I think the points raised in the past few posts are what bugs me about 4E the most. In the name of 'balance' from a board-game perspective, we're not going to do fantasy anymore. Everything is mechanical, precise, fixed... it's a math game more than it's ever been.
I remember when getting fireball for the first time was really cool.. now it's just another power in a long list of them, and not really all that different from anything else.
I just feel that the obsession with board-game balance, we've lost far, far too much of what made D&D special.
I tend to agree with this as well. The spells (powers) don't really feel special anymore.
Which, again, is why I am also running 3.5E/Pathfinder. Those have much more of the feel of D&D that I want. 4E is a fun alternative and I plan to play it quite a bit, but I don't see it supplanting 3.5E/Pathfinder by any stretch.
I think the points raised in the past few posts are what bugs me about 4E the most. In the name of 'balance' from a board-game perspective, we're not going to do fantasy anymore. Everything is mechanical, precise, fixed... it's a math game more than it's ever been.
This obsession with balance is going way too far. If a high-level wizard can't obliterate a high-level thief in combat, he's no wizard. If Conan can't defeat an equal-level thief, he's not Conan.
We're losing what D&D is suppose to recreate at the expense of play balance.
Meh. D&D has always been a mediocre simulation of fantasy at best. D&D is a game, and games have rules. Most of what makes magic special in fantasy is that it has no rules, so there's an inherent contradiction in D&D magic.
In regards to polymorph, D&D has never even been able to simulate the transformation battle between Merlin and Mim in Disney's The Sword in the Stone. D&D has always had too many rules for something like that. In 3rd edition, D&D polymorph is more about wizards and druids making up for their physical shortcomings by adopting some hideously powerful physical form.
The main use of transformation magic in fantasy, shapechanging, is still explicitly in 4e. In fact, there's suggestions for doppleganger PCs in the Monster Manual. Unrestricted transformation is out, at least for PCs. DMs can always have their enemy wizard turn into a dragon or something for a climactic battle.
Really, if what made D&D special in the past was "wizards win because they do not play by the same rules as everyone else" then yeah, 4e does break that, and I really don't mind.
|
I think the points raised in the past few posts are what bugs me about 4E the most. In the name of 'balance' from a board-game perspective, we're not going to do fantasy anymore. Everything is mechanical, precise, fixed... it's a math game more than it's ever been.
I remember when getting fireball for the first time was really cool.. now it's just another power in a long list of them, and not really all that different from anything else.
I just feel that the obsession with board-game balance, we've lost far, far too much of what made D&D special.
I tend to agree with this as well. The spells (powers) don't really feel special anymore.
Which, again, is why I am also running 3.5E/Pathfinder. Those have much more of the feel of D&D that I want. 4E is a fun alternative and I plan to play it quite a bit, but I don't see it supplanting 3.5E/Pathfinder by any stretch.
Special is all fine and good if your the player with the special character. I do not like the whole "not fun" argument that WotC tends to make for everything but when a high level combat takes three hours and you are the one with the PC that has no real way to contribute the fun drains away rapidly.
Even though any given class in 4e may not seem special in the way that separates them as being more powerful than the others they still have unique powers and abilities that will differentiate them and allow them to excel in their role.
The point is not to achieve balance on the game board between PCs - the point is to allow the players to have an equitable share of the game.
|
I think the points raised in the past few posts are what bugs me about 4E the most. In the name of 'balance' from a board-game perspective, we're not going to do fantasy anymore. Everything is mechanical, precise, fixed... it's a math game more than it's ever been.
I remember when getting fireball for the first time was really cool.. now it's just another power in a long list of them, and not really all that different from anything else.
I just feel that the obsession with board-game balance, we've lost far, far too much of what made D&D special.
Major tangent here, but does anyone have/seen a list of the spells as AD&D envisioned them (you know, with massive drawbacks)?
I would really love to try 3rd Edition and have characters randomly age after being hasted.
|
I think the points raised in the past few posts are what bugs me about 4E the most. In the name of 'balance' from a board-game perspective, we're not going to do fantasy anymore. Everything is mechanical, precise, fixed... it's a math game more than it's ever been.
I remember when getting fireball for the first time was really cool.. now it's just another power in a long list of them, and not really all that different from anything else.
I just feel that the obsession with board-game balance, we've lost far, far too much of what made D&D special.
Major tangent here, but does anyone have/seen a list of the spells as AD&D envisioned them (you know, with massive drawbacks)?
I would really love to try 3rd Edition and have characters randomly age after being hasted.
haste aged you, wish aged you, like, TEN YEARS. yeah, there were repercussions to 1e spells, for sure. nothing random, either, you aged a specific ammount for the spells that had that drawback. 1e could be an evil game played RAW...
[edit] and don't forget the system shock roll for polymorph other. low con? so sorry...
if i still had my 1e phb and dmg, i could go on, but magic in 1e was risky...
haste aged you, wish aged you, like, TEN YEARS. yeah, there were repercussions to 1e spells, for sure. nothing random, either, you aged a specific ammount for the spells that had that drawback. 1e could be an evil game played RAW...
And that was fun too... High level mages were continuously questing for potions of longevity, or carefully wording wishes to recover their lost youth... Great power tended to turn you into a junkie and that gave a few layers to playing a magic-user. Oh, and the "1 drop of elf blood, freely given" was a good touch as a potion of longevity ingredient. Any black wizards into securing that elf help???
|
|
And that was fun too... High level mages were continuously questing for potions of longevity, or carefully wording wishes to recover their lost youth... Great power tended to turn you into a junkie and that gave a few layers to playing a magic-user. Oh, and the "1 drop of elf blood, freely given" was a good touch as a potion of longevity ingredient. Any black wizards into securing that elf help???
haste aged you, wish aged you, like, TEN YEARS. yeah, there were repercussions to 1e spells, for sure. nothing random, either, you aged a specific ammount for the spells that had that drawback. 1e could be an evil game played RAW...
i would play a 1e game in a HEARTBEAT. they took so much good stuff out when they made 3e (which i promptly houseruled right back in, for the record.)
i think that's one reason why i'll play a 4e game, but i won't dm one: it would take me more time than my adult incarnation has to spare to figure out how to make my favorite stuff from earlier editions work in the new system.
I remember when getting fireball for the first time was really cool.. now it's just another power in a long list of them, and not really all that different from anything else.I keep swinging back and forth, and this discussion is making me dislike 4e.
This obsession with balance is going way too far. If a high-level wizard can't obliterate a high-level thief in combat, he's no wizard. If Conan can't defeat an equal-level thief, he's not Conan.
We're losing what D&D is suppose to recreate at the expense of play balance.
Wow.
Me and you really are not looking for the same things from this game. I'll admit that the fantasy trope, and D&D tradition, says that at high level the Wizard is just clearly the best class and far more powerful then all other classes but I never saw that as a good thing and am glad to see it removed from the game.
I don't really see 'balanced' per se as being something that necessarily damages the game. In 3.5 when things became unbalanced thats usually were I felt I had to either intervene to restore balance. It usually did more damage to my games then any 'cool' factor I felt I got from it.
I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to get bored with 4E at some point, where that has never happened with previous editions. I could be wrong, however.
Maybe. I sure won't know until I've been at it for awhile.
A couple of things make me think that this might not be such a danger. One is that I think that the limitation on powers is not as real as the mechanics make it appear.
Essentially this boils down to the fact that the powers generally give you what appears to be a pretty limited amount of things they can do. The thing is I think that this was true of other editions D&D as well, even 3.x. Essentially I feel if one boiled down what the varous class abilities and monster abilities did in 3.5 you'd eventually come up with something that was more or less a list of maybe 15 or so things.
You could loose hps, you could have negatives applied to your stats, you could be frozen, you could have actions taken away, you could have your mind taken over and be forced to follow one or a number of different actions, occasionally you could be moved etc.
Essentially I think that 4E powers are essentially the same thing. All of these things can happen to you, its just that the fact that their are only so many consequences so some one attacking you has been made very clear and turned into short mechanics descriptions. My suspicion is that the non-spell casters will actually have a wider selection of different ways to effect opponents that will tend to come fairly often in actual play.
I think the spell casters might even have a pretty good selection in terms of broad differences, but not as much in terms of crafting things specifically for a situation. Area blasting energy magic yes, but more like one kind of area blasting magic instead of choosing between lighting bolt (are they in a corridor?) or would fireball work better (can I catch them all in the blast?).
The other aspect that makes me think that I won't soon grow bored is that they will release splat books with new and interesting stuff. There might not be the same kind of diversity I had with 3.5 but there is no real way I could take advantage of all of 3.5s options.
In other words if they limit my options in 4E that is only a real problem if I run out of things that are interesting among the available choices that do happen to be on the table. It does not provide me much utility to have more options then I can use so long as I like the ones that are available. Now I'll agree that more options is better, but not enough better to make it worth including them if doing so is detrimental to game play.
Wow. Me and you really are not looking for the same things from this game...
Don't take me too seriously. I'm a bit manic-depressive with the versions -- two day ago I was really pumped about 4e, today I'm seeing all its shortcomings. Tomorrow I'll probably be pumped again.
The point is not to achieve balance on the game board between PCs - the point is to allow the players to have an equitable share of the game.
Players had equitable shares of the game -- it's just with earlier versions each had a different piece of the pie. Fighters did one thing, magic-users did another, thieves did yet another.
Whatever their intent, they did a bang-up job of one thing -- they did indeed achieve balance on the game board between PCs :/
|
|
The point is not to achieve balance on the game board between PCs - the point is to allow the players to have an equitable share of the game.Players had equitable shares of the game -- it's just with earlier versions each had a different piece of the pie. Fighters did one thing, magic-users did another, thieves did yet another.
Whatever their intent, they did a bang-up job of one thing -- they did indeed achieve balance on the game board between PCs :/
My experience is that the players did not have an equal share. At low levels the fighters, rangers, and rogues have a bigger impact on play where wizards and sorcerers have far less to contribute. At high levels the fighters often sit on the sidelines as the wizard and cleric run the show.
Several years ago I was at a table with six 15th level characters. All my Holy Liberator did was act as evil seeking radar for the cleric and wizard as they used various spells to wipe out every encounter before we even got to them. Sure we had an equitable share of the game during the roleplaying sections of the adventure but the run to kill the evil mastermind was all about two players destroying everything in our path with each combat barely leaving the surprise round.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The idea is cool but the execution was horrific. Choker wizards flinging two spells per round and the like.
Note that requires shapechange, not just polymorph, as quickness is a SU special quality, not an EX special attack. Shapechange is easily the most powerful spell in 3.5E, but it isn't exactly something most DMs ever need to deal with.
Also, chokers were a 3.5E implementation of 3E haste. There's a reason 3E haste got killed off in 3.5E, and any of the MANY ways of bringing it back into the game (most of which were Quicken-without-increasing spell level) fall into the "bad idea" category.
Players had equitable shares of the game -- it's just with earlier versions each had a different piece of the pie. Fighters did one thing, magic-users did another, thieves did yet another.
Whatever their intent, they did a bang-up job of one thing -- they did indeed achieve balance on the game board between PCs :/
I agree with this as well. If it wasn't the case we'd have quit playing D&D in favor of something else a long time ago. Each of the classes had great contributions to make in my game, and still do.
Several years ago I was at a table with six 15th level characters. All my Holy Liberator did was act as evil seeking radar for the cleric and wizard as they used various spells to wipe out every encounter before we even got to them. Sure we had an equitable share of the game during the roleplaying sections of the adventure but the run to kill the evil mastermind was all about two players destroying everything in our path with each combat barely leaving the surprise round.
I have seen quite a few posts that claim this problem to be the fault of the DM, not the system.
I have seen quite a few posts that claim this problem to be the fault of the DM, not the system.
Several years ago I was at a table with six 15th level characters. All my Holy Liberator did was act as evil seeking radar for the cleric and wizard as they used various spells to wipe out every encounter before we even got to them. Sure we had an equitable share of the game during the roleplaying sections of the adventure but the run to kill the evil mastermind was all about two players destroying everything in our path with each combat barely leaving the surprise round.
Sure, but the system sure ain't helping the DM here.
I have seen quite a few posts that claim this problem to be the fault of the DM, not the system.
Yeah, as a DM I can make sure each of the classes shine. It's easier to give each class as much shine in combat with 4E, I suppose, but at the expense of a good deal of flavor and character.
|
|
Yeah, as a DM I can make sure each of the classes shine. It's easier to give each class as much shine in combat with 4E, I suppose, but at the expense of a good deal of flavor and character.
I have seen quite a few posts that claim this problem to be the fault of the DM, not the system.
That last part is the part I don't quite get. If any given PC is able to contribute equally at all levels of play then how does that detract from "flavor and character"? The PCs are being given more options and abilities. I guess i am not sure how more translates to less.
|
|
I have seen quite a few posts that claim this problem to be the fault of the DM, not the system.
Several years ago I was at a table with six 15th level characters. All my Holy Liberator did was act as evil seeking radar for the cleric and wizard as they used various spells to wipe out every encounter before we even got to them. Sure we had an equitable share of the game during the roleplaying sections of the adventure but the run to kill the evil mastermind was all about two players destroying everything in our path with each combat barely leaving the surprise round.
Well, spells and abilities work the way they work. Sure - the GM could nerf them but then again how much nerfing can you do before the game changes so much that the player's have no idea what will work and what will not.
That last part is the part I don't quite get. If any given PC is able to contribute equally at all levels of play then how does that detract from "flavor and character"? The PCs are being given more options and abilities. I guess i am not sure how more translates to less.
That's easy to answer. Take a look at what was said before about Fireball. Now it's just another power. The thief skills have all been combined. Athletics skills have been combined. Look at all of the homogenization that took place in the name of balance.
Like I said in my post, I'm talking about flavor and character of the game. If you take away something like fireball, and take away the traditional spell-casting, and then give everyone quasi-magical powers they can use, whether you've given more options or not you've homogenized things. A game with 10 very distinct and flavorful options has more character and "flavor" than a game with 25 homogenized options.
That's the reality of 4E that I don't think is too arguable. All of the emphasis for "balance" was placed on combat balance, and the end result is more homogeneity than in past editions of the game so that each class can shine at every level in combat.
As I have said in these forums, I like 4E. I like various types of games and 4E has been a lot of fun for me so far. But it is definitely lacking in some of the character of previous editions of D&D, and that's why I'm continuing to play the older editions. 4E is fun, but it is quite a different game in my view, and it in no way replaces the old editions for me.
Well, spells and abilities work the way they work. Sure - the GM could nerf them but then again how much nerfing can you do before the game changes so much that the player's have no idea what will work and what will not.
I didn't have to do any nerfing or changing the rules to make each class shine.
I had a lot of sympathy for you while you were being hounded by Razz, but comments like this will make me quickly revoke the good will.Well - since this thread seems to have taken the turn of how to fix polymorph are my comments actually that far off the mark or in any way not in agreement with the folks saying that - yes - polymorph is broken?
I am not going over to the 3e board to talk smack. I am here on the 4e board agreeing with those that are looking to fix the problem.
That might work except for your post a few up saying you prefer removing it from the game and nothing else in the post. In general you do sound like you are complaining more about 3.5e then offering suggestions. Which I don't think is what you mean to be doing, just sounds that way. :)
In my opinion I'd like to see it back. However, I think it will be far more set in stone if WOTC does it. They will want it to work in organized play. So there will be set things to polymorph into with the stats in the spell's text. I imagine baleful will have a save ends and the enemy will keep it's original hit points in the polymorphed form. So you can possibly turn a red dragon into a rabbit, and it will have the rabbits abilities/def for a turn but still have the r.dragons hp.
Of course it be funny if they just got the def/movement (keep attacks)of the creature they turn into. Orcus could turn into the Monty Python rabbit.
[
That's easy to answer. Take a look at what was said before about Fireball. Now it's just another power. The thief skills have all been combined. Athletics skills have been combined. Look at all of the homogenization that took place in the name of balance.
Wasn't Fireball just another spell previously?
Open Locks and Disable Device were close enough in nature it was hard to tell what the limiters were. Could you Disable a Lock to no longer work? Rolling Sleight of Hand in there was pushing things a bit ...
Likewise, why would Move Silently and Hide really need two skills? That's just giving a Rogue twice the chance to roll really low on one of the checks.
Just curious why you see these as problems. :) (Obviously, I don't.)
I didn't have to do any nerfing or changing the rules to make each class shine.
Well, spells and abilities work the way they work. Sure - the GM could nerf them but then again how much nerfing can you do before the game changes so much that the player's have no idea what will work and what will not.
How'd you manage it, in situations like CWM is discussing then? The tactics I often saw on boards were either nerfing/chaning rules or tailoring encounters to require the less useful party members for completion.
Wasn't Fireball just another spell previously?
No. Not really. See vance's statements on it above.
Likewise, why would Move Silently and Hide really need two skills? That's just giving a Rogue twice the chance to roll really low on one of the checks.
It makes more sense to separate them out and also adds more flavor to the game. If you wanted, you could implement a system where each character only had one skill called "Do What You Want," and it would be quite streamlined and efficient, but it wouldn't make much sense and wouldn't be much fun in my view.
How'd you manage it, in situations like CWM is discussing then? The tactics I often saw on boards were either nerfing/chaning rules or tailoring encounters to require the less useful party members for completion.
That gets back to what I think the problem is with the approach to 4E in this regard. I didn't say each class was exactly as effective as every other one in each and every encounter. There's no reason to expect that to be the case, in my view. In one encounter, maybe the mage shined. In another, it was the fighters. In another, it was the thief or the druid. Some of these were combat situations, some weren't. The idea that each and every class has to shine equally in every combat encounter is a poor one unless you're developing a PvP computer game.
So that is one of my qualms with 4E and one of the reasons I'm sticking to older editions in addition to playing 4E.
No. Not really. See vance's statements on it above.
I scrolled up but didn't see anything from vance on this page. I'll assume you meant the post from him you quoted at the top (since it seems relevant and was from him) though. I'm still not sure what the difference is. I mean, are we talking about how Fireball is the first really big boom spell a caster gets in earlier editions?
It makes more sense to separate them out and also adds more flavor to the game. If you wanted, you could implement a system where each character only had one skill called "Do What You Want," and it would be quite streamlined and efficient, but it wouldn't make much sense and wouldn't be much fun in my view.
I guess we just disagree here, as I think it makes less sense to have them separated out. I think most people trying to be sneaky are going to want to remain hidden AND silent. I can't think of many situations where you'd need only one skill but not the other, really, and again requiring two rolls just makes the chance of flubbing one really badly more likely. Of course, rolling them together only makes sense if you roll spot and listen together as well (which, happily for me, they do.)
Cheers! :)
That gets back to what I think the problem is with the approach to 4E in this regard. I didn't say each class was exactly as effective as every other one in each and every encounter. There's no reason to expect that to be the case, in my view. In one encounter, maybe the mage shined. In another, it was the fighters. In another, it was the thief or the druid. Some of these were combat situations, some weren't. The idea that each and every class has to shine equally in every combat encounter is a poor one unless you're developing a PvP computer game.So that is one of my qualms with 4E and one of the reasons I'm sticking to older editions in addition to playing 4E.
Well, I don't think every class is exactly as effective as every one in each encounter in 4E either. An encounter with tons of minions swarming around will heavily swing towards Wizards and Fighters, for example, while all the extra damage given by Rogues/Warlocks/Rangers will mostly be wasted.
But going to 3E, a lot of encounters totally shut down certain classes. Sometimes this was exciting but most of the time (IMO) it was boring. When my group got to the last boss in Shackled City and the two weapon specialized Fighter couldn't EVER break through the BBEG's DR, how was that in any way interesting? Same goes for Rogues played in a campaign heavily featuring undead/constructs/oozes/whatever-else-is-immune-to-SA. Or a Wizard fighting guys who are all magic immune, or whatever.
I like each and every class to be able to at least function in every encounter, because having a player sit at the table and not be able to meaningfully contribute to the game isn't any fun for them, or for me.
4E, to me at least, seems to have solved that problem well. If it wasn't a problem for you, more power to ya! ;)
I scrolled up but didn't see anything from vance on this page. I'll assume you meant the post from him you quoted at the top (since it seems relevant and was from him) though. I'm still not sure what the difference is. I mean, are we talking about how Fireball is the first really big boom spell a caster gets in earlier editions?
It's not so much that it is a big-boom spell. There's always been a certain coolness factor in my games with getting fireball.
I guess we just disagree here, as I think it makes less sense to have them separated out. I think most people trying to be sneaky are going to want to remain hidden AND silent. I can't think of many situations where you'd need only one skill but not the other, really, and again requiring two rolls just makes the chance of flubbing one really badly more likely.
I don't think the fact you might flub one enters into it. Sure if you want to sneak you are going to want to hidden and silent. But there's no reason to assume that just because you're hidden you're also silent, or vice versa. I think it was a bad idea to remove that simply for the sake of streamlining.
I agree that we're going to disagree. I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my view - just stating what my group and I feel. The things I'm throwing are are my way of trying to pinpoint exactly where the loss of flavor or character is. But what is indisputable is that for my group the loss is there. We've actually achieved unanimity on that score, with a mixture of people who've been playing from 1E to those who started with 3E.
So we're going to keep playing 4E. It's fun to play, and we accept that it is a more homogenous, more gamey version of D&D (in our collective opinion). And when we really want to settle back and play our style of D&D we're going to run 3.5E or even toss in some 1E AD&D games like we've done from time to time.
Nothing wrong with that, as far as I can tell :)
|
|
It's not so much that it is a big-boom spell. There's always been a certain coolness factor in my games with getting fireball.
I scrolled up but didn't see anything from vance on this page. I'll assume you meant the post from him you quoted at the top (since it seems relevant and was from him) though. I'm still not sure what the difference is. I mean, are we talking about how Fireball is the first really big boom spell a caster gets in earlier editions?
Not sure what you mean. 4e has Fireball, Black Fire, and Meteor Swarm which are all fire based big bang spells. Is it because Fireball no longer scales with level?
|
|
That's easy to answer. Take a look at what was said before about Fireball. Now it's just another power. The thief skills have all been combined. Athletics skills have been combined. Look at all of the homogenization that took place in the name of balance.
That last part is the part I don't quite get. If any given PC is able to contribute equally at all levels of play then how does that detract from "flavor and character"? The PCs are being given more options and abilities. I guess i am not sure how more translates to less.
I disagree - just because the mechanics for power resolution are the same does not make the powers the same. Fireball is a unique power - it blows s@&% up. The fighter doesn't have anything like that, the rogue doesn't have anything like that.
The skills I actually agree with. I would have preferred a greater diversity of skills.
Like I said in my post, I'm talking about flavor and character of the game. If you take away something like fireball, and take away the traditional spell-casting, and then give everyone quasi-magical powers they can use, whether you've given more options or not you've homogenized things. A game with 10 very distinct and flavorful options has more character and "flavor" than a game with 25 homogenized options.
But the options are not homogenized. No other power (aside from higher level wizard powers) does what the fireball does. Different classes have dramatically different abilities and roles. Each definitely has its own unique flavor.
That's the reality of 4E that I don't think is too arguable. All of the emphasis for "balance" was placed on combat balance, and the end result is more homogeneity than in past editions of the game so that each class can shine at every level in combat.
I just do not see the homogeneity beyond the fact that all classes use the same rules set for their abilities where 3.5 had the rules for spellcasters and the rules for everyone else.
So what are you seeing that i am not?
|
|
Not sure what you mean. 4e has Fireball, Black Fire, and Meteor Swarm which are all fire based big bang spells. Is it because Fireball no longer scales with level?You see, you can't break out of the pure mechanics of the thing. My problem with fireball now is that it's not special. In fact, there's nothing in the system that you can point to as 'specioal'. It's all very mechanical, very samey, very fixed. There's no mystique or wonder to magic, and, really, it's pretty much the same thing as martial and divine powers anyway.
The fantasy is gone, and gone in the name of 'game balance' and 'tactical board-game' play.
I never thought I would say this, but I preferred Gygax's vision.
How is a 3.5 fireball any more special than a 4e fireball - the both blow s&*% up. Sure the mechanics vary but they are still both big explosions.
And what do you mean by special? Is special more powerful? Is it special because it uses some arcane sub-system to adjudicate? I really do not see what makes anything in any RPG "special" since it is all based on rules and acts in a predictable replicatable manner.
I just do not see the homogeneity beyond the fact that all classes use the same rules set for their abilities where 3.5 had the...
I don't really care whether you see it or not. I see it and more importantly to me, my group sees it. I'm not here to convince you one way or the other so don't be so defensive. If you don't see it as being a lot more homogenous than past editions, that's fine by me. I do feel that it is that way and I plan my gaming sessions accordingly.
How is a 3.5 fireball any more special than a 4e fireball - the both blow s!@& up. Sure the mechanics vary but they are still both big explosions.
The mechanics are what makes the 3.x (but not the 4e) fireball special. Sure, they are both big explosions, but even with the minimum level to cast it, a 3.x fireball will kill almost all kobolds, goblins, and other minion type riffraff inside its area of effect. A 4E fireball will leave quite a few survivors, especially among the non-minions. So many survivors, in fact, that the player will probably be shocked if any non minions actually die from the spell effects. It has the same name as the 3.x version and similar special effects (fire, boom, etc) but it just does not have the same mystic. The 3.x fireball really is more special than the 4e fireball.
|
The mechanics are what makes the 3.x (but not the 4e) fireball special.
I'd think the 1e fireball was special, because it was the best spell back then and it was the actual sign of the wizard starting to show its real power after the weak levels.
The mystique associated with it carried on, because the transitions between the rules versions was smoother.
The 1e fireball was a much better version than the 3.x, because it had far less competition. Given all the other unbalanced uber powerful spells that WOTC has published, fireball looks less special in 3.e than it was. Also, it gives far less damage in proportion to the hps of the opposition.
I won't speak about 4e.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Disclaimer: I don't own the 4th Edition books.
If I understand correctly, an aggressive Polymorph Other isn't in the current collection of magic powers. A legitimate question might be, "How would it fit in?"
An aggressive Polymorph Other is almost certainly a disabling spell, if the target doesn't succeed in an immediate save. If it allows someone to be transformed into a fish, or a squishable and slow-moving critter, the victim will almost certainly be dead long before the spell ends.
A victim might be able to roll enough saves to throw off the effect relatively quickly, but that doesn't matter in combat, because the victim is effectively helpless during that time.
When do characters start getting magic powers like that?
|
|
I don't really care whether you see it or not. I see it and more importantly to me, my group sees it. I'm not here to convince you one way or the other so don't be so defensive. If you don't see it as being a lot more homogenous than past editions, that's fine by me. I do feel that it is that way and I plan my gaming sessions accordingly.I just do not see the homogeneity beyond the fact that all classes use the same rules set for their abilities where 3.5 had the...
I am not asking to defend 4e - I am asking because you may see something that I do not. I see classes with unique sets of abilities and powers. I see classes that fill unique rolls. In the games I have run with 4e I have seen classes contribute in unique ways both in and out of combat.
I believe that you see it as homogeneous and I am trying to figure out if you see a problem that I have not yet encountered.
Honestly I am trying to understand what it is you have experienced and why it differs from my experience.
|
|
When do characters start getting magic powers like that?Currently, there ARE no powers that really pull stuff off like that, regardless of level. (Indeed, there are FEW powers in any class that aren't somehow straight-up damage effects). That's actually part of the difficulty, we're attempting to model it from scratch for a system that's actually HOSTILE to the very concept.
[sarcasm]You mean your PHB actually grabs an eraser and rubs out your polymorph other spell from your character sheet?[/sarcasm]
|
|
The mechanics are what makes the 3.x (but not the 4e) fireball special. Sure, they are both big explosions, but even with the minimum level to cast it, a 3.x fireball will kill almost all kobolds, goblins, and other minion type riffraff inside its area of effect. A 4E fireball will leave quite a few survivors, especially among the non-minions. So many survivors, in fact, that the player will probably be shocked if any non minions actually die from the spell effects. It has the same name as the 3.x version and similar special effects (fire, boom, etc) but it just does not have the same mystic. The 3.x fireball really is more special than the 4e fireball.
How is a 3.5 fireball any more special than a 4e fireball - the both blow s!@& up. Sure the mechanics vary but they are still both big explosions.
So it's the relative power of the spells?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I won't speak about 4e.
It's sad that this thread is going down the usual edition war path, but I wanted to note this post because, well, it's nice to see restraint like this among people who have strong feelings about 4e (on either side of the line). There've been a lot of posts like this lately, and I hope it's a good sign that things are moving in the right direction. I have been quick to jump on negative posts in the past, so I thought I would balance the karmic scales a little by pointing this one out and saying thanks. It's great to be able to have discussions about the game without having to dredge up the edition wars each and every time.
Or at least silent on the concept.
Is there anything like a petrification effect? A ranged entangle?
Way back in the beginning of this thread I'm pretty sure I suggested it'd work much like petrification or death attacks work now. A small penalty that becomes worse with each failed save, until X number of saves are failed and *poof* you're a bunny! Aren't you cute? ;)
(frex: Beholder's Petrification Beam)
Well, 4E is designed against 'stacking' or 'non-fixed' effects for powers. So a spell design, keeping that in mind, would seem to be all or nothing.
Granted, monster powers are often exceptions to this, but that ALSO seems to be a design caveat - the MONSTERS get the bizzare and non-samey abilities.
Not at all. Check out Sleep. A higher level version that turns someone into a frog after one or two failed saves, and which ends once a save is made, certainly seems like it'd be in line.