Polaris's page

Matthew,

Admittedly this is a tangent. Metamagic rods are great, but your metamagic rod of extend is grossly overrated. Monte Cook discussed this (albeit indirectly) when he explained why there were no 1min/lvl duration spells in Arcana Unearthed.

First of all you can only use the rod three times per day. For the right metamagic, this si seriously cool (metamagic silence on Benign Transposition...yes please!) but extend isn't one of them. Consider the three possible cases:

1round/level spells. By the time you can afford the rod (when I can afford the shirt), your 1round/level spells will typically last 5-7 rounds. IMX (and many others) 3.5E combats only last about that long anyway. Yes there is a small risk the buff runs out before the combat is over, but by then you should either be mopping up or have fled. Unlike 4e, 3.5e combats (esp low level ones) typically last 3-4 rounds.

1min/level spells. Extend spell in general is worthless for such spells. The spell will last the entire encounter in either case and won't last until the next in either case baring extremely unusual circumstances.

10min/level spells. By this time, such spells will last about an hour. With extend they last two. More than enough time to handle am immediate series of encounters but not long enough to be reliably "up" at all times in either case. The tactical advantage for extend in this case is nearly nil.

1hr/level spells. By this time the initial casting will last the adventuring day unless dispelled in either case, but it takes more than one casting in either case to insure they are up all the time.

As for Dispelling, Dispelling is far more command and far more dangerous for the wizard than either oozes or rust monsters (very special cases that involve melee). Dispelling is very effective for monsters (not so for characters) and done at range.

Really the comparison is this: Compare a third level slot (for improved mage armor) which costs 9000 gold to the cost of a mithril twilight shirt. To keep it fair, I'll make it a shirt +2 to keep the AC the same. The for the same AC and 1100 more, I have the AC up all the time and have a platform for future enchantments.

Given how cheap the +1 version of the shirt is (and 5100 is dirt cheap for an item of this ability), it's a no-brainer choice for a wizard.

Note I am not saying that Mage armor (or Improved Mage Armor) is bad. I am saying it's overrated. It is.

-Polaris

And Polaris - note that was exactly what I was saying, that the rod could easily be a replacement for the money you spent on your shirt. And that the purchase of the rod would leave enough left over to make up the AC difference - and that, personally, I would find the rod itself a far more versatile and useful item for the wizard in the long run.

Disagree about the rod. Metamagic rods are great, but extend is lame. There are much better metamagic rods for lower level spells than extend because by the time you get the rod (as you noted yourself) the spells last long enough that you don't need it.

I, however, have an armor platform (i.e. an INVESTMENT) that will last me until the end of my wizard career and NEVER goes away.

I think it's pretty clear which is better.

-Polaris

P.S. If you don't think that monsters don't use dispell magic and the like, think again. Unlike PCs who have to husband resources, it's worth it for monster/npc casters to hit the entire party with an area dispell magic just as a matter of course (or hit the wizard with a targeted one) since they (the monsters) can burn their slots all at once. In addition NPC casters generally have HIGHER caster levels than PCs which makes the dispell tactic hellishly effective.

Edit PPS:

What it comes down to is this? Which is better, a twlight mithril chain shirt for 5100 (or 3100 if you craft it), or spending a third level slot for Improved Mage Armor. The 3.5 DMG answers this question rather dramatically. The COST of a third level slot in money is 9000 gold which means to make up the slot for Improved Mage Armor, you have to spend about 4000 more than I do for the shirt and that's assuming I didn't craft it. The shirt seems to be clearly the better deal.

Mathew,

Actually, craft arms and armor comes very early for most wizards (same as the improved mage armor) and if you don't mind the 160XP cost (which obviously the scroll burners don't care about), that twilight shirt only costs 2000 to enchant for a total of 3100 gold. Your rod alone (which can't be crafted until much later in the wizard's career...and unlike craft arms/armor, craft rod is not a good feat) costs almost this much let alone the rest of what you are talking about.

I mean what I say when I say that wizards are perfectly good archers at low levels AND the twilight chain shirt is probably one of the best if not the best deal in the game for a wizard. Certainly a wizard should take the shirt before even considering bracers of armor!

-Polaris

Just to nitpick, it would require a 2nd level slot to use the extend feat with mage armor.

Nit pick to your nitpick, but if he's using the rod (which is 3000!!!! gold), he gets to use his first level slot. Of course for that same 3000, I could have my twilight shirt.

-Polaris

Polaris,

Go back to char op and ask how many people subscribe to LN's theory of Wizard play. Then go read LN's guidebook. Then come back here. I'll wait.

Link it or forget it. I've hung out at Char-Op for years (about eight) and this is the first I've heard of "LN's handbook". I have heard of Squirelloid's, Ninja's, and of course TM20's and none of these state what you are stating about mage armor.

I am not saying that mage-armor doesn't have it's place or isn't useful for a first level wizard. I am sayng it's overrated.

Twilight shirts are about the best deal in the game for a wizard for his entire career.

-Polaris

There is universal concensus in the Char-Op community that Greater Mage Armor (and Mage Armor) are better?

Odd, I hang out in that community and brilliantgameologists and I've never heard that.

The fact is that using Greater Mage Armor takes a spell-slot (and third level slots are valuable!). What's worse, AC defense in general is greatly inferior to other sorts of defenses.

You are much better off with a ONE TIME investment in 0% ASF armor that is useful the entire career of your character...but I guess you don't believe in investments (Scott Betts and others).

I suppose by that standard blessed books are a bad idea too.

ROTFLMAO!

-Polaris

Edit PS:

Matthew, here's the differnce. With the twilight shirt, I have armor that's good for the entire wizard's career which means I get to have BOTH option 1 and option 2. OTOH, the others are burning XP and Cash which means they have less at all levels. You need to factor in the long term economic trade as well.

Polaris,

It does not matter that the effect of a magic missile in 4e is very similar to the effect of a crossbow bolt in 3e. Since this is a roleplaying game there is a huge difference between a 4e wizards firing off spells every round and a 3e wizard firing off crossbow bolts every round. I love the notion that a mage can tap into the arcane energies around him at all times. Vancian magic is one of the thing I dislike the most about D&D and I, for one, am grateful to see it go.

Then play a warlock. Now, that said, I've always hated the Vancian system too (or so-called Vancian system since the old style DnD system wasn't exactly true to the Jack Vance fiction). I've always preferred how other systems handled magic by limiting access via mana points, fatigue, ect.

The point is, however, that the difference between firing arrows in 3E and using "magic missile" in 4E is a difference that makes no real difference.

As for the twilight shirt, I am stunned I have to explain to 4E lovers why in 3.5 the shirt is better than using Mage Armor. Even if you didn't mind the low level XP cost (and it matters), and even if you had time to scribe the scrolls at low levels (which you frequently won't....there is a limit to how many spells you can get on a scroll, and while it only takes 8 hours to craft you have to REST the rest of the day...no adventuring), it's a matter of action economy. Sound familier? It should.

Basically with my investment (and a small one) in a twilight chain shirt, I never, ever have to worry about mage armor again. That armor is with me even when I sleep, can not be taken away, and it takes no actions to activate.

Contrast this with mage armor. With a scroll or by using the slot, you have to give up a standard action just to cast the spell, and the scroll will only last an hour. That makes it idea if you are setting the time of engagement (attack's advantage), but it also means you can't count on having that spell up all the time....and as such if you are suprised (woken up for example), you have to burn a precious action just to protect yourself.

That's in addition to all the sweetness you can put on armor that you can't do with spells as well......

Mage armor as the spell is OK for a first level wizard (because of the scroll factor). Once you can afford better armor, you should get it.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

Polaris wrote:

You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile.

Of course it will.

So you cede the point. Smart man. Treantmonk 20 wrote a whole guidebook on wizard play based on just this. As a mystericous wizard, you fill the role of "God". You let your party members to the work...you enable them (and disable enemies).

I see nothing unfun or uncastery about it.

Should the low-level wizard be forced into using only a handful of specific spells in order to be combat relevant? And even then - how many people really enjoy the chance to Enlarge the fighter twice a day so that he can get even more glory.

Like the 4E wizard is any better? Basically the crossbow has been replaced by magic missile (or cloud of daggers for a high wis wizard), with about the same damage and about the same chance to hit.

You may call it magic but I don't. I fail to see the difference between the low level 3.5 wizard and 4E wizard when it comes to "only being able to cast a specific number of spells to be combat relevant".

As for enlarging the fighter, or helping out of combat, I get a kick out of it. Also spells like colour spray or sleep can completely alter the course of a low level battle. Well worth it and very worthwhile.

You (and the 4E designers) seem to think that you have to go 'rah, rah, rah' every round to have fun. It's just not so.

This isn't to say you can't enjoy this, or find it a fulfilling way to play. Clearly, you do. But enlarging a fighter twice a day and shooting a crossbow twenty times at orcs - and missing more often than not - is certainly not castery. And for many folks, it also isn't fun.

As opposed to being ineffective except one time per day and then firing off at-wills that are no better (and frequently worse) than weapon attacks....and missing more often than not?

I fail to see the improvement.

You say you don't want characters to have to be like "Tim", and that you'd rather be like "Gandalf." But the 3.5 wizard, at low-levels, didn't get to choose between those two roles. He got to choose between occasionally casting a useless damaging spell, and being largely ineffective with his crossbow the rest of the time, or occasionally casting a non-damaging buff or debuff, and being largely ineffective with his crossbow the rest of the time.

That's Gandolf! Gandolf seldom used his magic but when he did, it was hellishly effective. A low level 3.5 Wizard can most definately do this.

If that second one is to your preference, that's good for you. If not, you are out of luck.

If the first if your preference play a warlock.

Also: Twilight Shirts aren't a bad deal at all. On the other hand, burning that 5,000 gp to get +1 AC over Mage Armor is a pretty debatable choice. Late-game, it is certainly worth it, when your cleric can Magic Vestments the armor, and you have the money to spend, and want to load up your armor with Deathward and such as well. But at mid-levels, mage armor lasts long enough that you are usually better off...

It's not 5,000 gp over mage armor. Mage armor as the spell is overrated. Compare with sixteen thousand for bracers of armor +4 since both are permanent items.

If you are going to compare, do it honestly.

-Polaris

Polaris:

I have never heard of 'twilight' armour, although I take by your implication that you think a wizard should be wearing it that it's something out of a splatbook with no arcane failure chance?

Happy to help. The "twilight armor" enchantment can be found in PHB2 page 21 (box lower right corner in Duskblade section). For a +1 enhancement, you reduce the ASF of the enchanted armor by 10%. Since a mithril chain shirt only has a 10% ASF, for a total of +2 enchantment (4000 retail) and the cost of a mithril chain shirt (1100), you have a shirt that gives +5 armor bonus, for -0 ACP and 0% ASF and it counts as armor (which is hugely important for other sorts of future enchantements).

It's a no-brainer choice for a wizard.

-Polaris

Or you could just cast spells.

Which uses valuable third level slots better used for other things. Third level spell slots are valuable. Too valuable to waste on greater mage armor when the twilight shirt is so cheap (and the 5100 is retail....any wizard with craft arms and armor...available to any fifth level wizard) can make it for half price plus the cost of the mithril chain shirt (and by this time you DO have the one-level gravy train effect). A wizard using crafting pays only 3100 (and 160 XP).

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile.

Of course it will.

So you cede the point. Smart man. Treantmonk 20 wrote a whole guidebook on wizard play based on just this. As a mystericous wizard, you fill the role of "God". You let your party members to the work...you enable them (and disable enemies).

I see nothing unfun or uncastery about it.

Polaris wrote:

Enlarge the fighter (melee) and any extra damage you do with your arrows is just gravy.

Sure, except you're still sitting there for the rest of combat, firing a crossbow like any Joe Commoner could do and hitting maybe once every three rounds. Two-thirds of the time you might as well not be on the battlefield.

So what? By firing arrows you are doing a bit of damage at least, but honestly once you've enabled your friends/disabled enemies, you're job is done. Let the mortals do the hard work. Wizards are the "god" role.

Polaris wrote:

To be a 'castery' wizard does not mean you should be casting all the time. That's a misnomer.

I disagree. If I'm a Wizard and I command arcane powers, it's more fun from a thematic perspective if I'm able to make regular use of those powers.

You don't get it. Being a wizard doesn't mean you have to be like "Tim" out of quest for the holy grail. How many times did Gandolf use his magic? Only when he had to. I'd rather be "Gandolf" than "Tim" any day.

Polaris wrote:

As for mage armor scrolls, they cost 25 gp a pop which means you can't generally afford them out of the gate and the one-level XP gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level so burning XP is simply bad for you all around.

They cost 12 gold 5 silver to scribe (which, as a Wizard, you can do). And one experience point. Go kill a kobold.

It also takes a day (which you often won't have) and it's an XP point you never get back since the 1 level gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level. Scribing your own scrolls is a really poor idea. I used to be a fan of it until I tried it. Doesn't work very well. Just have a few select ones (like prot evil and comp languages) and just a couple of each.

Polaris wrote:

Thistledown is only about 500 gold which will be cheaper than the scrolls you wind up using.

No it won't. To even match the Thistledown you would have to scribe 40 scrolls of mage armor. By the time you've blown through that many encounters, not only will you have a 1st-level spell slot to spare for a long-lasting Mage Armor, but you'll have access to Greater Mage Armor.

500/25 == 20 not 40 (burning XP at low levels is a hugely bad idea and you generally won't have the time anyway since it's one day per scroll). Prior to level 3 I can easily see you burn through 20 scrolls if you aren't using your own slots (a really bad idea).

Polaris wrote:

Greater Mage Armor is a waste of space. By the time you get it, you can do better (mirror image or greater mage armor....that's not much of a choice.....and mirror image is lower level!)

Except that you can cast both, and Mirror Image runs out after a couple attacks.

Greater Mage armor can be dispelled AND it's only available to a 5th level caster or higher (not exactly a low level spell). By this time, I have a twilight chain shirt +1 that can not be dispelled does NOT take up a spell slot and lasts indefinately. Much better deal.

As for your dismissal of -0 ACP/0%ASF armor, you need to open your mind. Compare the cost (5100) of a twilight mithril shirt +1 to bracers of armor +4 (16000) and tell me that the shirt is a waste of money. I dare you...hell, I double dare you to make that claim with a straight face. The twilight shirt is one of the best deals in the game for a wizard.

-Polaris

pres man wrote:

Polaris wrote:

Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it.

Well that and fighting incorporeals.

And mage armor also happening to be a pre-requisite for crafting bracers of armor at higher levels...

Which is good if you have a monk in the party. Seriously check out the difference in price between a twilight mithril chain shirt +1 and bracers of armor. Bracers of armor +4 cost 16K. The chain shirt costs 5100K AND gives you better armor.

Really bracers of armor are badly overpriced (so are amulutes of mighty fists for monks but that's another issue).

Also having ARMOR so you can put armor enchantments on it is invaluable at higher levels (like fortification). It's also why mithril bucklers are worth having eventually as a wizard. And compared with alternative ways of getting these benefits, it's dirt cheap to put stuff on armor (rather than robes or bracers).

-Polaris

pres man wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

I'm comparing it to the equivalent bonuses other members of the party would receive doing their primary job. For instance, we discussed a ranged Fighter earlier who, at 1st-level, had a +6 to hit with his longbow. That's a spread of +4, which is huge at 1st-level. Compared to that ranged fighter (which isn't even min-maxed), that 1st-level Wizard sucks with the crossbow.

Perhaps, but compared to a typical foe's AC, they do not suck. Your ranged fighter is just better. Not being as good as someone else is not the same as sucking.

It is when it's a team game.

You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile.

Enlarge the fighter (melee) and any extra damage you do with your arrows is just gravy.

To be a 'castery' wizard does not mean you should be casting all the time. That's a misnomer.

As for mage armor scrolls, they cost 25 gp a pop which means you can't generally afford them out of the gate and the one-level XP gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level so burning XP is simply bad for you all around.

Thistledown is only about 500 gold which will be cheaper than the scrolls you wind up using. Greater Mage Armor is a waste of space. By the time you get it, you can do better (mirror image or greater mage armor....that's not much of a choice.....and mirror image is lower level!)

Also by wearing ACP -0/ASF 0% armor, the wizard can later in his carrier add other things on it (like total fortification) that you can't generally afford to do with bracers and opens up another slot for a wizard.

Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it.

-Polaris

(edited)

Before anything like damage reduction or energy resistance/vulnerability is taken into account, I'm wondering what 1st level wizard spell, cast by a first level wizard, actually directly deals as much damage as a crossbow? :D

I think some of the lesser, orb spells do, but yes, that's an excellent point and a major reason why I'd rather shoot arrow than use magic missile as a low level (1-3) wizard most of the time. Arrows are cheap and typically do d8 damage. That's better than most low level spells.

Save your spells for things that really matter. I am telling most of you here and now that a wizard should not feel compelled to cast a spell every combat round to feel "castery". Once you've hasted your friends (and perhaps enlarged them), any extra damage you do with your archery is gravy....and there is no reason to blow your magic...and IMX (smart players), the other characters won't want you to unless it's really, really important.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

Most fighters will have a 12 Dex (unless an archer specialist but I'm not talking about an archer specialist!).

Yes you were ...

Polaris wrote:

The wizard until about level 7 (at which point he shouldn't be running out of spells anyway) is not that much worse off than an archer oriented fighter at the crossbow or the bow (since I am personally fond of elven wizards).

No I wasn't. I never said Archer specialist. In fact I admitted that the archer specialist would be better...but at low levels (traditionally defined to be 1-3) the wizard is comparable (NOT equal but COMPARABLE). He is.

Also martial characters run out of juice too...it's called hit points and long term status effects.

-Polaris

4th level = weapon specialization

4th level isn't low level either, and weapon spec is only +2 damage (not a lot).

-Polaris

Not just some FTR but an "archer oriented fighter".

I also said at low levels, and I am right about that. Archer oriented fighters really start to take off at mid levels. Hint: It's hard to afford strength adjusted bows at low levels.

-Polaris

If a significantly lower attack bonus and one quarter of the damage of a Fighter is "close" for you, we're done discussing this. They're not close, as multiple people have explained to you - in detail. More than one person has gone through the effort of creating entire character builds to demonstrate how your argument is flawed. If you're going...

"Significantly lower attack bonus":

Most fighters will have a 12 Dex (unless an archer specialist but I'm not talking about an archer specialist!). Thus at first level most fighters will be get +2 to attack with a bow. An Elf or even human wizard will have +2 or +3 from Dex alone and a +0 bab.

The attack bonuses look the same to me.

At first level, no figher will be able to afford a mighty bow, and a crossbow is totally insensitive to strength. Thus a 10 str wizard (not totally unreasonable) will do d8 with a longbow....same as an 18 str fighter.

Yes as you go up in levels the fighter gets better of course, but not by an overwhelming margin.

Think what you like, but actual play experience is on my side on this one. Low level wizards can be deadly archers. Sure not as good as an archer specialist but enough at low levels to hold their own.

-Polaris

Have you played a Wizard? Mage Armor is one of the always-take-it spells at 1st level, and any Wizard worth his salt will spend a bit of his starting gold hammering out a scroll or two of it. You should never be without it. Wizards have armor. It's just magical armor.

Mage armor is badly overrated. It's good at first level but only for 60 minutes and making scrolls of it seriously eats into your starting money every slot you spend on mage armor is a slot you don't have for something else (like sleep or colour spray to name two). At BEST a first level wizard is going to have three slots (four is possible only with the most cheesy sorts of builds) and most wizards only have two. That's not good for a DM that actually keeps track of time (mine generally do).

Starting at second level, any wizard can afford thistledown padded armor and by third level will also be able to afford mithril bucklers. Neither has an ASF. By mid levels, the wizard can have a twilight mithril shirt +1 for a grand total of 5,100 gold (dirt cheap compared with bracers of armor) giving you 5AC with no ASF and no ACP (and thus no armor proficiency is needed).

So how many wizards have you played? I'm telling you that using archery as a low level wizard is a LOT better than you think it is. It's not optimal, no, but it's doing something generally esp at low levels (and at higher levels you won't run out of spells generally...heck a wand of lesser sonic-orb will do you if you feel you must contribute an attack every round...which I do not think).

-Polaris

pres man wrote:

If you are wasting all your feats on ranged attacks as a fighter, that is a pretty "crappy" build. Seriously, power attack + 2-handed weapon, goodbye. Toss in some weapon specialization for a bit of bonus.

I would not build a fighter as an archer but polaris was comparing a wizard to an archer based fighter. There is no comparison.

BTW - I rarely used power attack. I took it to get other feats but PA is mostly useless. Over time you do more damage with the higher "to hit" numbers.

No I wasn't. I was saying that a wizard using a bow was comparable to a fighter that just picked up a bow (or most other characters). I never said the wizard was better and indeed said the reverse.

So 5 yard penalty for a strawman. Read my initial point more carefully please.

-Polaris

Scott Betts wrote:

Having played a lot of 3.5, having a high Constitution ends up being a lot more important to a Wizard than having a high Dexterity. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.

Having played a lot of 3.5, your preferred style of play will affect every opinion you form of "the system." What is indisputably true for you will be demonstrably false for others. This holds true at low levels and at high levels.

Concur,

The fact is (and why I like Elf wizards in 3.5) the best way IMX (please note this) is not to do raw damage dealing but to enable party members and disable enemies.

Thus I find myself in frequent situations where I sit back after doing an initial boost and plink arrows and wait for a situation to arise to get the most bang for my casting buck.

Guess what? Most parties like this...they don't complain at all about haste so Scott Betts, I'd have to say that your experience was pretty atypical. Don't get me wrong. Con is very important for a wizard too....but don't pretend a wizard at low levels is "useless" if using his archery. That emphatically is not the case in general.

-Polaris

P.S. I don't have to show that the low level, high dex wizard is as good as a dedicated fighter-archer. I've already said that he wasn't. The wizard just has to be close at low levels and he is. At first level the difference between +1 bab and +0 bab is pretty minor and that continues for the first four levels or so and it so happens that entry level archery feats can be useful for wizards (ranged touch is not just for damage spells....ask any archmage)

No. Augmenting your magic with combat prowess is called playing a gish, and that does not involve a) running out of spells, or b) whipping out a crossbow. What you're talking about is playing a crippled character.

Funny, my Silvanesti Elf (in a 3.5 DL campaign) with a +6 (+7 within 30') to hit with a bow at second level sure didn't feel like a crippled character. Admittedly this was with a really high Dex because of high rolls, but even with a 16 Dex (real easy) that's +4 or +5 which comparies favorably with ranged fighter attacks.

You are badly underestimating the combat ability of mundane ranged wizard attacks at low levels. You are FAR from crippled when using them.

In fact, as a low level human wizard one of my favorite tactics is to drop prone behind cover with my crossbow out and cast enlarge person and other buffs/debuffs at range.....and any ranged attacks coming my way suffer a -8 penalty in so doing (and there is no rule that says you can't cast spells when prone).

Tactics aren't just for 4E lovers.....

-Polaris

Guys,

What on earth are you talking about????

Not a huge premium on Dex for a wizard??????

Dexterity in 3.5 gives initiative, AC, and reflex all of which are terrific for a wizard. In addition, Dex improves a wizard's ranged touch attacks and that modifier continues to be important at all levels of the game because touch AC doesn't scale.

Your typical wizard will have a 14 Dex at the very least and often more especially if you are playing a small wizard or an elf wizard (both rather common IMX).

Yes Con is also good for a wizard, but so is Dex and your typical fighter won't usually have more than a 12 Dex unless they are going the archery/finesse route.

So YES, at low levels (1-4) a wizard can indeed be almost as good as a fighter when it comes to archery. This isn't theorycraft but actual game experience talking.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

It needlessly restricted spell-casting (especially at low levels), forcing spellcasters to not only define how long the party could function in a day, but to spend much of the time doing decidedly un-spellcasterish things (like whipping out a light crossbow and plinking away with bolts).

What's wrong with a spellcaster pulling out a bow even if he's not out of spells? Seriously. I am no fan of the so-called Vancian methode (althogh it's better IMHO than what 4E rolled out). I prefer how other systems do it (generally using mana/spell points but that varies).

What's wrong with an Elven wizard pulling out a bow? I don't see what's 'non-castery' about it (any more than Gandolf swinging a sword).

-Polaris

Mechanically, or play-wise?

Mechanically, the average wizard is terrible with a crossbow. It also does sub-par damage compared to other classes focused on weapon-based combat. It marginalizes the Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer/whatever once that character has run out of spells.

False. The wizard until about level 7 (at which point he shouldn't be running out of spells anyway) is not that much worse off than an archer oriented fighter at the crossbow or the bow (since I am personally fond of elven wizards). Consider that at level 4 (for example), the wizard has a bab of +2 while the fighter has a bab of +4 and the wizard is very likely to have a better dex (that's especially true with many Elf builds). Furthermore, if the wizard is a ray-caster, the wizard is likely to have PB shot and precise shot anyway.

Is the fighter better at the bow or crossbow than the wizard?

Sure.

Is he that much mechanically better?

Actually not really. In fact at first level a wizard can be better at archery than the party fighter. No lie.

Play-wise, it isn't thematic. When Gandalf whips out a sword, he's augmenting his combat prowess with magic. When a 1st-level Wizard whips out a crossbow, he does it because he's out of spells. The spellcaster feels less useful to the party once his daily allotment of spells is exhausted.

Really, this was a problem.

Isn't using your archery to extend the usefulness of your spells thematic? What if you want to play a wizard who specializes in spells in non-combat situations (which I actually recommend for low-level wizards).

Seems thematic enough for me. Gandalf is augmenting his magic with combat prowess. So is the low level wizard.

-Polaris

It needlessly restricted spell-casting (especially at low levels), forcing spellcasters to not only define how long the party could function in a day, but to spend much of the time doing decidedly un-spellcasterish things (like whipping out a light crossbow and plinking away with bolts).

What's wrong with a spellcaster pulling out a bow even if he's not out of spells? Seriously. I am no fan of the so-called Vancian methode (althogh it's better IMHO than what 4E rolled out). I prefer how other systems do it (generally using mana/spell points but that varies).

What's wrong with an Elven wizard pulling out a bow? I don't see what's 'non-castery' about it (any more than Gandolf swinging a sword).

-Polaris

Matthew,

You said:

Note that all of these builds will generally be a little behind any character focused in one specific element. But -1 to hit and damage in return for the sheer versatility of being able to heal, melee, throw spells from afar or at a group of enemies... seems a pretty good trade. And these are by no means perfect builds - I'm sure someone looking at this long term could put together a more focused version in the end.

Actually -1 stinks in 4E because it's a -1 (or -5%) that you will never get back because the monsters scale equally up with the characters (in fact they scale faster). [Btw, Padded Sumo is a real issue in practical 4E play...so much so that at GenCon various groups were experimenting with cutting monster hit points in half because combat was taking too long.]

What's worse, the effective penalty is going to be worse than that. Some classes are instrictically "MAD" (Cleric, Paladin, Warlock to name three). In these classes, in order to both quality and use off-class powers effectively reduces your selection and power from your primary class. Even worse, most classes do not share implements which puts you even further behind the power curve with your off-class powers. Even WORSE, every off-class power you take burns a feat that another character would still have without getting another power. Thus you have powers that don't hit as well, aren't support as well (by items), and you have few feats to boot. Blech!

Mind you, the trick of using just the first "initiate" feat to qualify for an off-class paragon path is often extremely good, but that's a seperate issue.

-Polaris

Matthew,

The problem with your sample character is that if he gets the attributes to support everything you've presented he's going to suck. In particular Intelligence is a very poor attribute for a cleric to invest in by and large because it does so little in comparison with Intelligence....and Dexterity and Strength of decent levels will be required for many of your listed feats.

Basically, yes you can get SOME of what multiclassed characters used to be able to do....if you want to suck.

-Polaris

Edit PS: Strength is a very poor stat to base your primary Cleric (and then wizard) around since most wizard powers (sorry spells) will draw opportunity attacks making them of suspect usefulness in melee. If you have to pick a prime stat for a cleric (and they have two of course), wisdom is far and away the better choice...especially if you are going to boost Int (a generally poor choice btw compared with Dex) because of AC issues.

Neh. Your criticism rests on the incorrect assumption that commercial pressures will force third parties to adopt the GSL. There's no evidence for this, and paranoid ramblings are insufficient as such evidence. Paizo shows no interest in becoming party to the GSL, and I can't imagine them ever doing so unless it became as reliable as the OGL (and even then, I have my doubts that they would switch). Given that Paizo has been having robust sales of its PFRPG (exceeding expectations by all reports), the claim that is not commercially viable to continue producing under the OGL is just wrong.

No. My anlysis stands on the reasonable assumption that commercial pressures would force third parties to adopt the GSL. Given the history of gaming, it's a very reasonable assumption when the GSL was written and one that not only Wotc but many 3PPs were making (such as Clark Peterson's Necromancer games for one). Also outside of Paizo there doesn't seem to be much of a viable market for 3E at the moment further enhancing my point.

This analysis might have been relevant months ago, before we understood whether a company could continue to produce under the OGL and survive (or better yet, thrive). Given that Paizo is doing just that, the analysis is stale and fails to take into account the elephant in the room - a commercially viable OGL company.

You don't have any evidence of this. The fact is that Pathfinder is not yet a finished product and as such isn't generating a dime towards Paizo. Perhaps Paizo will be a commericial success or perhaps it won't although I think it would come as a suprise to no one that Paizo's scale would be necessarily much smaller than Wotc's. This means that even if Pathfinder is a tremendous commercial success, it still wouldn't generate enough market to support the OGL as a whole necessarily. At any rate that seems to be the safe way to bet, i.e. the 4E system will supplant the 3E/OGL system even now. Certainly when the GSL was written this was the overwhelmingly safe bet.

Regardless of WotC's intent, OGL gaming is doing just fine. Your predictions of its demise need to somehow include a discussion of Paizo's success. Right now, all you've managed to produce is a great deal of hyperbole about WotC and the state of the market, which is supported by neither the terms of the OGL or the facts as they stand today. The sky is not falling.

So no, your criticism does not stand. There...

Outside of Paizo (and that has yet to be shown), I don't think the OGL community is doing fine. I get tired of people sitting singing "kumbaya" around the campfire and saying that Pathfinder and 4E can peacefully co-exist. They can not. They might in fact co-exist but unforunately...and I do think it's unfortunate...the relationship will necessarily be hostile. It will be hostile because Pathfinder's existance and (possible) success will keep the GSL from working for precisly the reasons you've stated earlier. It will give 3PPs a place to go and keep Wotc from cornering it's own IP. If you don't think that wasn't the intent with the GSL, you're dreaming. Some have wondered why Wotc put forth a GSL given it's restrictions and the realities of US Copyright law as it applies to games. I've given a perfectly valid (from a corportate PoV) reason. Few like to believe it, however.

-Polaris

Here is a question I've always had.

If a company no longer is working under the GSL, due to either their own decision to abandon it or WotC pulling it out back. Why couldn't the company return to using the OGL at that point? They wouldn't be under the requirements of the GSL since for them the contract is no longer active. So what would be stopping them from pulping all their 4e GSL product and then making OGL versions of them all (minus the benefits of the GSL, no D&D logo for example)? Am I missing something fundamental here?

They would not be able to use the OGL (for the converted GSL products and any products that wizards determined to be "related") because sectin 6 of the GSL survives termination of the contract.

The so-called "poison pill" in the GSL is designed to be perpetual.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

If anyone does NOT think the GSL is a flat out attempt to commercially revoke the OGL, I'd suggest they wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.

-Polaris

Did you also note that this only holds for a company that actually signs the GSL? And since the GSL is quite dead we don't know what the new GSL is going to do.

The GSL does not restrict the OGL for the folks that do not sign it.

Until the GSL is changed, the GSL I've referred to is very much alive and well. Also unless the GSL is radically changed in ways I frankly don't expect, my criticism of it and Wotc stands.

I have already aknowledged that a company can't be held accountable to the GSL unless they are a party to it. However, you seem to ignore the part where I said commercially revoke the OGL. The idea is that a 3PP either signs the GSL or sees his product consigned to gaming oblivion. Once enough companies have signed the GSL, Wotc revokes it thereby killing the OGL...and yes the GSL is written in precisely the sort of way that enables this possibility.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

Actually it's not. It's just a statement of fact. 4E does not have multiclassing as it's been defined for thirty years. 4E has class customization that they've redefined as multiclassing.

-Polaris

PS A fighter with a bow will be significantly less accurate than a ranger since a ranger will boost Dex through the ceiling and a fighter will not.

It's an opinion. And a fighter _can_ boost dex through the ceiling just as much as the ranger can, so your second point might be accurate in that the ranger is _more likely_ to, but it's not an absolute, which you're presenting it as.

It's a practical fact. The fighter needs to boost his strength first and formost or he doesn't get to hit. If you look at the secondary stats, there is no incentive for the fighter to boost dex unless going heavy blade mastery and arguably not even then. The best secondary stat for a 4e fighter is wisdom (read Pit Fighter and you'll see why).

If a class assumes you will be heavily armored (and the fighter definately does), then investing in Dex as a primary is not something that will be done.

-Polaris

Matthew,

Here's the deal. Brigands and Thugs would most likely use heavier weapons...not greatswords perhaps but certainly heavy clubs, broadswords, spears, and the like.

However, the classic brigand will also perfer to ambush and definately would favor lighter armor.

4E doesn't really permit you to do both. If you want to be a "fighter" you are shoehorned into wearing heavy armor (preferably scale). If you want to be a "rogue", then you are a fool if you use any melee weapon other than the dagger (or perhaps scimitar at paragon).

In short the rules in 4E get in the way and aren't customizable outside of very sharp limits. What's worse, it's almost impossible to house-rule 4E because the system is so tightly constrained that even small changes can have catastrophic cascade effects (another problem with the balance uber alles approach).

-Polaris

Oh come on. Multiclassing has been handled differently in almost every edition to date. Demihuman multi-classing was very different from human dual-classing, which was in turn extremely different from 3e level-by-level multiclassing/prestige classing/gestalt multiclassing.

That's just not so. "Multiclassing" was introduced in 1978 (although you can argue that the "Elf" class in BCMI was a form of 'multiclassing' and in OD&D (tan books) an Elf could choose to be a man of arms (fighter) or man of twigs (wizard) before each session).

First of all the ADnD 2e "multiclassing" (and dual classing!) rules from 1e were virtually untouched (except to clarify that fighter/mus could not wear armor other than elven chain). Dual Classing required so high stats that it's not worth mentioning. Unless you played computer games (such as Baldur's Gate), you almost never saw Dual Classing.

In 3E they changed the mechanics slightly but did not change the underlying defintion. The underlying defination of multiclassing has always been since 1978 to be the ability to function in more than one class at the same time.

This applies to ADnD 1e and 2e (including dual classing), and 3E. It does NOT apply to 4E. Like it or loath it, 4E does not have multiclassing as it is commonly understood.

You can say that 4e "trashed" the 3e multiclassing system, but saying there was some sort of multiclassing tradition that is fundamentally different in 4th edition is a pretty obtuse viewpoint.

Actually it's not. It's just a statement of fact. 4E does not have multiclassing as it's been defined for thirty years. 4E has class customization that they've redefined as multiclassing.

-Polaris

PS A fighter with a bow will be significantly less accurate than a ranger since a ranger will boost Dex through the ceiling and a fighter will not.

Matthew,

What Wotc is calling "multiclassing" these days is not multiclassing. Multiclassing is the ability to be more than one class at once, and you can not do this in 4E. Multiclassing for thirty years of DnD had a very specific meaning, and 4E trashes it. Sorry, but that's the way it is. It would have been considerably more honest to either call it something else or admit that multiclassing was dead....and no you can not do a very good Gish in 4E. It's been tried (and failed) on the gleemax char-op boards. The viable Gish was a 4e design goal and to data a spectacular failure.

As for the thug, no you can't do a classic thug. The classic thug doesn't attack travellers with his daggers, but the rogue class virtually forces you to go dagger over all other choices. Brigands and Thugs used a wide variety of weapons but were definately "rogues" as the term is understood. This is another example of a 4E failure. The same applies to archers. In prior editions if I wanted a fighter who's primary emphasis was on archery, I could do that. Now I can not (I have to be a "ranger" which doesn't fit many archer archetypes).

-POlaris

Polaris wrote:

Did you miss the perpetual clause that restricted the OGL even after the GSL terminated?

Nope. And that still has nothing to do with whether the GSL can stop people who are not using the GSL from using the OGL. It doesn't matter what the GSL says - it can't restrict your ability to use the OGL unless you choose to use the GSL.

Of course, but the commercial bet Wotc is making (and judging by the history of TTRPGs it's a good one), is that unless a 3PP "upgrades" to the latest edition of the rules that Wotc chooses to put out for DnD, their products will be consigned to gaming oblivion and thus commericial failure. Thus Wotc is saying (and from what I understood did say to Clark Peterson at one point), "You are with us or against us."

Thus while legally 3PPs might not be forced to signed, commercially Wotc thinks/thought that 3PPs would be forced to. It terms out that Wotc badly miscalculated, but the intent is plain.

Polaris wrote:

Look, it's plain to most that the GSL is trying to use the commerical power of the DnD trademark to force the OGL into oblivion and several people within Wotc have at least implied the same (by saying the OGL was a big mistake or the like). I don't see how a reasonable person reads the GSL any other way. [Yes many features in the GSL are standard for most IP contracts, but game systems contracts are different because IP holders for game systems have fewer rights than other sorts of IPs since game rules can not be copyrighted.]

Because the OGL is unrevocable. That's the way it reads. The GSL doesn't change that unless you agree to abide by its terms.

You also have Wotc employees openly lamblasting the OGL for it's very irrevocable nature, and you had at one time both Linnae (when she worked for Wotc) and Scott Rouse both quite openly attack on one infamous thread those that were unhappy with the GSL. There is no reason to make the 'no compete' or 'poison pill' (as it's sometimes called) clause as draconian as they are unless you wanted to have pertual provisions to try to kill a perpetual license.

Polaris wrote:

If anyone does NOT think the GSL is a flat out attempt to commercially revoke the OGL, I'd suggest they wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.

Uh...it's not. It can't do any such thing as a matter of law. You only lose your rights to use the OGL if you agree to the terms of the GSL. If you don't agree to the terms of the GSL, you can use the OGL for as long as you please. That's the way the licenses work. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

I've already said that Wotc can't do it as a matter of law. Wotc knows they can't do it as a matter of law. However, they can try to do it as a matter of fact. If that weren't the intent Wotc wouldn't have had a GSL at all and wouldn't have strong out 3PPs for most of a year. The current GSL is actually worse than no license in that regard.

-Polaris

What specific builds do you feel 4E can't handle? You can play a variety of types within the rogue class itself, and vastly more via multiclassing. Trapfinder? Still good. Second-story men? I don't see an issue here.

There are various ones. Building a classic 2e "gish" is basically impossible in 4E. So is a swashbuckler (dex based fighter), so is a muscle-rogue (as you admit), i.e. the thug with the greatsword. There are many many others.

Sure, you can't run around sneak attacking people with a greatsword anymore. (Though you can build a character who sneak attacks people with a crossbow/daggers at the start of the fight, and then draws a greatsword and rolls into melee.) You can certainly build a brutal thug of a rogue who relies on brute strength as much as cunning or dexterity.

Then you've ceded my point. The rogue with a greatsword (the thug) is a very viable choice in 3e and easily visuallized. For that matter how about the tripping master....another example. The fact you can't sneak attack with any weapon does indeed make some choices in 4E impossible that were possible before....and that's just one example.

What are we missing here, in your opinion? Multiclassing is certainly a viable option. Indeed, since 4E has set aside the need to min/max or powergame that could creep into 3.5 games, you can much more easily not worry about optimizing and still have a more than capable adventurer.

TRUE multiclassing is not a viable option. The only thing that approaches that is paragon multiclassing and that is so bad that friends don't let friends paragon multiclass. Even then you don't really get the abilities of the other class that uniquely make them that class, i.e. their class abilities. The power-swap and "initiate" feats are good for splashing and taking off-class paragon paths, but that isn't 'multiclassing' and at best expands your possible options from four paragon paths to eight, i.e. not much difference and that's IF you can take a paragon path with just the initiate feat (with the ranger you can not).

-Polaris

bugelyman,

Chess is unbalanced, and randomization does not insure balance. It just means that the advantage is unpredictable (in this case to determine who gets white). If randomization equaled balance, we'd still be rolling attribute scores because that would be balanced, but we all know that's not the case.

The fact is that Chess in intricate and there are out of literally billions of possible series of moves, perhaps a handful are perfectly optimal. This is why computers play chess so well (with sufficient computing power). The difference between a grand-master that knows the optimal moves in chess and a more ordinary person that does not is actually fairly extreme.

It won't be too long in the future with increased computing power that humans will be unable to compete with a computer at chess. We are nearly there now.

-Polaris

Edit PS: Chess like most "unbalanced" games greatly rewards system mastery. That is, the more experience you have with the rules and all possible permutations of it, the better you will play and the more often you will win. This is an important point: Unbalanced games reward system mastery. The Devs of 4E made it an explicit point to try to discourage system mastery hence their (over) emphasis on 'balance'. Basically chess is a bad example in many respects...including the key one that it doesn't show what you think it does.

Polaris wrote:

So which version of the GSL have you read?

The real one. Which can't restrict the OGL or companies from using the OGL unless they choose to use the GSL instead. Which one have you been reading?

Did you miss the perpetual clause that restricted the OGL even after the GSL terminated?

Look, it's plain to most that the GSL is trying to use the commerical power of the DnD trademark to force the OGL into oblivion and several people within Wotc have at least implied the same (by saying the OGL was a big mistake or the like). I don't see how a reasonable person reads the GSL any other way. [Yes many features in the GSL are standard for most IP contracts, but game systems contracts are different because IP holders for game systems have fewer rights than other sorts of IPs since game rules can not be copyrighted.]

If anyone does NOT think the GSL is a flat out attempt to commercially revoke the OGL, I'd suggest they wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

On the contrary, the 3.5 community is very much in a fight for it's life.

So, is there a death squad out to kill them? Are they being targeted by ICBMs? Are tanks rolling up on their lawns and flattening their houses?

No.

If 3.5 dies it will be the choice of the market and not the actions of WotC.

So which version of the GSL have you read?

Enough said. The GSL is a blatent attempt to force companies to make a commercial choice against the OGL. It very much is like a 'death squad' out to get companies that still use the OGL although that language is a touch extreme.

-Polaris

Am I understanding this correctly? Is someone actually prepared to defend the notion that meaningful choices must involve the potential for sub-par outcomes?

I'll not only defend it but endorse it. This fact has been known in game design (especially computer game design) since basically forever. If a choice is meaningful then it offers distinct postive and negative utility over the other choices. The more choices there are, the more positive utility will potentially overlap and negative utility wash out (or the reverse).

Basically, the only way to have a perfectly balanced game is to remove all meaningful choice, i.e. tic-tac-toe or rock-paper-sissors.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

False choice especially with retraining. There are basically only two valid meta-builds for rogues.

And if you play a straight rogue in 3.5 (just using the PHB) you also have very few options. In both systems you can use multiclassing to widen your options but even then you are limited.

I don't see any real difference between 3e and 4e on this issue.

I do. With 3.5E multiclassing it was possible to play a wide variety of "rogue type" characters (trap-finders, second-story men, etc) with the correct multiclasses because you got to mix and match both skills and class features. This made every rogue in 3.5 different. It was rare to almost unheard of for anyone to straight-class a non-caster in 3.5E.

4E OTOH virtually forces you to effectively "straight class" because multiclassing as it was understood for thirty years prior has been removed (rather brutally IMHO). Thus in fact there is a great deal of loss of effective choice (for a rogue or anyone else).

-Polaris

Well, unfamiliarity with the rules, may be some of it, but if the monsters have load of hit points compared to your damage output, and high defenses compared to your attack bonuses, that fight is going to take a long time to resovle, barring some pretty spectacular die rolls. I believe its more a factor of the underlying math not working right. It's way to skewed towards having monsters survive way too long.

This is true and according to Mearls (per the latest GenCon Podcast) deliberate. The 4E Devs wanted combat to last a long time (in rounds) to reduce what they considered to be "swingyness" and IMHO they again overcorrected.

-Polaris

Sorry, as a 3.5-fanboy I have to say that Pathfinder is not D&D. And Paizo supports my view, the staff have quite often pointed out that it is not D&D, they don't want it to be D&D, it is PfRPG. Just as Conan is not D&D or any of the other 3.x derivates are not D&D.

I don't really disagree thematically or artistically, but the fact remains that DnD 4E holds the legal trademark of DnD and as such is (at least in part) being marketed at the logical sucessor game whether it is or isn't. That was really my point...until now DnD has never had to compete against itself. Now it does. These are uncharted waters (at least for gaming).

Polaris wrote:

DnD 4E seems to be very much like "New Coke" and I point out that this push and the GSL actually created the problem. There's only so far you can change a product before a critical significant minority no longer recognize it as the sucessor to that product. This did happen with New Coke (it was always a minority that rejected it). It remains to be seen if it will happen with DnD.

I don't think anyone claimed that New Coke was not actually Coke. It was just not their prefered version. They may have said things like, "This New Coke tastes like Pepsi." But I seriously doubt anyone claimed it wasn't actual a version of Coke.

I was a senior in high school when New Coke came out, and a large part of the rejection was on first tast a large minority (although it always was a minority) rejected New Coke as "Not Coke". In that sense, I see a parallel (albeit limited of course) between New Coke and DnD 4E.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

IMHO this is a direct result of the "balance uber alles" approach -Polaris

there actually is an "uber alles" phrase in english ???

I´m German (where it is pronounced "über alles", by the way)and i didn´t know that (still laughing). Have to tell my class, seriously...

I was taking it from the German (or Deutsch if you prefer), and yes I know the 'u' is umlauted, but I was too lazy to include it (because I thought the context fit). As for English, in colloquial english you will find any number of words and short phases quite literally stolen from other languages....and yes this is one of them. So in effect if a phrase in a language sounds 'catchy', it's a good bet you'll find it in colloquial english somewhere (especially when dealing with American English).

-Polaris

The "3.5e community" isn't fighting for its right to exist. No one at WOTC has suggested that revoking the OGL is even possible, let alone under serious consideration. If, on the other hand, you're trying to argue that anything short of such is a credible threat, then I'll just say your point of view is incomprehensible to me.

On the contrary, the 3.5 community is very much in a fight for it's life. I agree (and so does Wotc fwiw) that the OGL is unrevokable legally, but it is very much revokable commercially. By that, I mean that it seems to be Wotc's goal to make the 4e system the one major standard for all DnD/FRPGs in the next couple of years much as 3E supplanted 2E, and 2e supplanted both 1e and BECMI. Given the past histroy of gaming, this seems to be a very credible thread and sections 2, 6, and 11 of the GSL give it additional weight.

You wolf/lamb analogy doesn't seem applicable, and it is certainly begging the question in any case.

Which version of the GSL did you read? It's very much an issue.

Finally, phrases like "right to dissent" simply don't have a place in a discussion of RPG editions. That is like saying I have "right to dissent" against Pepsi by buying Coke. Yes, D&D is important to many people, myself included, but this is just hyperbole.

No, it isn't hyperbole, it's an observed fact. The OGL (and by extension such systems as pathfinder) have given people that prefer the prior edition of DnD a place to go. That means that DnD now has to compete against itself and that to my knowledge is new in the thirty years of gaming. Before this there really was no right to 'dissent' because not converting to the latest edition to this point meant consigning yourself to gaming oblivion. BTW since you bring up "coke", DnD 4E seems to be very much like "New Coke" and I point out that this push and the GSL actually created the problem. There's only so far you can change a product before a critical significant minority no longer recognize it as the sucessor to that product. This did happen with New Coke (it was always a minority that rejected it). It remains to be seen if it will happen with DnD.

-Polaris

I think a lot of the 'hatred' is due to the fact that the 3.5e community is fighting for it's right to exist, and every action and decision that Wotc has made with regard to 4E tells a lot of us that Wotc has no intention of allowing the 3.5 community to exist peacefully.

It is my opinion (based on fact and Wotc's own actions) that Wotc wants nothing less (ultimately) than the destruction of all OGL games.

Thus asking for peaceful co-existance here or elsewhere is like asking the lamb to get along with the ravenous wolf. That's not going to happen unless the lamb winds up inside the wolf.

I am not saying we should be rude, or attack other posters, but let's call it what it is: Paizo and Pathfinder represent (de-facto anyway if not by Paizo's intent) a lot of dissaffected gamers and their right to dissent against 4e.

-Polaris

Ok, let's voice the general consensus in stereo:

"KKKAAAAAAABOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
(Roaring noise of D&D4 breaking onto the worlwide RPG scene on its release)

"....plop...."
(general feedback expressed by RPG community after 1 or 2 games)

;)

Yep. Pretty much what I am seeing in my neck of the woods. I might be mistaken about the reasons (athough I think I am close on a couple of points), but not about what I've observed.

-Polaris

I haven't found any real issue with this thus far. Originally, I was expecting builds to feel very similar on the board - if I'm playing a damage-oriented fighter, it would play about the same as a damage-oriented rogue, right?

You are comparing a striker to a defender which isn't really fair. Compare a ranger to a rogue and you find that there are too many similiarities. Also within each class I find there aren't a lot of real choices.

But in truth, that isn't the case at all. My rogue ends up bouncing all over the field in combat, constantly trying to get into perfect position on the field - and then retreating, since I invariably end up as a target. The fighter I played very much charges down the line, locks enemies in place, and feels like a powerhouse. Despite them both being martial characters with a bunch of direct damage powers, they play completely differently on the field.

The rogue is a striker and the fighter is a defender, and you still haven't addressed the point that within each class there really isn't a lot of variety.

And the same has largely proven true for other characters and roles - and even within the roles, I've seen several rogues played that functioned relatively distinctly on the field.

False choice especially with retraining. There are basically only two valid meta-builds for rogues.

I have to disagree with your opinion of balance as well. You can definitely have a variety of different choices, each one unique, that all are balanced as far as how well they can contribute to...

Disagree all you like, but that's not going to change fundamental principles of system design, and one of these is that you can not have both meaningful choice and perfect balance in the same system. A system with meaningful choice is by definition unbalanced, and moreoever the more choice there is in a system, the larger the utility delta there will be between optimal and sub-optimal choices.

4E made it a point to try to solve what the devs perceived to be the utility delta issue....but did so at the price of reducing and elminating meaningful choice....although in many cases they disguised this wonderfully. In his latest interview Mike Mearls admits they did this and is proud of reducing choice in the game.

IMHO that's everything you need to know about 4E.

-Polaris

hallucitor,

Given my experiences with various 4E groups, I suspect that the biggest killers are the complete lack of simulationist game elements (although the group/players might not recognize it as such), but the other bigger killer IMHO is the lack of variety.

There. I've said it. The lack of variety.

Ultimately from what I've seen 4E seems to offer a lot of choices, but most of these are false choices. Either the apparent choice plays about the same no matter what, or the system is structured in such a way to make the other choice (at least other meaningful choice) effectively impossible (this happens a lot with feats and some of the silly stat requirements for them...resulting in more feat slots than decent feats to fill them).

It doesn't take much play time especially with retraining for a player to understand/play all reasonable combinations in a given class and in conjunction in a group, I suspect that a number of people have run out of options and are thus bored.

IMHO this is a direct result of the "balance uber alles" approach that the designers took. The more 'balanced' a game is, the more sterile it is because ultimately the only way to perfectly balance a game is to eliminate meaningful choice.

-Polaris

Polaris wrote:

Fact is that in flavor (if not mechanics) 3.5 played very much like prior editions of DnD.

So all the different classes and racial combinations that we see in 3.5 was common in earlier editions? Anybody could be a paladin in earlier editions? Dwarves had no limitations on what class or classes they choose to go into?

Not as common, but common enough. Late in 1e and 2e, Half-Elves (for example) were permitted to be Paladins and that's just the core rules. Most tables that I played at or heard of allowed many non-standard combination. The only thing 3E did in this regard was make many house rules official. In short 3E in this regard (race-class combos) was a clear evolution of prior trends.

Sorry, but the "fact" is that much of the "flavor" of earlier editions changed in 3rd edition. Maybe the things that changed didn't matter to some people or they had already houseruled similar changes, but many of the core assumptions did change.

Read the FR fluff. Again, I'm not a big fan of FR, but in flavor, Forgotten Realms required extremely few (if any) changes going from 2e to 3e (far less than you'd expect given the change of mechanics). This is emphatically not so going from 3e to 4e so while I'll admit there is some opinion on my part, it's opinion based on objective fact.

-Polaris