Will powers to choose from. Include that with the 1 encounter power you have at 1st level and you have 4 different choices every battle. Some At-Wills will become more popular depending on how your play your character in combat, while some night never see use and could be retrained. Might I ask what class your looking to play?
I'm of the opinion that At-Wills are the bread and butter of your class. I created a Jedi-style character by going Hybrid Swordmage|Wizard and used Thunderwave (Force Push), Hypnotism (Jedi Mind trick), and Sword Burst for that nice friendly Area of Effect (AoE). Couple that with the Swordmage's Aegis of Shielding (erecting a force-shield around an ally) or Aegis of Ensnarement (teleport marked enemy next to me), Falcon's Mark which allows me to throw my weapon at a target (Lightsaber throw), Rolling Thunder (like a greater force-push) or Arcane Whirlwind reflavored to appear like a swirling vortex of force and I'm a Jedi Consular. But I'm all about the character being fun rather than being optimized.
I mention this because I think with the 4E rules, you can come up with such a wide variety of character styles and classes that make your at-wills fun to use.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Minor cosmetic changes - like renaming Magic Missile - aren't what I'm talking about. Nobody pays attention to renaming spells. Creative application of a spell's effect in order to solve a problem in an innovative manner is what I'm talking about and using a ray of frost (which ordinarily does damage) to freeze water instead is the kind of thing I'm interested in. But, I don't want to feel like the only reason it worked was because the GM was feeling gracious with rule 0. I get no sense of accomplishment with that. Instead, I feel like a charity case.
That was how it was done in v3.5 too. You couldn't use ray of frost cantrip from PH in that manner without DM fiat. And while I do feel that the v3.5 rules gave a player more wiggle room for interpretation of spells instead of 4E's direct instructions on how that spell operates, how far you can stretch the usefullness of that spell still rides on you. I still think you can use spells in a creative application like using Fireball to ignite the support beams of a house on fire so it'll fall on a target, Grease to help an ally slip through the bars of a jail cell, Ray of Frost to freeze a lock or make water a frozen surface, or use Storm Pillar or Winged Horde as a distraction against your foes. If your DM was willing to accept the reasons in previous editions, then I see no reason why he wouldn't accept them now.
Regarding the class I'm going to play..
I normally play complex, tactical characters. In 3.5, I like the battlefield control of the Druid and the subtle manipulation of a Sorcerer (charming, illusions, bluffing, etc.). In 4e, the Illusionist posted above looks very cool and I also like the Artificer and the Warlord.
However, the group only uses the PHBs (I - III) and another player is playing a Warlord already (I always like my characters to have their own niche). There are 4 strikers (warlock, rogue, ranger?, ?), 1 defender (fighter), 2 controllers (druid and wizard), and 1 leader (warlord) in the party. The GM has asked me to have a nature type of background and several players have said they'd like to see another defender in the party. I'm sure it's possible to have a nature background without having a primal source and the players' request for a defender should only have a -slight- influence on my choice.
So, do you have any suggestions wrt my character's class?
I really like the Shaman, but you will have to accept being on the back lines, but with the appropriate use of the spirit companion, you can play a defender/controller/leader.
LilithsThrall wrote: Regarding the class I'm going to play..
I normally play complex, tactical characters. In 3.5, I like the battlefield control of the Druid and the subtle manipulation of a Sorcerer (charming, illusions, bluffing, etc.). In 4e, the Illusionist posted above looks very cool and I also like the Artificer and the Warlord.
However, the group only uses the PHBs (I - III) and another player is playing a Warlord already (I always like my characters to have their own niche). There are 4 strikers (warlock, rogue, ranger?, ?), 1 defender (fighter), 2 controllers (druid and wizard), and 1 leader (warlord) in the party. The GM has asked me to have a nature type of background and several players have said they'd like to see another defender in the party. I'm sure it's possible to have a nature background without having a primal source and the players' request for a defender should only have a -slight- influence on my choice.
So, do you have any suggestions wrt my character's class?
Defender is a tactically challenging role. On the other hand, with that party I'd want another leader type more than a defender. I might change my mind if it turned out the rogue and ranger both favour ranged attacks and avoid melee, but Shaman is mechanically one of the more complex classes while also having a nature background and imo being more valuable to the party as a leader than any defender could be.
The alternative proposition if the party is very heavy on ranged firepower but limited in melee (possible; the only class listed without a predominantly ranged build is Fighter), would be a melee defender. Fighter is mechanically simple though imo tactically complex, the others all add mechanical complexity (and the swordmage is also tactically complex).
LilithsThrall wrote: Regarding the class I'm going to play..
I normally play complex, tactical characters. In 3.5, I like the battlefield control of the Druid and the subtle manipulation of a Sorcerer (charming, illusions, bluffing, etc.). In 4e, the Illusionist posted above looks very cool and I also like the Artificer and the Warlord.
However, the group only uses the PHBs (I - III) and another player is playing a Warlord already (I always like my characters to have their own niche). There are 4 strikers (warlock, rogue, ranger?, ?), 1 defender (fighter), 2 controllers (druid and wizard), and 1 leader (warlord) in the party. The GM has asked me to have a nature type of background and several players have said they'd like to see another defender in the party. I'm sure it's possible to have a nature background without having a primal source and the players' request for a defender should only have a -slight- influence on my choice.
So, do you have any suggestions wrt my character's class?
Wow, that's quite a lot of players! Looks to be about 8 plus yourself? With those numbers, you can practially do anything. The question is, do you WANT to play a defender? With only 1 defender and 1 leader, I think you could easily Hybrid (featured in the PH3) the two. A Fighter|Shaman or Paladin|Runepriest based on a nature deity both have great themes and work well. The fighter|shaman is a bit harder since the Shaman is Wisdom based while the Fighter is Strength based. You could go Longtooth Shifter (PH2; +2 Str, +2 Wis) and take two 16's and have pretty good HP and AC (due to Hybrid Talent: Fighter Armor Prof). Your stats would look like this: Str 18, Con 13, Dex 11, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 8. Take Scale armor, and any weapon combination you prefer. As a Longtooth Shifter, I prefer two-weapon fighting and Dual Strike (Martial Power 1) but if your DM doesn't allow any of the Power-books for anything (which is rough) then a polearm (spear, gouge, glaive) will work well or something 1-handed and a shield. Use your Spirit Companion to help in battle and you can off-heal/off-tank in union.
OR the Paladin|Runepriest (PH3) works REALLY well as a Defender/Leader roles as both are Based off of Strength/Wisdom. Again, Longtooth Shifter has the best stat support, but becaue it's ALL based on Strength, you can get away with Human, Half-elf, Dwarf, etc... Basically you become a heavy juggernaut and can heal allies while dishing out some good damage and Marking abilities. Stick to powers that produce Divine Sanction to spread out your marking ability. I'd probably go Human, grab an extra At-Will and take Ardent Strike, Holy Strike, and Word of Diminishment or Word of Exchange both key off of Wisdom for secondary benefits and are both respectable.
Are you only limited to Player's Handbooks for classes and races or for everything? I ask because the defender and leader classes are heavily augmented by the Power books and Dragon articles in terms of Feats and alternate class features and I'd like to see your character do well in their role. So if you have access to at least some Dragon Magazines, or even 1 or 2 power books your golden. If not, well....don't know what to say.
If you don't want to hybrid your character and you decide on playing a Defender, then your best bet is either a Fighter or Paladin IMO. The PH1 Fighter is great for using reach/polearms and 1-handed + Shield support. Their powers can have a significant impact on how the battlefield is being used and many of their powers include status effects (Daze, Prone, Weakening, etc..). In additon, their Mark penalty is pretty impressive. It imposes a forced Stop-Movement on a successful hit and you gain a buff to your Opportunity Attacks when you do so. A problem, however, is Fighters tend to stick to 1 enemy.
Paladins are better multi-markers on a battfield and right of the bat can Subject 1 target to it's Divine Challenge, 1 target to Ardent Strike, and a 3rd target to his Ardent Vow. In addition to this, any creature breaking the Mark (not including the Paladin in it's attack) automatically takes Radiant Damage = 3 + Charisma modifier 1/round. Also, they can key totally off of Charisma instead of Strength so it opens up the door to different Races such as the Half-elf and Tiefling (both are excellent races for the Paladin).
Hope this helps some.
One option could be the Druid. The PHB2 Druid is not the same as the druid of old, but it does offer some tactical complexity and interesting features - and both fits the 'nature' element while its versatility means you can get in the thick of things if needed.
Basically, the class can shift between animal form and normal casting. Many players prefer choosing one or the other and really focusing on it, but I myself like the versatility of a build that embraces both. Several of the beast at-will powers are good for diving into melee and keeping enemies from getting away, while you can invest encounter powers in classic druid spells for calling down lightning and the like. And choose dailies that give you real control over the battlefield - either by summoning animals, or creating walls of thorns, and so forth.
A different option would be to stick with a wizard, since that seems to be a preference. And then simply theme yourself as an elemental caster - between training in nature and a good number of lightning and thunder powers, you can easily represent a wizard who has a solid connection to the land. You won't be a defender, but to be honest, defenders and controllers largely do the same things - defenders just do it from up close, controllers from a distance. Both are focused on making it hard for enemies to do anything productive.
Or, if you do want to add even more defender elements to your wizard, the use of summons, again, can help with that. Instead of you getting in the enemy's face, your summoned fire elemental does so.
And, meanwhile, you can also choose various utility powers and rituals to still get some more versatile powers - illusions, transportation, enchantment, etc - to go along with everything else.
(For that matter, sorcerers also do well in the elemental role, with an entire build designed around storm magic.)
Finally, as was mentioned, Hybrids are an option. They are presented in PHB3 and let you mix and match classes a bit. Swordmage/Wizard, for example, would get you some defender abilities, some potent elemental magic, and some of the versatile wizard tricks that may appeal to you.
LilithsThrall wrote: So, do you have any suggestions wrt my character's class? Warden. Why? A nature-based defender with a strong secondary controller role.
We are limited to the PHBs for everything. As there are already a Wizard and a Druid in the party, I don't want to play either of these options. I really like the idea of a character who works closely with spirits. But the Shaman seems very passive (ie. he parks his spirit somewhere and then the Shaman does very little activation of his powers, rather cool stuff happens as a result of where his spirit is parked - I want my character to be more action hero-esque - more taking the lead in action and less reactive/waiting to respond to the enemy's actions).
LilithsThrall wrote: I really like the idea of a character who works closely with spirits. But the Shaman seems very passive (ie. he parks his spirit somewhere and then the Shaman does very little activation of his powers, rather cool stuff happens as a result of where his spirit is parked - I want my character to be more action hero-esque - more taking the lead in action and less reactive/waiting to respond to the enemy's actions). Hrm... The passivity of the shaman is pretty dependent on the build, really. You can make one that's mostly reactive by choosing a lot of powers that gran immediate reactions/interrupts later, and they all have some level of reactivity because of Spirit Fang, but that's far from the only tricks a shaman has. Granted, most of the players I've had who made shamans didn't quite use the spirit to its fullest extent, but they were almost wholly proactive rather than reactive.
Aside from the two features to choose from out of the PHB2 (stalker/protector) the basic breakdowns are:
- Spirit focused build. You act through the spirit. Most (perhaps all) of your chosen attack powers will be delivered through your spirit. On your turn the spirit moves when you do, or when you command it to, and it's a vicious little beastie with you at the wheel! You may or may not be on the front lines, but your spirit certainly will be. You're the puppetmaster, it's the puppet. Getting feats and things that make your spirit more mobile, easier to call, etc. are what people going for this usually look for, but you can also look for things that will make you a more front line combatant yourself--becoming a bit tougher, choosing close burst/blast powers, etc. Being able to be based partially based off of Con already means you can build Shamans that are pretty @#$%ing tough, with extra hitpoints to start with and a good number of healing surges.
- A more sorcerous build. Your spirit is a helper, and acts strongly as a deterent and control feature--your allies still get bonuses standing next to it, it still blocks enemy movement, may soak up an attack once in a while, and it can deliver some very nasty Opportunity Attacks, but the Shaman is the real, obvious power with these builds, rather than a more subtle source. Elemental spells, blasts, and the like originate from you--meaning that you're probably not going to be on the front lines most of the time as casting spells in the midst of your foes is still a terrible idea.
- All shades and variations between.
All of these have plenty of options for being proactive, doing fun stuff when you want to, and taking the lead in the action--although it's more figurative for the more magery-oriented builds, rather than potentially quite literal for a tougher-made spirit focused build. You don't really "park" your spirit anywhere--unless you just want to. It's not a stick in the ground, it's a very animate being under your control. :) Whether you use that control to have it dash across the battlefield and rip out an enemy's throat or just place it in a threatening position while you summon up fire, wind and flood is entirely up to you.
Every Shaman has Spirit's Fangs, which is (of course) dependent on where your spirit is at the end of the turn, and it's a really nasty OppAttack, but it is just an opporunity attack, meaning that this is not the only way your character functions. It's one function among many. It's an easy to use function, and it's actually a pretty good (and fun, I think) function, but it's not your only function by any stretch of the imagination. Like shaper psions, the spirit becomes a proxy for you (or not) as you wish, or an additional spot on the front lines aside from yourself. As a matter of fact, you could technically ignore it completely, although there's no real reason to do so, just because it is pretty handy.
As for the Warden suggestion, I'm surprised it didn't come up sooner. ^_^
My two favorite warden builds are actually in Primal Power, (Storm & Life) but Earthstrength and Wildblood wardens are also a lot of fun. I've got one player who just absolutely adores his. They're tough, naturalistic, and can be built for strong control or stronger damage, depending on your whims, you'll be on the front lines and doing some very magical things. Their at-wills seem pretty basic, but they've got a fat load of use in all of them, the encounters are all pretty useful, and the dailies (as basically described) contain a lot of shape-shifting craziness.
Again, there are some things for both in the Primal Power books that expand the classes a bit more, but I wouldn't say you need the book to play either effectively or have a lot of fun with them, so even if your DM is limiting you completely to only using the PHBs specifically, there's a lot to do.
RedJack wrote: My two favorite warden builds are actually in Primal Power, (Storm & Life) but Earthstrength and Wildblood wardens are also a lot of fun. I've got one player who just absolutely adores his. They're tough, naturalistic, and can be built for strong control or stronger damage, depending on your whims, you'll be on the front lines and doing some very magical things. Their at-wills seem pretty basic, but they've got a fat load of use in all of them, the encounters are all pretty useful, and the dailies (as basically described) contain a lot of shape-shifting craziness. Wardens are amazing. They have control at least as good as some of the dedicated controllers, can organize the battlefield and are nigh unkillable when in the right form.
I actually really like the idea of a Warden/Ranger, focusing on Melee attacks. Because they both can wear up to Hide Armor, your AC shouldn't be too much of an issue. The Warden's marking ability doesn't rely on making Warden attacks, so you can still Mark enemies while engaging your enemies with two-weapon attacks. Hybrid Talent could go to using a one-handed weapon in your off hand or one of the other Ranger features since I don't feel Font of Life is worth a feat.
For this build, I still favor the Longtooth Shifter as they get +2 Strength, +2 Wisdom and this allows you to put extra ranks into Dex to beef up your AC. Something along the lines of Str 18, Con 13, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8 (after racial modifiers). This would give you an AC of 15 or 16 with Two-Weapon Defense and your up there with most other Strikers. OR you could forego pushing up Dex and go for Constitution and take Hybrid Talent: Warden's Guardian Might and use your Con for AC. This way, I'd change your stats to Str 18, Con 16, Int 10, Dex 13, Wis 13, Cha 8. This would bump your AC to 16 starting and you can still do Two-Weapon Defense to get an additional +1 shield/+1 Reflex.
Anyways, the best part is (as I mentioned) being able to Mark a target while still using their full striker Mechanic, thus pouring out some decent DPR while being an effective defender. Will you defend as well as your full-fledged Fighter? No, but you'll be beating the tar out of the opposition faster than the other guy.
I'd also focusing on using Ranger encounter-powers with minor actions, immediate reactions, and immediate interrupts and not Standard Action attacks. This allows you a 3rd attack while going Twin Strike. Plus, the Warden's Dailies are pretty impressive and last a whole encounter.
The warden is a solid choice, but it is the only defender I have not seen in play, or played myself. It is one of those classes I could not get into based on flavor, but we all have our individual preferences.
Another hybrid defender I had alot of fun with is a Battlemind/Warlock, with the right weapons, you can move creatures all over the battle field. The concept was developed when I was creating Half-Giant Templars (NPCs) who served the Sorcerer King in Nibenay.
Recent threads in 4th Edition
|
