4E not D&D?!? I beg to differ.


4th Edition

251 to 300 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Dang it. I stepped away for a couple of days and missed Sebastian on the fifty cal.

Jost for the record Sebastian, your post-fu is mighty.


Polaris wrote:
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.

You really should know more about the gaming industry considering the amount of rubbish you post.

Mongoose - 4th or 5th largest/most succesful games company in the industry atm - OGL.

And stop saying OGL and only meaning d20, there are several non-d20 games published using the OGL and they're all doing fine as well.

Do try to learn something about the subject before you get it wrong again.

Sovereign Court

@Underling - nice post. I see your POV. My thought is we have a lengnth to go here first... I'm often surprised that we're not more than neutral already... some have struggled to see the bigger industry picture.

Also, was that Fabio in the Butter commercial. What a flashback! Nice.


Pax Veritas wrote:
@Underling - nice post. I see your POV. My thought is we have a lengnth to go here first... I'm often surprised that we're not more than neutral already... some have struggled to see the bigger industry picture.

The problem here is that your goal is "more than neutral". Neutral is comparatively easy. Here anyway, but "more than neutral" is probably impossible. The best you can really do is to make things so uncomfortable for the 4E stalwarts that you drive them from the site which does not really increase the number of PfRPG players it simply reduces Paizo's sales of their 4E and PfRPG products by making Paizo less appealing as a place to shop for 4E products and PfRPG products that 4E players will convert.

The Exchange

I was talking to some friends here at DragonCon and I heard the best perspective on this issue. When the topic came up he said the statement "4e is not D&D" is simply a non-sequitur.


Sebastian wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Rockheimr wrote:
Bottom line, the fervour of many 4e fans (and I would include yourself in that bracket personally) against many perfectly polite and reasonable negative reviews imo is what really perpetuated and made this Edition War the mother of all battles.

Let me get this straight.

Your position is that you should, of course, feel free to come to the 4E forum and trash the game and the real problem is that those that actually like the game insist on defending it.

Basically at the core of the Edition War is the refusal of the 4E crowd to just smile and suck it up.

News flash for you - if I go to the Pathfinder forums and start crapping on the game I'm going to get mobbed, and I won't be scratching my head wondering why I'm being mobbed nor be making statements along the lines that those that are excited by Pathfinder are some how wrong in defending the game on their forum.

Wow. I missed that comment the first time around. My god, that's a stupid thing to say. That's like saying the problem with conservatives/liberals is that they refuse to accept what liberals/conservatives believe as the truth.

I think the problem is that people who don't like 4e have made many rude, ignorant, and ill-informed comments, which is what has perpetuated this Edition War.*

*I don't really think that. In fact, I think it's one of the dumbest things anyone has ever posted in the history of D&D on the internet. Well, except for maybe saying that the cause of the Edition Wars is 4e over-reaction to "polite and reasonable negative reviews of the game." That's even dumber for having been said and believed to be the truth.

Charming.

Eh, I can only say what I've seen, perhaps I was a little partisan there though in response to a post that seemed to be saying more or less the opposite. Mind you, check out WotC boards a bit, you'll find plenty to back up that position.

I'll amend my point for you though; the present edition war has certainly seen a widespread, often almost paranoid seeming, aggressive and insulting kneejerk response by obsessive seeming 4e fans to (even sometimes quite mildly) negative reviews by other customers of 4e, which has certainly exaserpated and done nothing to end the edition war.

Check out the number of posts in an average week some 4e supporters make defending the game for example ... I'm amazed they find the time to actually play. :-)

Edit -

I'd also point out as an example how the agressively fervant attitude of some 4e defenders can exaserpate things, my involvement in this very thread was originally a one line post I made in passing, referencing a paragraph describing a 4e combat (and how it was meant to prove 4e was still just like older editions but a bit better) and honestly pointing out, quite politely and without any side, that it didn't sound anything like any D&D session I'd ever been part of.

Simple, honest, observation. I wasn't planning to post again on this one, but when I get responses, or at least a couple I recall, implying I was plain wrong then naturally I get drawn into responding back. As I say my original post was merely a personal observation, it wasn't wrong, it was a personal observation, and one shared by others it seems.

Are all anti-4e people polite and reasonable? No. Am I whiter than white in this matter? No. But seriously for the war to end both sides have to stop firing, not just one - ours. If someone buys 4e, plays it, and doesn't like it, then they should be able to post a review and explain why they didn't like it ... at the moment that seems impossible to do without a thread springing up full of veiled implications of the op being 'wrong', stupid, a 'sock puppet' (because presumably so many people who don't like 4e can't possibly exist), or whatever, even here on Paizo's boards.

Ah well, I'm done with this one now. Have fun.

Sovereign Court

Sebastian wrote:
underling wrote:


you know Sebastion, this section I quoted above made me come to a realization. The issue is that Paizo's success does not in fact prove that companies can thrive under the OGL in the era of 4e. It proves the market is big enough to support SOME publishers. Necromancer is on Hiatus, and Green Ronin/Mongoose have chosen to pursue D20 variants or their own systems (conan, traveler, Runequest, True 20, etc...). I guess I'm starting to think that the OGL market won't allow too many 3PPs, and Paizo may have already grabbed the lion share of the potential market.

I think it will really depend on how many OGL gamers there are in the population. My expectation is that Paizo will be the big dog in terms of OGL publishing, but I don't know if the market will be big enough to support secondary companies on the OGL. That being said, having a publisher like Paizo around to continue to support 3e type games is a far better scenario than people who did not convert from 2e to 3e faced. So, even if it is the case that there won't be that many OGL companies, I expect that OGL gaming will probably have about the same proportion (if not a greater proportion) of the gaming market as other non-OGL companies currently do. In other words, think of Paizo as being about the size of White Wolf, but, unlike White Wolf, with the possibility of having cheap pdf based publishers (and some print publishers, like KQ) supporting Paizo.

In other words, OGL gamers may not have the buffet of choices they currently do, but they won't be a dying/dead breed anymore than WoD players are a dying/dead breed because there are significantly fewer WoD players than there are OGL/4e players.

underling wrote:
If that is the case, 3PP may face a zero sum game. any gain for Paizo could be a loss for other 3PPs and vice versa. With Paizo's already strong sales and visibility to those sticking with 3.x, what chance do the other guys have? Anyone able to comment on this?
It depends on the buying habits...

A 4.3 product does sound like it could be interesting. If they take the streamlining of 4E, cut some of its overly gamist elements out, and add back in some 3.5 flavor, it could be a very good game.

Scarab Sages

Bah. I guess to each their own.

I personally don't think that D&D is defined by any legal owner, or logo on a book. To me, 4E isn't "D&D". It's not the D&D I grew up with, nor the D&D I want to play. I wouldn't mind a game and could enjoy myself provided I play with people I appreciate, but it ain't "D&D" as far as I'm concerned.

If some people like 4E and play it, more power to them, really. I don't "have to" share their enthusiasm, though. I don't have to bully them for liking it either, mind you.


The Red Death wrote:

Bah. I guess to each their own.

I personally don't think that D&D is defined by any legal owner, or logo on a book. To me, 4E isn't "D&D". It's not the D&D I grew up with, nor the D&D I want to play. I wouldn't mind a game and could enjoy myself provided I play with people I appreciate, but it ain't "D&D" as far as I'm concerned.

If some people like 4E and play it, more power to them, really. I don't "have to" share their enthusiasm, though. I don't have to bully them for liking it either, mind you.

I agree with your sentiments although I don't share them totally. I've been playing Forgotten Realms campaigns for years and cannot deal with trying to run the realms in 4th edition, no more than I'd run the realms using Ars Magica, the 'feel' is way too different. I can handle running a game using 4E in a untouched campaign setting.

I ran the first game of 4E over GenConUk and it went ok( Kalamar setting), just a few rules needed to be learned and Players didn't understand their powers yet. I should have done better preparation.

I'd never consider bullying people who don't want to get involved but I'd hope they'd be open minded enough to at least try it first after all we didn't have a clue how Vampire Played till we played it, or Chill or many other rule sets.


Rockheimr wrote:

I'd also point out as an example how the agressively fervant attitude of some 4e defenders can exaserpate things, my involvement in this very thread was originally a one line post I made in passing, referencing a paragraph describing a 4e combat (and how it was meant to prove 4e was still just like older editions but a bit better) and honestly pointing out, quite politely and without any side, that it didn't sound anything like any D&D session I'd ever been part of.

Simple, honest, observation. I wasn't planning to post again on this one, but when I get responses, or at least a couple I recall, implying I was plain wrong then naturally I get drawn into responding back. As I say my original post was merely a personal observation, it wasn't wrong, it was a personal observation, and one shared by others it seems.

And yet thats not the string of posts that drew flames your way.

Your post was in response to an exchange between Pax Verkas and CWM in which CWM claimed that 'there is no rift [between 4E and PfRPG] - i.e. that they can both co-exist peacefully. While Pax Verkas told CWM that he was putting his head in the sand.


ProsSteve wrote:
I've been playing Forgotten Realms campaigns for years and cannot deal with trying to run the realms in 4th edition, no more than I'd run the realms using Ars Magica, the 'feel' is way too different.

I don't want to start a new war D&D v.s. Ars Magica, but actually, I did run the Realms with Ars Magica (and some house rules of course). This was before the release of the 3rd edition. On the one hand, I always liked the richness of settings like the Realms or Planescape, and cannot stand the AD&D system with its THAC0, its racial class level limitations etc. On the other hand, Ars Magica is an incredibly adaptable system, which is actually very close to D20. What is funny, is that after the publication of the 3rd edition, I imported some of the combat "maneuvers" feats from 3E to my Ars Magica campaign via Virtues & Flaws. And it worked !


One thing I am confused about by people who say 4e is not D&D, that company rights and official name are not enough. Ok, does that mean there are some games that are not called D&D that are "d&d"? Is Conan D&D? PfRPG? Exalted? Iron Heroes? Legend of the Five Rings? Are there other D&D settings/products that aren't also "d&d"? Is/was spelljammer d&d? Eberron? Oriental Adventures? Al-Qadim?

What exactly are the parameters of what is "d&d" and what is not (for you)?


pres man wrote:

One thing I am confused about by people who say 4e is not D&D, that company rights and official name are not enough. Ok, does that mean there are some games that are not called D&D that are "d&d"? Is Conan D&D? PfRPG? Exalted? Iron Heroes? Legend of the Five Rings? Are there other D&D settings/products that aren't also "d&d"? Is/was spelljammer d&d? Eberron? Oriental Adventures? Al-Qadim?

What exactly are the parameters of what is "d&d" and what is not (for you)?

I don't think it's possible to get one agreed definition of what is and isn't "D&D". As far as I'm concerned if you use a ruleset called D&D to play it, then you're playing D&D. I'd also include close derivatives such as Conan and PfRPG as being D&D, if that's the thing you like to play. I don't like to draw a narrower distinction than that, because it's just one more way of saying "If you don't play D&D my way then you're doing it wrong". People who insist on particular bits of flavour as essential aggravate me, because they are consciously of unconsciously declaring that other people's campaigns are inferior because they don't use those things in the proper way.


Bluenose wrote:
pres man wrote:

One thing I am confused about by people who say 4e is not D&D, that company rights and official name are not enough. Ok, does that mean there are some games that are not called D&D that are "d&d"? Is Conan D&D? PfRPG? Exalted? Iron Heroes? Legend of the Five Rings? Are there other D&D settings/products that aren't also "d&d"? Is/was spelljammer d&d? Eberron? Oriental Adventures? Al-Qadim?

What exactly are the parameters of what is "d&d" and what is not (for you)?

I don't think it's possible to get one agreed definition of what is and isn't "D&D". As far as I'm concerned if you use a ruleset called D&D to play it, then you're playing D&D. I'd also include close derivatives such as Conan and PfRPG as being D&D, if that's the thing you like to play. I don't like to draw a narrower distinction than that, because it's just one more way of saying "If you don't play D&D my way then you're doing it wrong". People who insist on particular bits of flavour as essential aggravate me, because they are consciously of unconsciously declaring that other people's campaigns are inferior because they don't use those things in the proper way.

I agree that one definition wouldn't fit for everyone, that's why I went back after I first posted above and added in the (for you) part. I am just curious to see how people think on this issue. For example, I would probably think spelljammer and eberron are more different flavorwise than 4e is. On the other hand, something like Conan might be close enough in my mind.


Bluenose wrote:
I don't like to draw a narrower distinction than that, because it's just one more way of saying "If you don't play D&D my way then you're doing it wrong".

Is that not the very foundation of the edition wars and the 4e is not D&D debate?


CourtFool wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
I don't like to draw a narrower distinction than that, because it's just one more way of saying "If you don't play D&D my way then you're doing it wrong".
Is that not the very foundation of the edition wars and the 4e is not D&D debate?

Not really. The debate is actually much deeper than that but most people are afraid to admit it.

The Exchange

Molten Dragon wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
I don't like to draw a narrower distinction than that, because it's just one more way of saying "If you don't play D&D my way then you're doing it wrong".
Is that not the very foundation of the edition wars and the 4e is not D&D debate?
Not really. The debate is actually much deeper than that but most people are afraid to admit it.

Nope. It all boils down to "I like it" or "I don't like it" but for some reason everyone want to make it out to be a really big deal - which it isn't.

The Exchange

Arovyn wrote:

I'm tired of seeing, "4th Edition is not Dungeons & Dragons." Fortunately or unfortunately, it is. For those who think it isn't, obviously you don't like the direction it took, but there are some facts you have acknowledge, even if you don't like it.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

Lewis Carroll, "The Hunting of the Snark", 1874

Sovereign Court

Sebastian wrote:


And if someone honestly believes that this is a debate that was started or became negative because of the actions of only one side, they are so biased and intellectually dishonest it makes me sick.

Aaaaah ! thank you !


Mad Elf wrote:
ProsSteve wrote:
I've been playing Forgotten Realms campaigns for years and cannot deal with trying to run the realms in 4th edition, no more than I'd run the realms using Ars Magica, the 'feel' is way too different.
I don't want to start a new war D&D v.s. Ars Magica, but actually, I did run the Realms with Ars Magica (and some house rules of course). This was before the release of the 3rd edition. On the one hand, I always liked the richness of settings like the Realms or Planescape, and cannot stand the AD&D system with its THAC0, its racial class level limitations etc. On the other hand, Ars Magica is an incredibly adaptable system, which is actually very close to D20. What is funny, is that after the publication of the 3rd edition, I imported some of the combat "maneuvers" feats from 3E to my Ars Magica campaign via Virtues & Flaws. And it worked !

I do really like Ars Magica but am not sure if the 'feel' would work. Can I ask what house rules you came up with the create, replicate the character class's? I'm especially interested in the Cleric because I did start looking at using Ars Magica for D&D but wasn't sure whether to make the cleric use the same magic system as the Wizard or not and if so how you could apply the combat ability of the priest to the game as well as the domain powers. The mage seems too flexible in the game to be used as a priest.

I've played ars magica properly and the latest edition is the best yet but there's been no Bestiary published that supports this edition. The previous edition doesn't fit!


ProsSteve wrote:
I do really like Ars Magica but am not sure if the 'feel' would work.

Ah, you have me do some archeology work in my pile of notes - alas, at the time I was DMing Ars Magica I had no PC. My conversion system was quite simple and crude. It ran along these lines:

Races

Dwarf
Sta +1, Com -1
Withstand Magic (+2), Tough (+1), Infravision (+1), Weakness (Riches) (-1)

Elf
Dex +1, Sta –1
Free Expression (+1), Infravision (+1), Keen Vision (+1), Longevity of the fey (+1), Fragile Constitution (-1)

Gnome
Int +1, Per –1
Infravision (+1), Faerie Magic (+1), Withstand Magic (+2), Loose Magic (-1)

Half-Elf
-
Keen Vision (+1), Infravision (+1), Strong Personality (+1), Learn From Mistakes (+1), Social Handicap (-1)

Halfling
Dex +1, Str -1
Withstand Magic (+2), Knack with Slings (+1),

Human
-
Fast Learner (+3)

Classes

All player classes without exception have +5/-5 maximum additional points to purchase virtues and flaws. At the storyguide’s discretion, Virtues might be bought and Flaws might be bought out after the start of the game at a cost. It costs 10 x X experience points to buy a virtue +X or to buy out a flaw –X.

Expert Classes
Classes / Kits: Warrior (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger), Rogue (Thief)
Abilities: 2 x Age points

Bonus Virtues & Flaws
Fighter: Enduring Constitution (+1), Knack with one specific weapon (+1)
Paladin: Higher Purpose (+1) or Passion (+1) [Loyalty, Honor or Valor], Latent Magical Ability (+2), Obligation (-1) [Paladin code]
Ranger: Animal Ken Exceptional Talent (+1) or Knack with Two-Weapon Fighting (+1), Latent Magical Ability (+2), Obligation (-1) [Ranger code]
Thief: Light Touch (+2)

Generalist Classes
Classes / Kits: Priest (Cleric, Druid), Rogue (Bard)
Abilities: 1.5 x Age points (rounded-down)
Magical Arts: 100 points
Restrictions: Priests and Bards are restricted in their Arts choice (the storyguide is the final arbiter). Bards excel in Mentem and Imagonem and should not be allowed to be trained in other forms before the start of the game, though they can learn any technique. Forms taught to priests shall reflect their religion and / or philosophy. As a rule of thumb, a priest can be trained only in the following forms: Corporem, Vim, and the forms tied to the spheres relevant for his or her church.

Bonus Virtues & Flaws
Cleric: Turn Undead Exceptional Talent (+2)
Druid: Heart Beast (+2)
Bard: Enchanting Music Exceptional Talent (+2)

Esoteric Classes
Classes / Kits: Wizard (Mage, Specialist Wizard)
Abilities: Age points
Magical Arts: 150 points

Bonus Virtues & Flaws
Mage: Adept Student (+1), Book Learner (+1)
Specialist Wizard: Inventive Genius (+1), a Magical Affinity and a Magical Deficiency that must sum up to +1

Of course, other class abilities must be translated into extra feats, sorry virtues (lol), that can be acquired during the game. The storyteller must also give more experience points than in a normal Ars Magica game. The flavour is not exactly the same than AD&D, that's for sure, but if you want now to make a comparison with 3E, honestly Ars Magica was D20 before the D20 era ...


ProsSteve wrote:
I've played ars magica properly and the latest edition is the best yet but there's been no Bestiary published that supports this edition. The previous edition doesn't fit!

I don't have the last edition. Not that I'm not interested, but my shelves can only take so much ...

Liberty's Edge

Polaris wrote:
"Not so for 4E. In 4E it seems as though many changes were made for the sake of changes not just mechically but also in the underlying fluff and worse the game was made as incompatible as possible (or so it seems) with existing settings. Result? DnD 4E plays completely differently than any other prior edition of DnD and honestly if it didn't have the DnD label, I suspect it would be largely (almost universally) panned and definately not considered DnD...and this is where the complaint IMHO stems from...."

I agree with this 100% to me what O/A/D&D/3.x is in the Vancian magic system. Take way that and you have ANOTHER fantasy role playing game, which is NOT D&D.

For the life of me I CAN'T figure out why that SO unbalanced the game that it had to be removed to make the D&D system better.

Mike


Qstor wrote:
I agree with this 100% to me what O/A/D&D/3.x is in the Vancian magic system. Take way that and you have ANOTHER fantasy role playing game, which is NOT D&D.

Really? The one thing that makes the game D&D for you is Vancian casting? One of the most oft-criticized features of previous editions of the game?

Qstor wrote:
For the life of me I CAN'T figure out why that SO unbalanced the game that it had to be removed to make the D&D system better.

It wasn't unbalanced.

But neither was it much fun.

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).


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


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

Nothing. A system that forces players to do so, on the other hand, does feel wrong.

The problem was that at low-levels, casting was utterly meaningless. At 1st level, a wizard could throw less than a handful of spells each day - and unless they were very well chosen, each spell had relatively little effect. The rest of the day they would have to sit in the back, shooting a crossbow (or bow, if they are Elven) that they probably aren't all that effective with.

For many people, that isn't what being a wizard was about - and shouldn't be what they are forced to spend their time doing.

Now, this was seen as a tradeoff for becoming one of the dominant characters later in the game, where they had enough spells to go through many combats, with each spell having an enormous impact (up to and including winning the combat instantly.) Which, at least in my view, was a poor method of balance. Choosing whether you enjoy the game at high levels or at low levels is not a question that a player should ever have to answer*.

*Now, many players could still enjoy the wizard at low levels, perhaps revelling in the chance to take some swings in melee or take advantage of their proficiency in the bow. Case in point: In a recent LFR game, a wizard at the table - first time D&D player - was confronted with an encounter filled with enemies made of fiery. All but one of that player's spells were fire spells, and they had some poor luck with the one that wasn't - so they darted into melee with their longsword. (Being proficient, as an Eladrin.)

They weren't especially good with it (with a Str of 10) - but they had some lucky blows, and found this extremely exciting, and snatched up a magic weapon (a +1 Frost Longsword) at the end of the adventure. A weapon that, in the very next adventure, let us capture an escaping boss! (As they were able to inflict the Slow status with an Opportunity Attack as he ran away, assuming the wizard wouldn't be a threat with a melee weapon.)

Now, I don't think that situation - or outlook - is the norm, but I think it was a pretty cool thing to see. But that said... it should be an option for the player, but not something they are forced into.

Playing a wizard shouldn't be about waiting several levels before you can actually play your class.


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

No. It is neither a rule issue nor an edition issue but rather a gamemastering issue. Also known as "the 15 minutes adventuring syndrome", you can easily avoid your party playing like this by having their enemies being more active. In my campaigns, NPCs have agenda of their own and don't wait for the PCs to set things into motion. Does the presence of at-will powers in 4E solve this issue ? Hmm, I don't think so, because now, all the players and not just the wizard could say "Hey guys we have to rest, I'm out of daily powers". But once again this issue has nothing to do with the game system itself.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:
so they darted into melee with their longsword.

That's the way I play. Charge !


Don't confuse what you do with the problem.

Sure you may be able to extend the adventuring day by having people and npc's intrude.

What you will have problems doing is making the Pc's able to deal with them longer in the day.

In 3.5 you have your Hp's and Cleric Spells for surviving and wizardly spells for offense (more so at higher level). When you run out your done. Period , Full stop. It doesn't matter that you can extend the day because the pc's will not be able to cope with it.

In 3.0 You have Hp's and Healing Surges and Many Classes powers for surviving and many classes powers for offense. Most of these powers recharge per encounter, or can be used at will. The Healing is still limited (less so at higher levels )but theirs a big differnce. Pc's will still be able to cope because they won't have out of many of the resources that defines their power level.

In either case you can throw more encounters at your pc's, That's not the issue, the issue is can the pc's survive it. That's generally not true in 3.5 and is true in 4th because they fixed the issue (more or less)

Logos


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.

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.


Mad Elf 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
No. It is neither a rule issue nor an edition issue but rather a gamemastering issue.

Nonsense.

When the resource allotment system basically necessitates the party stopping to recover spells after two encounters, that is not a gamemastering issue.

Mad Elf wrote:
Also known as "the 15 minutes adventuring syndrome", you can easily avoid your party playing like this by having their enemies being more active.

No, this doesn't solve that issue.

Mad Elf wrote:
In my campaigns, NPCs have agenda of their own and don't wait for the PCs to set things into motion. Does the presence of at-will powers in 4E solve this issue ?

Yes.

Mad Elf wrote:
Hmm, I don't think so, because now, all the players and not just the wizard could say "Hey guys we have to rest, I'm out of daily powers".

And yet, in practice, they don't. Because they know that their daily powers are not at all required for them to overcome combat challenges. In fact, what usually forces a 4th Edition party to eventually rest, in my experience, is being out of healing surges - which usually takes four or five encounters to happen.

Mad Elf wrote:
But once again this issue has nothing to do with the game system itself.

And again, it absolutely does.


Logos wrote:

Don't confuse what you do with the problem.

Sure you may be able to extend the adventuring day by having people and npc's intrude.

What you will have problems doing is making the Pc's able to deal with them longer in the day.

In 3.5 you have your Hp's and Cleric Spells for surviving and wizardly spells for offense (more so at higher level). When you run out your done. Period , Full stop. It doesn't matter that you can extend the day because the pc's will not be able to cope with it.

In 3.0 You have Hp's and Healing Surges and Many Classes powers for surviving and many classes powers for offense. Most of these powers recharge per encounter, or can be used at will. The Healing is still limited (less so at higher levels )but theirs a big differnce. Pc's will still be able to cope because they won't have out of many of the resources that defines their power level.

In either case you can throw more encounters at your pc's, That's not the issue, the issue is can the pc's survive it. That's generally not true in 3.5 and is true in 4th because they fixed the issue (more or less)

Logos

Exactly. Although the issue is not just survival, but do the characters continue to feel useful in these later combats. Again, true of 4th Edition, less true of D&D 3.5.


Scott Betts wrote:
And again, it absolutely does.

And no, it still doesn't. This is totally unrelated to the rules. You could witness the same situation with non D20 games like Runequest or Call of Cthulhu, where it translates to "I'm out of magic points". Having NPCs interfere, or putting pressure on your players vastly diminish their tendency to use all their most powerful powers / spells in 1 or 2 encounters, and then stop to rest. All games that feature supernatural powers have this problem anyway - except when the characters are allowed to play really powerful spellcasters: an experienced Ars Magica magus can cast any spell of his repertoire at will in practice, but spellcasters in AM are more powerful than any other character by design.

Logos wrote:
In either case you can throw more encounters at your pc's, That's not the issue, the issue is can the pc's survive it. That's generally not true in 3.5 and is true in 4th because they fixed the issue (more or less).

With all due respect, your saying that the issue is fixed is entirely your personal opinion. Mine is that the issue is still more or less the same with the new edition. Sure you have at will and encounter powers, but now, all players can be tempted to "nova blast" their more powerful daily powers in the 1st encounter of the day and then simply decide to rest. It is still up to them isn't it ?

So all it relates to in the end is whether or not the game master accepts / tolerates / encourages this kind of behaviour. Please, leave the rule system out of the equation.


Scott Betts wrote:
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.

Scott Betts wrote:


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


Mad Elf wrote:
And no, it still doesn't. This is totally unrelated to the rules. You could witness the same situation with non D20 games like Runequest or Call of Cthulhu, where it translates to "I'm out of magic points". Having NPCs interfere, or putting pressure on your players vastly diminish their tendency to use all their most powerful powers / spells in 1 or 2 encounters, and then stop to rest. All games that feature supernatural powers have this problem anyway - except when the characters are allowed to play really powerful spellcasters: an experienced Ars Magica magus can cast any spell of his repertoire at will in practice, but spellcasters in AM are more powerful than any other character by design.

No.

Having your NPCs run the show instead of the PCs not only eventually wears the players themselves out and sidelines their initiative, but it does nothing to combat the actual problem: spellcasters feeling like they are not useful. Yes, it forces them to use their powers sparingly.

THAT'S BAD.

The whole point is that playing a spellcaster should feel like playing a spellcaster. If I'm playing a Wizard, I want to cast spells. Even if they're not always incredibly powerful spells, at no point (and CERTAINLY not after the first combat) should I be reduced to pulling out a light crossbow because I'm fresh out of spells to cast.

The point of 4th Edition is that spellcasters always feel like spellcasters. This was a huge fix from previous editions, and in almost every case that I've heard (and this would be hundreds at this point) it was a welcome one.

Mad Elf wrote:
With all due respect, your saying that the issue is fixed is entirely your personal opinion.

Of course. And mine. And a boatload of other players.

Mad Elf wrote:
Mine is that the issue is still more or less the same with the new edition.

And we've explained to you exactly how it is not still an issue. I'm not sure what you're missing, here. In 4th Edition, the 15-minute adventuring day simply doesn't occur. In D&D 3.5, the 15-minute adventuring day was practically required in order for spellcasters (particularly low-level spellcasters) to feel thematic and useful.

Mad Elf wrote:
Sure you have at will and encounter powers, but now, all players can be tempted to "nova blast" their more powerful daily powers in the 1st encounter of the day and then simply decide to rest.

This is the sort of statement that really makes me wonder if you've actually played much 4th Edition.

Not only are daily powers not that much better than encounter powers (which are just a step above at-will powers) - you will rarely, if ever, see a daily power flat out win a fight - but a group with absolutely no daily powers left is still just fine. Groups can get through plenty of encounters without using daily powers. Healing surges are what actually determine when a group needs to stop adventuring.

On top of that, 4th Edition incentivizes continued adventuring with the milestone mechanic. Complete two encounters and you get a second action point. Complete another two and you get a third. Not to mention that they recharge your ability to use some of your magic items. A group that plays it conservatively, adventuring for prolonged periods of time without using daily powers will actually find themselves more powerful for the final couple of encounters than they would have if they'd rested before those final encounters.

Really, the things you are criticizing 4th Edition for aren't actually issues.

Mad Elf wrote:
It is still up to them isn't it ?

Yeah, if they want to pointlessly rest in the middle of the adventuring day they absolutely can. But unless they're running dangerously low on healing surges they're not going to see much benefit from doing so. In practice, groups don't tend to take extended rests unless they absolutely need to.

Mad Elf wrote:
So all it relates to in the end is whether or not the game master accepts / tolerates / encourages this kind of behaviour. Please, leave the rule system out of the equation.

The rule system absolutely comes into the equation, and at this point it's almost ridiculous to see you continue to demand that it be ignored as though it has no impact. You've been told multiple times from different people (all of whom have experience with 4th Edition) that the rules system plays a significant role in resource allocation and the replenishment thereof, whether it's D&D 3.5 or 4th Edition.


Polaris wrote:
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).

No.

Polaris wrote:
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).

Ignore race for the moment. Not all - not even most - spellcasters are necessarily elves.

An archer-oriented fighter will have a lower dexterity than a Wizard? If your Wizard is even trying to build anything resembling an optimized character, his dexterity will be around 12 at the most.

Polaris wrote:
Furthermore, if the wizard is a ray-caster, the wizard is likely to have PB shot and precise shot anyway.

Most Wizards are not ray-casters.

Polaris wrote:

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

Sure.

Is he that much mechanically better?

Yes.

Fighter: +4 BAB. Conservative +3 dexterity modifier. Weapon Focus for another +1.

Wizard: +2 BAB. +1 dexterity modifier.

That's a difference of +5. That's enormous at level 4. And that doesn't even consider the inevitable damage bonus the fighter will have over the wizard for using a composite longbow of the appropriate strength rating.

I can't believe this is being discussed.

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

Nonsense. Unless the fighter is not an archery-focused fighter, in which case he will pretty much never want to whip out a longbow anyway. Compare the ranger with a fresh-out-of-spells wizard. It's not a contest.

Scott Betts wrote:


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...
Polaris wrote:
Isn't using your archery to extend the usefulness of your spells thematic?

What?!

No, it's not. You're not "extending the usefulness of your spells" by pulling out a crossbow when you run out. You're just out of spells. Your spells don't suddenly become more useful while you're trying in vain to hit a goblin with your bolts.

Polaris wrote:
What if you want to play a wizard who specializes in spells in non-combat situations (which I actually recommend for low-level wizards).

Then you're shooting yourself in the foot, recocking the gun and unloading it into your other foot. Not only are you gimping yourself (and jeopardizing your party's safety) by not doing your job in combat encounters (something else that 4th Edition fixes), but you're still using that crossbow way worse than anyone playing a class suited to ranged weapons.

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

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.

The Exchange

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). 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.

Sure - if the player with the "archer oriented fighter" sucks at building fighters.

By 4th level the archer/fighter has substantially more combat oriented feats compared to the elf wizard - the most important being weapon specialization. And any archer/fighter with a DEX lower than a wizard is built all kinds of wrong.

I am sorry but you are stretching way too far to make a very weak point here.


Mad Elf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
And again, it absolutely does.
And no, it still doesn't. This is totally unrelated to the rules. You could witness the same situation with non D20 games like Runequest or Call of Cthulhu, where it translates to "I'm out of magic points". Having NPCs interfere, or putting pressure on your players vastly diminish their tendency to use all their most powerful powers / spells in 1 or 2 encounters, and then stop to rest. All games that feature supernatural powers have this problem anyway - except when the characters are allowed to play really powerful spellcasters: an experienced Ars Magica magus can cast any spell of his repertoire at will in practice, but spellcasters in AM are more powerful than any other character by design.

The issue isn't whether the DM can encourage the party to continue for plot reasons, or whether the party can operate at maximum effectiveness at resting - the issue is whether characters are able to reasonably function by continuing the adventuring day beyond, say, one or two fights.

The first level wizard? Can't, honestly. He can contribute spells for, effectively, one fight. For the rest of the day after that, he is able to contribute in a very limited fashion in combat - he gets to sit in the back and be largely ineffective. More than that, he just doesn't get to do his thing - be a wizard. He gets to be a guy with a crossbow for most of the day, and that is simply not a great situation.

The DM can encourage the party to keep moving. The party can still operate decently enough to win some fights, even without the wizard being able to contribute much. (Healers, really, are the limit on how far the party can push before a fight simply wipes them out.) But even if the party is able to go through a few more fights, the wizard has little to nothing to do, and thats poor game design.

Sure, you can end up with a wizard who is surprisingly effective with a ranged weapon - you might be an elven wizard with some very specific feats to assist with this. But as familiar an archetype as the 'elven wizard' is, I'd say the combination Polaris mentions is hardly common, and most definitely not the default he'd like you to think it is. (And his implication that a archer-based fighter would have Dex 12 or so is about as unreal as it gets.)


Scott Betts wrote:
If your Wizard is even trying to build anything resembling an optimized character, his dexterity will be around 12 at the most.

12 at most? Dude, whatever it is your smoking, pass it around.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:


The first level wizard? Can't, honestly. He can contribute spells for, effectively, one fight. For the rest of the day after that, he is able to contribute in a very limited fashion in combat - he gets to sit in the back and be largely ineffective. More than that, he just doesn't get to do his thing - be a wizard. He gets to be a guy with a crossbow for most of the day, and that is simply not a great situation.

The DM can encourage the party to keep moving. The party can still operate decently enough to win some fights, even without the wizard being able to contribute much. (Healers, really, are the limit on how far the party can push before a fight simply wipes them out.) But even if the party is able to go through a few more fights, the wizard has little to nothing to do, and thats poor game design.

Sure, you can end up with a wizard who is surprisingly effective with a ranged weapon - you might be an elven wizard with some very...

Well, you almost touched on it...almost. What I mean by "it" is the ability of *any* 1st level character to 'continue the adventure'. The spellcaster casts his spell(s) in the first fight. Yup, he's pretty much done for the day. The non-spellcaster enters the frey and has his 7hp to 14hp reduced to 2hp in the first fight. Yup, he's pretty much done for the day.

To me it seems a lot of people like to point to the wizard being 'useless at low level' because they have so little spells...but they totally ignore the other classes and their equally limiting, uh, limitations (mainly HP and AC). Once *any class* gets to, say 5th to 9th, they have a LOT more staying power...be it via spells, abilities, hp or better AC. IMHO, 4e doesn't really do anything 'new', it just kinda lets PC's start at a 9th level 'capability' in terms of staying power (hp's, powers, healing, etc.).


pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
If your Wizard is even trying to build anything resembling an optimized character, his dexterity will be around 12 at the most.
12 at most? Dude, whatever it is your smoking, pass it around.

A wizard's two most important stats as an optimized character are Intelligence and Constitution. Intelligence ought to be as high as possible, and Constitution ought to be as high as possible after Intelligence is maxed out. If you can squeeze in enough points to get your Dexterity to 12 after that, go for it. But you're not getting it above 12.

Really, there's not a huge premium on Dexterity for Wizards. It's good for AC and ranged touch spells, and that's it. A Wizard should be using ranged touch spells as a last resort, since he's best employed as a controller. And AC isn't an issue for a Wizard, as scrolls of Mage Armor are cheap and between Shield, Haste, Cat's Grace and the fact that he should be avoiding melee at all costs should give him plenty of survivability (and if he gets hit, that's what the Constitution is for). This isn't the place to discuss char op, but that's the short of it.


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


Scott Betts wrote:


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


Sounds to me like someone wasn't talking about optimizing but min-maxing. Yes a wizard in 3.x had a typical order of priority of:
1. Int
2. Con
3. Dex
4. Will
5. Str (personally why I think gnomes and halflings make great wizards)
6. Cha
But the difference in importance between 2 and 3 is very small typically. I have to question anyone that claims a class that can not wear armor has a low priority on dex (yes I know they can, but realistically who does).


always saw dex and con as more or less to taste on an optimized wizard

dex = init, ac, save, dex skills
con = Hp, Save

now while Hp are really important, but AC, Init, and Ref Saves also have a huge potential to prevent damage in the first place.

just for the record, I've seen more than my fair share of elven wizards with 16-18 dex and my fair share of dwarven wizards with 16-20 con.

As for the not speaking for everyone, let me say this.

If throw more encounters at a spent party either your pulling your punches and not really throwing encounters at them, or they will eventually die.

But Honestly, Polaris-Zebra well played well played

Lo


Polaris wrote:

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

Your actual game experience is, unfortunately, pretty awful it appears. No matter how much you try and justify it, giving a Wizard a high Dexterity and sacrificing Constitution or Intelligence is creating an un-optimized Wizard.

Initiative is one of the least important rolls in the game - it happens once per encounter and doesn't matter after the first turn. Rogues like it because they can catch their enemies flat-footed. Other classes don't care nearly as much.

Yes, touch AC doesn't scale. That's why dexterity is relatively unimportant for ranged touch attacks. You don't need a high dexterity to hit touch AC because it's going to be relatively low at all levels. And what are you doing making ranged touch attacks anyway? Do you job and throw a glitterdust out.

Wizards have plenty of AC without needing high dexterity.

So no, please, stop arguing this. It's not a point you can win.


Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
If your Wizard is even trying to build anything resembling an optimized character, his dexterity will be around 12 at the most.
12 at most? Dude, whatever it is your smoking, pass it around.

A wizard's two most important stats as an optimized character are Intelligence and Constitution. Intelligence ought to be as high as possible, and Constitution ought to be as high as possible after Intelligence is maxed out. If you can squeeze in enough points to get your Dexterity to 12 after that, go for it. But you're not getting it above 12.

Really, there's not a huge premium on Dexterity for Wizards. It's good for AC and ranged touch spells, and that's it. A Wizard should be using ranged touch spells as a last resort, since he's best employed as a controller. And AC isn't an issue for a Wizard, as scrolls of Mage Armor are cheap and between Shield, Haste, Cat's Grace and the fact that he should be avoiding melee at all costs should give him plenty of survivability (and if he gets hit, that's what the Constitution is for). This isn't the place to discuss char op, but that's the short of it.

I think your wrong on your wizard build. Rays are very common spells - I can't see how scorching ray is a last resort spell. Its probably the most common go to offencive spell for a wizard with 2nd level spells.

Con is not the second most important stat, IMO, but ultimatly its pretty much irrelevant. Monsters are designed to make the beefy fighter sit up and take notice when they hit. By 10th+ level the difference between the fighters and the mages hps is so huge that any hit that will really make the fighter take notice will pretty much kill the Wizard outright. Adding A wizard that tries to us Con to get around that should find that it just does not work. 50 or 60 hps is just not enough to be wandering around high level dungeons with if you expect to take a hit. Spells are the only thing thats going to save your life, you just can't get enough from Con to keep you alive when facing monsters that scare 10th level fighters.

Beyond this your faced with what amounts too two back up defencive stats. You raise your Dex and your mundane AC goes up, you raise your Con and your HPs go up. Neither is really adequate for the wizard and only spells will save him from being killed by a monster thats in his face but they both help a little - the big difference is that Con does nothing for his spell casting, while Dex makes all his Ray spells more accurate.


Polaris wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


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

Yes, fantastic. Pull out your character created specifically to be better at using a longbow despite being a Wizard as an example of how Wizards are just as good as Fighters with ranged weapons.

You want to play that way?

At 4th-level, your 16-dex elf Wizard has a +6 to hit targets within 30-feet. To get this he has wasted one of his two feats on something that should pretty much never be taken by a Wizard.

At 4th-level, my 16-dex human Fighter has a +10 to hit targets within 30-feet (+4 BAB, +3 dexterity, +1 magic longbow, +1 weapon focus, +1 point blank shot). That's a spread of +4. I also have the option of firing two arrows per round due to Rapid Shot, both of which still have a higher bonus to hit than your single shot. I still have Precise Shot (which you would have to give up your only other feat to take), and every one of my arrows - that hit way more often than yours do! - do nearly double the damage of each of your individual arrows (yours do 1d8+1, for a flat 5.5 average damage; mine do 1d8+6 with a 14 strength, +1 weapon, Point Blank Shot and Weapon Specialization, for 10.5 average damage).

For reference, my feat load-out is:
1st - Point Blank Shot
1st Human - Precise Shot
1st Fighter - Weapon Focus (Longbow)
2nd Fighter - Rapid Shot
3rd - Dodge (why not? I have plenty of feats)
4th Fighter - Weapon Specialization

My standard point-buy build is:
Strength - 14
Dexterity - 16
Constitution - 14
Intelligence - 8
Wisdom - 10
Charisma - 9

So while you've done 5.5 damage to the target of your choice, I've done 21 damage to mine, and I've hit more often than you have.

Oh! And if you really want to be a ray caster, that's cool. See, the average damage with your one scorching ray (that you can use all of three times per day) is 14. Yeah, it's a touch attack, so your chance to hit is a little better, but I've got two arrows a round and can easily deal way more damage than you. Every round. For as many rounds as I have arrows.

No.

Stop this.

Not only are you wrong, and not only has it been clearly explained to you many times over exactly why this line of thinking is incorrect, but you're persisting in arguing it.

By the way, if you're casting Enlarge Person on the characters in melee while prone, you're asking to get killed. The range on Enlarge Person at 2nd level is 30 feet, the perfect range for the enemy melee characters to stroll over and take advantage of your unfortunate positioning to end your 7 hit point life.


pres man wrote:

Sounds to me like someone wasn't talking about optimizing but min-maxing. Yes a wizard in 3.x had a typical order of priority of:

1. Int
2. Con
3. Dex
4. Will
5. Str (personally why I think gnomes and halflings make great wizards)
6. Cha
But the difference in importance between 2 and 3 is very small typically. I have to question anyone that claims a class that can not wear armor has a low priority on dex (yes I know they can, but realistically who does).

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.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
pres man wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
If your Wizard is even trying to build anything resembling an optimized character, his dexterity will be around 12 at the most.
12 at most? Dude, whatever it is your smoking, pass it around.

A wizard's two most important stats as an optimized character are Intelligence and Constitution. Intelligence ought to be as high as possible, and Constitution ought to be as high as possible after Intelligence is maxed out. If you can squeeze in enough points to get your Dexterity to 12 after that, go for it. But you're not getting it above 12.

Really, there's not a huge premium on Dexterity for Wizards. It's good for AC and ranged touch spells, and that's it. A Wizard should be using ranged touch spells as a last resort, since he's best employed as a controller. And AC isn't an issue for a Wizard, as scrolls of Mage Armor are cheap and between Shield, Haste, Cat's Grace and the fact that he should be avoiding melee at all costs should give him plenty of survivability (and if he gets hit, that's what the Constitution is for). This isn't the place to discuss char op, but that's the short of it.

I think your wrong on your wizard build. Rays are very common spells - I can't see how scorching ray is a last resort spell. Its probably the most common go to offencive spell for a wizard with 2nd level spells.

Yes, unfortunately it is. But as anyone who's done any char op in the past knows, a Wizard who pulls out damage spells (particularly single-target damage spells!) probably isn't doing his job correctly. Nine times out of ten, you're better off using a high-DC save-or-suck spell (Glitterdust is the typical 2nd-level spell of that variety).

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Con is not the second most important stat, IMO, but ultimatly its pretty much irrelevant. Monsters are designed to make the beefy fighter sit up and take notice when they hit. By 8th+ level the difference between the fighters and the mages hps is so huge that any hit that will really make the fighter take notice will pretty much kill the Wizard outright.

Not if the Wizard has increased his Con score.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Adding A wizard that tries to us Con to get around that should find that it just does not work.

Except that it does work.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
50 or 60 hps is just not enough to be wandering around high level dungeons with if you expect to take a hit.

Actually a 15th-level Wizard with average HP rolls and a 16 con (not even augmented with magic items yet) has 84 HP. A 15th-level Fighter with average HP rolls and a 16 con (also unaugmented) has 132 hit points. A spread, but not a huge one. And certainly not one that would cause a Wizard of that level to drop to most hits the fighter would take. And this is barely high-level here. It only goes up (and realistically should be higher, since by that point the party has easy access to at least +4 stat items).

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Beyond this your faced with what amounts too two back up defencive stats. You raise your Dex and your mundane AC goes up, you raise your Con and your HPs go up. Neither is really adequate for the wizard and only spells will save him from being killed by a monster thats in his face but they both help a little - the big difference is that Con does nothing for his spell casting, while Dex makes all his Ray spells more accurate.

Again, ray spells usually don't need to be more accurate, since they target touch AC which tends not to scale with level, and a Wizard using ray spells is a sad sight anyway.

The difference is that raising a Wizard's AC to obscene heights with spells is one of the easiest things in the game to do. Raising a Wizard's hit points with spells is one of the most difficult.


Mad Elf wrote:

With all due respect, your saying that the issue is fixed is entirely your personal opinion. Mine is that the issue is still more or less the same with the new edition. Sure you have at will and encounter powers, but now, all players can be tempted to "nova blast" their more powerful daily powers in the 1st encounter of the day and then simply decide to rest. It is still up to them isn't it ?

So all it relates to in the end is whether or not the game master accepts / tolerates / encourages this kind of behaviour. Please, leave the rule system out of the equation.

I think the whole issue is really about a cost benefit analysis by the players and what the rules pretty much due to influence the cost benifit analysis.

In 3.5 Spell casters that have burned through most of their top two levels of spells really desperately want to stop the adventure and go rest. They are massively weaker then when they began the day and they are very cognisant that. So the adventure needs to be designed in such a way that the characters really believe that there will be huge negatives for them leaving and coming back because they are a hell of a lot weaker.

In 4E your daily powers, while good, are not that much better then your encounter powers and leaving often means giving up Action Points which are at least as good as a daily power and often better. So your giving up a fairly significant amount by walking away.

What a DM has to hand out as a carrot to make the players continue and what he uses as a stick to punish them for leaving is a lot smaller in 4E if the players are paying enough attention to make a rational cost-benefit analysis.

Its in fact small enough that the DM can probably simply design an 'alert' status for his locale. If the PCs press on they get some easy XPs buy jumping guys that had no chance to put on armour and a defence thats simply much more disorganized. Its worth it to press forward even if the Guardian bad ass monster sucked up the Daily powers because the dailies don't give a huge boost to what the players can do.

In 3.5 once the wizard has used up most of his top two spell levels its just time to leave. The idea of continuing into a dangerous adventure with the Wizard far below par is pure madness. Your asking for a TPK if you do this. No players will do it unless the DM offers a really big fat juicy carrot to go forward and threatens with one hell of a viscous stick if they leave.

That, I feel, is the real difference between the two editions in this regard. Presuming a moderately reactionary adventure. In 3.5 the optima choice is usually to leave and come back at full power. In 4E its usually a sub-optimal choice.

Now I want to touch on why its pure madness for the 3.5 party to continue as I think this goes beyond just the adventuring mechanics in the two systems and is actually more focused on character design philosophy between the two editions. In 3.5 a mid level and beyond wizard is an awesomely powerful character. He can do all sorts of things to bend and twist reality and his job in the party is, by the mid point of the campaign, is problem solver. A 3.5 party past 10th level is a really powerful group of individuals able to do some amazing things and the wizards job is to make sure this well oiled killing machine does not develop a snag. He does this through the use of things like walls of force or selective teleports, he casts fly on the fighters to allow them to engage dangerous enemies that otherwise can't be reached etc. Of course the parties adversaries are super dangerous to compensate. They often have save or die attacks They do huge amounts of damage in a hit and they have powerful special abilities. In a 3.5 game the wizards job is to find out what the hell has gone wrong in the current combat and fix the problem with his powerful arsenal of spells. Most tough campaigns virtually require either a wizard or a really well designed sorcerer (with lots of scrolls). Going into the later stages of an AP without one of these two characters is pretty much suicide. However a wizard that has used up much of these spells can't do his job and he'll announce it to the rest of the players. Everyone is going to generally be agreeing that if the wizard can no longer do his job effectively its time to stop.

In 4E you just don't have this. The wizards role is not the parties problem solver. He simply does not have enough powers to be relied on to solve the parties problem on a consistent basis. Sure sometimes he has a power that will solve whatever the problem is but its not his job to have these powers and solve the problem hence much of the time the party is just going to have to muddle through without the wizard fixing things because character design in 4E does not give the wizard the same toolbox as character design in 3.x gave the wizard.

251 to 300 of 452 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4E not D&D?!? I beg to differ. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.