Scott Betts wrote: Polaris wrote: I think some of the lesser, orb spells do, but yes, that's an excellent point and a major reason why I'd rather shoot arrow than use magic missile as a low level (1-3) wizard most of the time. Arrows are cheap and typically do d8 damage. That's better than most low level spells. Gosh, really? You'd rather fire off a 1d8 damage arrow that hits 40% of the time than a 1d4+1 fireball that hits 100% of the time?
Hmm...4.5 average damage less than half the time, or 3.5 average damage every time. Which one seems like the better choice? The only downside, of course, is that the better choice (magic missile) is only usable twice. Which is the problem with Wizards at low levels. Not quite as simple as you make out, since you can crit for extra damage with a crossbow/bow, and personally I prefer high Dex. build wizards over high Con. build; I like my wizards to have high initiative. (On the basis that in a crisis situation where your 1st level spell might be the difference between victory and TPK, it's useful to maximise your chances of going before anyone on the other side- the improved chances of hitting with missile weapons at low levels is just a bonus.)
pres man wrote: Polaris wrote: Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it. Well that and fighting incorporeals. And mage armor also happening to be a pre-requisite for crafting bracers of armor at higher levels...
Charles Evans 25 wrote: pres man wrote: Polaris wrote: Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it. Well that and fighting incorporeals. And mage armor also happening to be a pre-requisite for crafting bracers of armor at higher levels... Which is good if you have a monk in the party. Seriously check out the difference in price between a twilight mithril chain shirt +1 and bracers of armor. Bracers of armor +4 cost 16K. The chain shirt costs 5100K AND gives you better armor.
Really bracers of armor are badly overpriced (so are amulutes of mighty fists for monks but that's another issue).
Also having ARMOR so you can put armor enchantments on it is invaluable at higher levels (like fortification). It's also why mithril bucklers are worth having eventually as a wizard. And compared with alternative ways of getting these benefits, it's dirt cheap to put stuff on armor (rather than robes or bracers).
-Polaris
Polaris wrote: Charles Evans 25 wrote: pres man wrote: Polaris wrote: Seriously, Mage armor is badly overrated. It's OK for a level one wizard I guess until he can get better but that's about it. Well that and fighting incorporeals. And mage armor also happening to be a pre-requisite for crafting bracers of armor at higher levels... Which is good if you have a monk in the party. Seriously check out the difference in price between a twilight mithril chain shirt +1 and bracers of armor. Bracers of armor +4 cost 16K. The chain shirt costs 5100K AND gives you better armor.
Really bracers of armor are badly overpriced (so are amulutes of mighty fists for monks but that's another issue).
Also having ARMOR so you can put armor enchantments on it is invaluable at higher levels (like fortification). It's also why mithril bucklers are worth having eventually as a wizard. And compared with alternative ways of getting these benefits, it's dirt cheap to put stuff on armor (rather than robes or bracers).
-Polaris Or you could just cast spells.
Scott Betts wrote: Polaris wrote: You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile. Of course it will.
So you cede the point. Smart man. Treantmonk 20 wrote a whole guidebook on wizard play based on just this. As a mystericous wizard, you fill the role of "God". You let your party members to the work...you enable them (and disable enemies).
I see nothing unfun or uncastery about it.
Scott Betts wrote:
Polaris wrote: Enlarge the fighter (melee) and any extra damage you do with your arrows is just gravy. Sure, except you're still sitting there for the rest of combat, firing a crossbow like any Joe Commoner could do and hitting maybe once every three rounds. Two-thirds of the time you might as well not be on the battlefield.
So what? By firing arrows you are doing a bit of damage at least, but honestly once you've enabled your friends/disabled enemies, you're job is done. Let the mortals do the hard work. Wizards are the "god" role.
Scott Betts wrote:
Polaris wrote: To be a 'castery' wizard does not mean you should be casting all the time. That's a misnomer. I disagree. If I'm a Wizard and I command arcane powers, it's more fun from a thematic perspective if I'm able to make regular use of those powers.
You don't get it. Being a wizard doesn't mean you have to be like "Tim" out of quest for the holy grail. How many times did Gandolf use his magic? Only when he had to. I'd rather be "Gandolf" than "Tim" any day.
Scott Betts wrote:
Polaris wrote: As for mage armor scrolls, they cost 25 gp a pop which means you can't generally afford them out of the gate and the one-level XP gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level so burning XP is simply bad for you all around. They cost 12 gold 5 silver to scribe (which, as a Wizard, you can do). And one experience point. Go kill a kobold.
It also takes a day (which you often won't have) and it's an XP point you never get back since the 1 level gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level. Scribing your own scrolls is a really poor idea. I used to be a fan of it until I tried it. Doesn't work very well. Just have a few select ones (like prot evil and comp languages) and just a couple of each.
Scott Betts wrote:
Polaris wrote: Thistledown is only about 500 gold which will be cheaper than the scrolls you wind up using. No it won't. To even match the Thistledown you would have to scribe 40 scrolls of mage armor. By the time you've blown through that many encounters, not only will you have a 1st-level spell slot to spare for a long-lasting Mage Armor, but you'll have access to Greater Mage Armor.
500/25 == 20 not 40 (burning XP at low levels is a hugely bad idea and you generally won't have the time anyway since it's one day per scroll). Prior to level 3 I can easily see you burn through 20 scrolls if you aren't using your own slots (a really bad idea).
Scott Betts wrote:
Polaris wrote: Greater Mage Armor is a waste of space. By the time you get it, you can do better (mirror image or greater mage armor....that's not much of a choice.....and mirror image is lower level!) Except that you can cast both, and Mirror Image runs out after a couple attacks.
Greater Mage armor can be dispelled AND it's only available to a 5th level caster or higher (not exactly a low level spell). By this time, I have a twilight chain shirt +1 that can not be dispelled does NOT take up a spell slot and lasts indefinately. Much better deal.
As for your dismissal of -0 ACP/0%ASF armor, you need to open your mind. Compare the cost (5100) of a twilight mithril shirt +1 to bracers of armor +4 (16000) and tell me that the shirt is a waste of money. I dare you...hell, I double dare you to make that claim with a straight face. The twilight shirt is one of the best deals in the game for a wizard.
-Polaris
Check out the 1st edition 4th level druid spell Tree. It allows you to turn into a tree or a shrub. For a fourth level spell. Talk about suboptimal choices.
That's it. 1st edition isn't D&D (I'm totally kidding of course).
Polaris:
I have never heard of 'twilight' armour, although I take by your implication that you think a wizard should be wearing it that it's something out of a splatbook with no arcane failure chance?
Scott Betts wrote: Or you could just cast spells. Which uses valuable third level slots better used for other things. Third level spell slots are valuable. Too valuable to waste on greater mage armor when the twilight shirt is so cheap (and the 5100 is retail....any wizard with craft arms and armor...available to any fifth level wizard) can make it for half price plus the cost of the mithril chain shirt (and by this time you DO have the one-level gravy train effect). A wizard using crafting pays only 3100 (and 160 XP).
-Polaris
Charles Evans 25 wrote: Polaris:
I have never heard of 'twilight' armour, although I take by your implication that you think a wizard should be wearing it that it's something out of a splatbook with no arcane failure chance?
Happy to help. The "twilight armor" enchantment can be found in PHB2 page 21 (box lower right corner in Duskblade section). For a +1 enhancement, you reduce the ASF of the enchanted armor by 10%. Since a mithril chain shirt only has a 10% ASF, for a total of +2 enchantment (4000 retail) and the cost of a mithril chain shirt (1100), you have a shirt that gives +5 armor bonus, for -0 ACP and 0% ASF and it counts as armor (which is hugely important for other sorts of future enchantements).
It's a no-brainer choice for a wizard.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote: So you cede the point. Smart man. Treantmonk 20 wrote a whole guidebook on wizard play based on just this. As a mystericous wizard, you fill the role of "God". You let your party members to the work...you enable them (and disable enemies).
I see nothing unfun or uncastery about it.
I much prefer LogicNinja's treatise on Wizards myself.
Wizards play Batman. The DM plays God.
But I'm not ceding anything. Go back through the thread. I've spent multiple posts chiding people for proposing damage-dealing Wizards like the ray casters that were being bandied about earlier.
Polaris wrote: So what? By firing arrows you are doing a bit of damage at least, but honestly once you've enabled your friends/disabled enemies, you're job is done. Let the mortals do the hard work. Wizards are the "god" role. I have a hard time accepting someone who is forced to pull out a crossbow they're terrible with in order to continue contributing to a fight as "God".
Polaris wrote: You don't get it. Being a wizard doesn't mean you have to be like "Tim" out of quest for the holy grail. How many times did Gandolf use his magic? Only when he had to. I'd rather be "Gandolf" than "Tim" any day. The Gandalf argument is one for another thread entirely. And Gandalf wasn't playing D&D.
Polaris wrote: It also takes a day (which you often won't have) Eight hours of work, actually. And in those eight hours you can actually scribe a number of spells as long as you scribe them all to the same scroll. I've never run into a situation where finding eight hours to take advantage of your class features was an issue.
Polaris wrote: and it's an XP point you never get back since the 1 level gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level. Boo hoo.
Polaris wrote: Scribing your own scrolls is a really poor idea. I'm going to pretend you didn't just say that. It would just be too much work to wrap my mind around it if you had.
Polaris wrote: I used to be a fan of it until I tried it. Doesn't work very well. Just have a few select ones (like prot evil and comp languages) and just a couple of each. Sorry it didn't work for you. Works great for me, and for a ton of other people playing Wizards.
Polaris wrote: 500/25 == 20 not 40 Are you sure you've scribed scrolls before? A 1st-level spell costs 12 gold 5 silver to scribe onto a scroll, not 25 gold. So yes, 40.
Polaris wrote: (burning XP at low levels is a hugely bad idea and you generally won't have the time anyway since it's one day per scroll). Again, are you sure you've scribed scrolls? You can fit multiple spells on a single scroll, and the official word from WotC is that the entire scroll, all spells included, counts as a single magic item for the purposes of what can be crafted in a single day.
Polaris wrote: Prior to level 3 I can easily see you burn through 20 scrolls if you aren't using your own slots (a really bad idea). I can't.
Polaris wrote: Greater Mage armor can be dispelled So can Mirror Image.
Polaris wrote: AND it's only available to a 5th level caster or higher (not exactly a low level spell). Again, you've got to be one of the few people who thinks that once you hit level 4 you're no longer low-level. The traditional spread is 1-7 is low, 7-13 is mid, 13-20 is high. 5th level isn't that tough to reach. 20 scrolls ought to get you there. 40 certainly will.
Polaris wrote: By this time, I have a twilight chain shirt +1 that can not be dispelled does NOT take up a spell slot and lasts indefinately. Much better deal. And I have an extra 2600 gold. I'll take that trade any day of the week.
Polaris wrote: As for your dismissal of -0 ACP/0%ASF armor, you need to open your mind. Compare the cost (5100) of a twilight mithril shirt +1 to bracers of armor +4 (16000) and tell me that the shirt is a waste of money. The shirt is a waste of money at any point before high levels.
So are the bracers, of course, but you're shooting yourself in the foot either way.
Polaris wrote: I dare you...hell, I double dare you to make that claim with a straight face. The twilight shirt is one of the best deals in the game for a wizard. Sure, if you hate money. Spending 2,600 extra gold pieces just to avoid the odd dispel is a phenomenally poor decision until you have heaps of gold at your disposal.
By the way, I love how you simultaneously criticize (wrongly, I might add) my argument for relying on crafting time when in order to reasonably afford your armor by the level you're talking about you've committed to spending four days crafting it. Awesome.
Polaris wrote: As for mage armor scrolls, they cost 25 gp a pop which means you can't generally afford them out of the gate and the one-level XP gravy train doesn't kick in until fourth level so burning XP is simply bad for you all around. To scribe the scroll costs 12gp and 1xp. That price is not very high at all.
Oh, and you still have not explained the difference between an "archer oriented fighter" and an "archer specialist".
Polaris wrote: Scott Betts wrote: Polaris wrote: You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile. Of course it will.
So you cede the point. Smart man. Treantmonk 20 wrote a whole guidebook on wizard play based on just this. As a mystericous wizard, you fill the role of "God". You let your party members to the work...you enable them (and disable enemies).
I see nothing unfun or uncastery about it. Should the low-level wizard be forced into using only a handful of specific spells in order to be combat relevant? And even then - how many people really enjoy the chance to Enlarge the fighter twice a day so that he can get even more glory.
This isn't to say you can't enjoy this, or find it a fulfilling way to play. Clearly, you do. But enlarging a fighter twice a day and shooting a crossbow twenty times at orcs - and missing more often than not - is certainly not castery. And for many folks, it also isn't fun.
You say you don't want characters to have to be like "Tim", and that you'd rather be like "Gandalf." But the 3.5 wizard, at low-levels, didn't get to choose between those two roles. He got to choose between occasionally casting a useless damaging spell, and being largely ineffective with his crossbow the rest of the time, or occasionally casting a non-damaging buff or debuff, and being largely ineffective with his crossbow the rest of the time.
If that second one is to your preference, that's good for you. If not, you are out of luck.
Also: Twilight Shirts aren't a bad deal at all. On the other hand, burning that 5,000 gp to get +1 AC over Mage Armor is a pretty debatable choice. Late-game, it is certainly worth it, when your cleric can Magic Vestments the armor, and you have the money to spend, and want to load up your armor with Deathward and such as well. But at mid-levels, mage armor lasts long enough that you are usually better off spending that cash on other things. I've seen some wizards with it, and others without it - it certainly isn't a clear-cut choice.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: Polaris wrote: Scott Betts wrote: Polaris wrote: You've just made my point. Even at low levels, a good use of sleep, colour spray, enlarge person, or the like will be far more appreciated than a magic missile. Of course it will.
So you cede the point. Smart man. Treantmonk 20 wrote a whole guidebook on wizard play based on just this. As a mystericous wizard, you fill the role of "God". You let your party members to the work...you enable them (and disable enemies).
I see nothing unfun or uncastery about it. Should the low-level wizard be forced into using only a handful of specific spells in order to be combat relevant? And even then - how many people really enjoy the chance to Enlarge the fighter twice a day so that he can get even more glory.
Like the 4E wizard is any better? Basically the crossbow has been replaced by magic missile (or cloud of daggers for a high wis wizard), with about the same damage and about the same chance to hit.
You may call it magic but I don't. I fail to see the difference between the low level 3.5 wizard and 4E wizard when it comes to "only being able to cast a specific number of spells to be combat relevant".
As for enlarging the fighter, or helping out of combat, I get a kick out of it. Also spells like colour spray or sleep can completely alter the course of a low level battle. Well worth it and very worthwhile.
You (and the 4E designers) seem to think that you have to go 'rah, rah, rah' every round to have fun. It's just not so.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
This isn't to say you can't enjoy this, or find it a fulfilling way to play. Clearly, you do. But enlarging a fighter twice a day and shooting a crossbow twenty times at orcs - and missing more often than not - is certainly not castery. And for many folks, it also isn't fun.
As opposed to being ineffective except one time per day and then firing off at-wills that are no better (and frequently worse) than weapon attacks....and missing more often than not?
I fail to see the improvement.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
You say you don't want characters to have to be like "Tim", and that you'd rather be like "Gandalf." But the 3.5 wizard, at low-levels, didn't get to choose between those two roles. He got to choose between occasionally casting a useless damaging spell, and being largely ineffective with his crossbow the rest of the time, or occasionally casting a non-damaging buff or debuff, and being largely ineffective with his crossbow the rest of the time.
That's Gandolf! Gandolf seldom used his magic but when he did, it was hellishly effective. A low level 3.5 Wizard can most definately do this.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
If that second one is to your preference, that's good for you. If not, you are out of luck.
If the first if your preference play a warlock.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
Also: Twilight Shirts aren't a bad deal at all. On the other hand, burning that 5,000 gp to get +1 AC over Mage Armor is a pretty debatable choice. Late-game, it is certainly worth it, when your cleric can Magic Vestments the armor, and you have the money to spend, and want to load up your armor with Deathward and such as well. But at mid-levels, mage armor lasts long enough that you are usually better off...
It's not 5,000 gp over mage armor. Mage armor as the spell is overrated. Compare with sixteen thousand for bracers of armor +4 since both are permanent items.
If you are going to compare, do it honestly.
-Polaris
Polaris,
It does not matter that the effect of a magic missile in 4e is very similar to the effect of a crossbow bolt in 3e. Since this is a roleplaying game there is a huge difference between a 4e wizards firing off spells every round and a 3e wizard firing off crossbow bolts every round. I love the notion that a mage can tap into the arcane energies around him at all times. Vancian magic is one of the thing I dislike the most about D&D and I, for one, am grateful to see it go.
crosswiredmind wrote: Polaris,
It does not matter that the effect of a magic missile in 4e is very similar to the effect of a crossbow bolt in 3e. Since this is a roleplaying game there is a huge difference between a 4e wizards firing off spells every round and a 3e wizard firing off crossbow bolts every round. I love the notion that a mage can tap into the arcane energies around him at all times. Vancian magic is one of the thing I dislike the most about D&D and I, for one, am grateful to see it go.
Then play a warlock. Now, that said, I've always hated the Vancian system too (or so-called Vancian system since the old style DnD system wasn't exactly true to the Jack Vance fiction). I've always preferred how other systems handled magic by limiting access via mana points, fatigue, ect.
The point is, however, that the difference between firing arrows in 3E and using "magic missile" in 4E is a difference that makes no real difference.
As for the twilight shirt, I am stunned I have to explain to 4E lovers why in 3.5 the shirt is better than using Mage Armor. Even if you didn't mind the low level XP cost (and it matters), and even if you had time to scribe the scrolls at low levels (which you frequently won't....there is a limit to how many spells you can get on a scroll, and while it only takes 8 hours to craft you have to REST the rest of the day...no adventuring), it's a matter of action economy. Sound familier? It should.
Basically with my investment (and a small one) in a twilight chain shirt, I never, ever have to worry about mage armor again. That armor is with me even when I sleep, can not be taken away, and it takes no actions to activate.
Contrast this with mage armor. With a scroll or by using the slot, you have to give up a standard action just to cast the spell, and the scroll will only last an hour. That makes it idea if you are setting the time of engagement (attack's advantage), but it also means you can't count on having that spell up all the time....and as such if you are suprised (woken up for example), you have to burn a precious action just to protect yourself.
That's in addition to all the sweetness you can put on armor that you can't do with spells as well......
Mage armor as the spell is OK for a first level wizard (because of the scroll factor). Once you can afford better armor, you should get it.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote: Then play a warlock. Now, that said, I've always hated the Vancian system too (or so-called Vancian system since the old style DnD system wasn't exactly true to the Jack Vance fiction). I've always preferred how other systems handled magic by limiting access via mana points, fatigue, ect.
The point is, however, that the difference between firing arrows in 3E and using "magic missile" in 4E is a difference that makes no real difference.
If you want to roll play it may make no difference in your opinion (though in 4e rolling to hit reflex is a big difference compared to 3e to hit ac, oh and 2d4+INT MOD is better damage than the 3e bow thing too, oh yeah - and it rolls against every critter in a square so it may be used to hit multiple targets, oh - and it can be used as a basic ranged attack so the party warlord can trigger it as well, and finally it is just one of FIVE possible at-will powers you can pick from), but (or should that be AND) if you want to role play it makes a world of difference.
And why should a warlock be any more magical a class than wizard?
Polaris wrote: Like the 4E wizard is any better? Basically the crossbow has been replaced by magic missile (or cloud of daggers for a high wis wizard), with about the same damage and about the same chance to hit. Except that now the Wizard has just as much a chance to hit with the Magic Missile and contribute to the fight as the Fighter does with his battle axe.
Polaris wrote: You may call it magic but I don't. Your problem, not ours.
Polaris wrote: I fail to see the difference between the low level 3.5 wizard and 4E wizard when it comes to "only being able to cast a specific number of spells to be combat relevant". One can cast two useful spells a day. The other can cast unlimited useful spells per day.
Really, this isn't tough math or anything.
Polaris wrote: As for enlarging the fighter, or helping out of combat, I get a kick out of it. Also spells like colour spray or sleep can completely alter the course of a low level battle. Well worth it and very worthwhile. Yes. Twice.
Then you're shooting a crossbow.
Polaris wrote: You (and the 4E designers) seem to think that you have to go 'rah, rah, rah' every round to have fun. It's just not so. No, I'm not saying we didn't have fun in D&D 3.5.
It's just more fun when you actually feel like you're contributing as much as everyone else to every combat.
Polaris wrote: As opposed to being ineffective except one time per day and then firing off at-wills that are no better (and frequently worse) than weapon attacks....and missing more often than not?
I fail to see the improvement.
You haven't actually played 4th Edition, have you? Because really, no one who's actually played the game would so much as consider calling 4th Edition characters "ineffective" without their daily power.
Polaris wrote: That's Gandolf! Gandolf seldom used his magic but when he did, it was hellishly effective. A low level 3.5 Wizard can most definately do this. Twice. And then he's shooting a crossbow for the rest of the day.
Polaris wrote: It's not 5,000 gp over mage armor. You're right, it's 5,100 gp over mage armor. Unless you craft it yourself, which requires the feat, which is pretty sub-par as far as item creation feats go, especially for the Wizard. And now you're spending days on end crafting not only your own armor, but armor and weapons for the entire party just so they can get it on the cheap too. Good luck finding time to craft anything you'll actually get use out of, like Contingent Spells or Wondrous Items.
Polaris wrote: Mage armor as the spell is overrated. No, it's not. It's a high-priority spell at 1st-level, and Greater Mage Armor is a high-priority spell at 5th-level.
Polaris wrote: Compare with sixteen thousand for bracers of armor +4 since both are permanent items. No. Let's not.
The bracers of armor are designed for characters (read: Monks) who lose class features if they put actual armor on.
Polaris wrote: If you are going to compare, do it honestly. We are.
Polaris wrote: As for the twilight shirt, I am stunned I have to explain to 4E lovers why in 3.5 the shirt is better than using Mage Armor. I'm stunned that you're continuing with this argument. There's pretty much a consensus in the char op community that Mage Armor and Greater Mage Armor are the way to go until higher levels.
Polaris wrote: Even if you didn't mind the low level XP cost (and it matters) No, it doesn't. It's 20-40 xp. Kill a kobold or two.
Polaris wrote: and even if you had time to scribe the scrolls at low levels Yes.
Polaris wrote: (which you frequently won't....there is a limit to how many spells you can get on a scroll, and while it only takes 8 hours to craft you have to REST the rest of the day...no adventuring) Okay, no, stop. This is starting to get really bad.
Not only is there no hard cap mentioned on number of spells you can fit on a scroll (the random item charts indicate that found scrolls have six at most, but that doesn't apply to crafted items - as long as you have an extra foot or so of scroll to write on you can scribe another spell to it), but there is absolutely nothing saying you need to rest the rest of the day when creating items. You're more than able to get up after eight hours of crafting, adventure for another eight hours, then come back to sleep, and do it all again the next day.
Again, how much crafting have you done, exactly? At this point you're making up completely non-existent crafting rules.
Polaris wrote: it's a matter of action economy. Sound familier? It should. Oh boy.
Polaris wrote: Basically with my investment (and a small one) in a twilight chain shirt, I never, ever have to worry about mage armor again. Your "investment" isn't considered a small one at 5th level. At 5th level, even crafting it yourself costs you more than a third of everything your character owns.
Polaris wrote: That armor is with me even when I sleep, can not be taken away, and it takes no actions to activate. As opposed to Greater Mage Armor, which last pretty much the entire adventuring day, is always one standard action away from being turned back on in the rare event that a dispel magic takes it away, and doesn't cost you 5,100 gold pieces to use.
Polaris wrote: Contrast this with mage armor. With a scroll or by using the slot, you have to give up a standard action just to cast the spell, and the scroll will only last an hour. Oh no, a whole standard action that, chances are, you would have spent pulling out and loading your crossbow anyway, just so you could fire it ineffectually next turn.
Polaris wrote: That makes it idea if you are setting the time of engagement (attack's advantage), but it also means you can't count on having that spell up all the time....and as such if you are suprised (woken up for example), you have to burn a precious action just to protect yourself. As adventurers, the vast majority of the time you are setting the time of engagement. And really, your actions aren't so precious. If you're really concerned about getting stabbed in the night so much, might I suggest a few really helpful tactics:
- Alarm
- Craft Contingent Spell
- Setting up a watch
You'll find yourself getting ganked in the night a lot less that way, and you'll almost always have an action to spare to armor yourself up.
Polaris wrote: That's in addition to all the sweetness you can put on armor that you can't do with spells as well...... Which is great at high levels, and useless at lower levels.
Polaris wrote: Mage armor as the spell is OK for a first level wizard (because of the scroll factor). Once you can afford better armor, you should get it. Yes. Better armor like Greater Mage Armor.
Scott Betts wrote: Polaris wrote: If you are going to compare, do it honestly. We are. Yep.
{snark}
Clearly comparing objective fact to objective fact is not the same as wanting to justify an emotional dislike of 4e by misrepresentation and obfuscation. By bringing in facts you and I seem to be removing the possibility of a fair comparison which seems to be classified by some as a less than honest comparison.
Go figure.
{/snark}
Am I right in thinking that in 4e you don't run out of bolts for crossbows? If that is true then it seems like they have made the mundane, magical. When everyone (or everything) is special, then none of it is.
crosswiredmind wrote: Polaris wrote: Then play a warlock. Now, that said, I've always hated the Vancian system too (or so-called Vancian system since the old style DnD system wasn't exactly true to the Jack Vance fiction). I've always preferred how other systems handled magic by limiting access via mana points, fatigue, ect.
The point is, however, that the difference between firing arrows in 3E and using "magic missile" in 4E is a difference that makes no real difference.
If you want to roll play it may make no difference in your opinion (though in 4e rolling to hit reflex is a big difference compared to 3e to hit ac, oh and 2d4+INT MOD is better damage than the 3e bow thing too, oh yeah - and it rolls against every critter in a square so it may be used to hit multiple targets, oh - and it can be used as a basic ranged attack so the party warlord can trigger it as well, and finally it is just one of FIVE possible at-will powers you can pick from), but (or should that be AND) if you want to role play it makes a world of difference.
And why should a warlock be any more magical a class than wizard? Observation:
Creatures in 4E often have more Hit Points than their 3.5 counterparts (unless they're 4E minions). Not having the 4E monster manual though, I can't put any sort of estimate on how many successful hits with 2d4+Int it would take to bring down a 4E adversary on average, as compared to the 3.5 numbers.
pres man wrote: Am I right in thinking that in 4e you don't run out of bolts for crossbows? If that is true then it seems like they have made the mundane, magical. When everyone (or everything) is special, then none of it is. Nope - you can easily run out of ammo. Unfortunately, like 3e, 2e, 2e, and Oe people seem forget to track it quite frequently.
Charles Evans 25 wrote: Observation:
Creatures in 4E often have more Hit Points than their 3.5 counterparts (unless they're 4E minions). Not having the 4E monster manual though, I can't put any sort of estimate on how many successful hits with 2d4+Int it would take to bring down a 4E adversary on average, as compared to the 3.5 numbers.
Well ... at DragonCon our wizard picked up this annoying habit of getting the last lick in on just about every critter we faced.
pres man wrote: Am I right in thinking that in 4e you don't run out of bolts for crossbows? If that is true then it seems like they have made the mundane, magical. When everyone (or everything) is special, then none of it is. Nope, 20 bolts for 1 gold piece.
Charles Evans 25 wrote: Observation:
Creatures in 4E often have more Hit Points than their 3.5 counterparts (unless they're 4E minions). Not having the 4E monster manual though, I can't put any sort of estimate on how many successful hits with 2d4+Int it would take to bring down a 4E adversary on average, as compared to the 3.5 numbers.
Oh, creatures certainly died a lot quicker in D&D 3.5. They had very few hit points at lower levels and could easily be picked off in one swing of a greatsword. That's one of the ways in which 4th Edition combat is so much improved - fights actually last an entertaining amount of time, even at low and high levels.
For reference, a 1st-level Goblin Warrior has 29 hit points in 4th Edition. At 2d4 + 4 damage per hit (9 damage average), it would take around four successful hits to kill.
Polaris wrote: Like the 4E wizard is any better? Basically the crossbow has been replaced by magic missile (or cloud of daggers for a high wis wizard), with about the same damage and about the same chance to hit.
You may call it magic but I don't. I fail to see the difference between the low level 3.5 wizard and 4E wizard when it comes to "only being able to cast a specific number of spells to be combat relevant".
I will indeed call it magic, and enjoy having my wizard able to hurl magic rather than feel like a commoner 90% of the time. More than that, I'll enjoy the fact that my spells are effective, unlike the 3.5 wizard's attempts to use a crossbow.
Polaris wrote: As for enlarging the fighter, or helping out of combat, I get a kick out of it. Also spells like colour spray or sleep can completely alter the course of a low level battle. Well worth it and very worthwhile. Well, yes - but as we said, the 3.5 wizard was forced into a very small subset of effective spells (buffs and debuffs) since damage spells were largely useless at low levels. That is poor design.
Polaris wrote: You (and the 4E designers) seem to think that you have to go 'rah, rah, rah' every round to have fun. It's just not so. No, they feel like players should have that option. Sure, you can enjoy the extremely limited role a low-level 3.5 wizard has - but most people don't, and they shouldn't be forced to play that way just because you enjoy it.
Polaris wrote: As opposed to being ineffective except one time per day and then firing off at-wills that are no better (and frequently worse) than weapon attacks....and missing more often than not? An Int 16 wizard, in 4E, against the average Non-AC Defense (13), hits on a 10 - which is to say, 55%, which is to say, he hits more often than not. He no longer worries about every enemy in melee having cover, along with the normal penalty for shooting into a melee. Thus far, I've found wizard at-wills to be perfectly effective - though I will concede that Keep on the Shadowfell was poorly thought out for showing it, as it was packed with critters with high Reflex. Once I saw sessions run in more environment, the wizard seems perfectly effective.
Polaris wrote:
That's Gandolf! Gandolf seldom used his magic but when he did, it was hellishly effective. A low level 3.5 Wizard can most definately do this.
But again - why should they have to be forced to play like this, with Color Spray and Sleep as their only spells? And lets be honest, Gandalf was still quite effective when not throwing spells around, which 3.5 low level wizards are most certainly not.
Polaris wrote: It's not 5,000 gp over mage armor. Mage armor as the spell is overrated. Compare with sixteen thousand for bracers of armor +4 since both are permanent items.
If you are going to compare, do it honestly.
Wait a moment. You claim that Mage Armor is overrated. Your proof as to why it is overrated is how good you feel your Twilight Mithril Armor is. You then refuse to compare it to Mage Armor, since you have already stated Mage Armor is overrated. This seems somewhat... circular.
The truth of the matter? Bracers of Armor are vastly overcosted, and Mage Armor is quite good. Twilight Mithril Armor is also quite good, but at different levels and for different reasons.
When can a character first have your 5,000 gp armor? Going by the tables for starting gold, and the assumption a character won't have items worth more than half their total value, level 6 would appear to be the best spot for it.
At level 6, a character has 13,000 gp to spend. A possible shopping list:
4,000 gp: Headband of Intellect +2
5,100 gp: Mithril Twilight Armor +1
2,000 gp: Ring of Protection +1
1,000 gp: Cloak of Resistance +1
900 gp: Miscellaneous scrolls, potions, etc.
Now, at level 6, we can get through the adventuring day with one extend Mage Armor, or two normal castings of Mage Armor. We might even be able to get through most encounters with a single casting of the spell. So Mage Armor, at this point, is costing us one or two first level spell slots. In return for that, what can we gain for the 5,100 gp?
Option 1:
2,000 gp: Pearl of Power (1st Level) x 2
3,000 gp: Rod of Lesser Extend
So, we end up down 1 AC, but between the Rod and the Pearls of Power, we gain one spell-slot and two extra uses of Extend. The downside is that we don't have the Mage Armor active if we get jumped in the night. Not a clear winner, but I'd say that both options seem perfectly viable.
Option 2:
2,000 gp: Amulet of Natural Armor +1
2,009 gp: Mithril Light Shield +1
1,000 gp: Pearl of Power (1st level)
So, in this instance, we end up 2 AC behind when Mage Armor is down, and 2 AC up when Mage Armor is up. With the Pearl of Power, a single slot devoted to Mage Armor will get us through the adventuring day.
Again, what I'm trying to emphasize here is that there can be reasons for either using Mage Armor or using the Mithril Shirt.
Polaris, you continue to have this outlook that only one option can be acceptable, and that all other options must be *terrible* in comparison. And I just don't understand it - looking at the numbers, clearly Mage Armor is at least competitive with a Mithril Shirt. But your only argument is to dismiss it as vastly overrated, while sidestepping the argument as to precisely *why* that is the case.
If you have a wizard who enjoys wearing a Mithril Shirt? More power to you - it isn't a bad thing to do so. But trying to wave your hand and dismiss every wizard that does not as poorly designed is both inaccurate and, honestly, somewhat insulting.
pres man wrote: Am I right in thinking that in 4e you don't run out of bolts for crossbows? If that is true then it seems like they have made the mundane, magical. When everyone (or everything) is special, then none of it is. I really hate that quote being applied here, because it was an awesome line in an awesome movie that is being thoroughly misused in application here.
First off, what makes the adventurers special is being adventurers. Being heroes, as distinct from the common folk, who don't get to slay kobold raiding parties with greatswords or unleash arcane power upon their foes. The wizard isn't made special by only being able to cast one spell a day - that makes him more mundane! The fighter doesn't need to be made special by having him outshine the wizard at low levels, and the wizard isn't made special by outshining the fighter at high levels. In fact, no character should need to be made special by making them better than another character - they should simply be better than the common folk, which is all that is needed to establish them as heroes!
Secondly, you still track ammo in 4E, by the core rules. Which is to say, 90% of games will ignore doing so, but the rules most certainly still list ammo in finite and tangible amounts.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: pres man wrote: Am I right in thinking that in 4e you don't run out of bolts for crossbows? If that is true then it seems like they have made the mundane, magical. When everyone (or everything) is special, then none of it is. I really hate that quote being applied here, because it was an awesome line in an awesome movie that is being thoroughly misused in application here. I would like to add that every game of 4e I have played has had plenty of moments where individual PCs stood out because of their class, their role, their skill choices, their backgrounds, and the players ability to roleplay.
4e is not some LCD homogenous blob of a game - it has plenty of variety and diversity.
There is universal concensus in the Char-Op community that Greater Mage Armor (and Mage Armor) are better?
Odd, I hang out in that community and brilliantgameologists and I've never heard that.
The fact is that using Greater Mage Armor takes a spell-slot (and third level slots are valuable!). What's worse, AC defense in general is greatly inferior to other sorts of defenses.
You are much better off with a ONE TIME investment in 0% ASF armor that is useful the entire career of your character...but I guess you don't believe in investments (Scott Betts and others).
I suppose by that standard blessed books are a bad idea too.
ROTFLMAO!
-Polaris
Edit PS:
Matthew, here's the differnce. With the twilight shirt, I have armor that's good for the entire wizard's career which means I get to have BOTH option 1 and option 2. OTOH, the others are burning XP and Cash which means they have less at all levels. You need to factor in the long term economic trade as well.
Polaris wrote: There is universal concensus in the Char-Op community that Greater Mage Armor (and Mage Armor) are better?
Odd, I hang out in that community and brilliantgameologists and I've never heard that.
The fact is that using Greater Mage Armor takes a spell-slot (and third level slots are valuable!). What's worse, AC defense in general is greatly inferior to other sorts of defenses.
You are much better off with a ONE TIME investment in 0% ASF armor that is useful the entire career of your character...but I guess you don't believe in investments (Scott Betts and others).
I suppose by that standard blessed books are a bad idea too.
ROTFLMAO!
-Polaris
Polaris,
Go back to char op and ask how many people subscribe to LN's theory of Wizard play. Then go read LN's guidebook. Then come back here. I'll wait.
Polaris wrote: Matthew, here's the differnce. With the twilight shirt, I have armor that's good for the entire wizard's career which means I get to have BOTH option 1 and option 2. OTOH, the others are burning XP and Cash which means they have less at all levels. You need to factor in the long term economic trade as well. Polaris, honestly, your post reads like nonsense. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say, and you certainly don't seem to have even read my post or responded to it in a legitimate fashion. My questions for you:
1) You get to have BOTH option 1 and option 2? How - both of those are alternate things one could purchase with the 5,000 gp you spent on your armor. Are you saying you would go on, at later levels, to buy those in addition to the armor? Well, sure - but the wizard casting Mage Armor will still be 5,000 gp ahead of you, and buying other useful and relevant items.
Eventually, yes, you probably come out ahead - but not till pretty high levels, which is when I said your armor is useful anyway. Assuming you aren't doing extensive Polymorphing/Shapechanging.
2) The others are burning XP and Cash? Who is? Nothing in my post remotely dealt with using or crafting consumables. Just, say, casting Mage Armor, and spending my extra 5,000 gp on useful items.
3) "Long term economic trade?" I know you love padding your posts with buzzwords and phrases that sound cool, but could you explain a bit more what you mean by this? Because I have absolutely no idea.
Are you saying you are more profitable because you've spent more money? That the 5,000 gp you invested in your magic armor is somehow stimulating the economy and yielding rich returns?
Seriously, what is that line supposed to mean?
4) In conclusion: At the levels at which your Mithril Twilight Chain Shirt is affordable, Mage Armor's duration is relevant enough to be sustained throughout most of the day. The only cost to doing so is the expenditure of one or two first level spell slots. The ability to extend the spell - either through the feat or through a Metamagic Rod - reduces your need to a single first level spell slot, or lets you use two and be protected 24 hours long.
The difference in protection is a single point of AC - and, since you haven't spent 5,000 gp on the armor, there remain any number of other AC boosting items to make up the difference.
At higher levels, the Mithril Armor can pull ahead in total AC, as they can now also afford all the minor AC boosts available, and can additional put other protective enchantments on their armor. On the other hand, your 1st level spell slots are even less of a sacrifice, and the duration of Mage Armor is even longer. By this point, in fact, you can even afford to use a 3rd level spell slot to cast Greater Mage Armor, thus potentially pulling ahead in total AC.
In the end, however, the difference comes down to a single point of AC in either direction, and the trade-off of one or two spell slots vs 5,000 gp or so. Which cost is more significant is going to wildly change from character to character, build to build, level to level.
Claiming that either choice is the 'absolute best' is pretty absurd, regardless of which side is making that claim. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and neither option is so far from the other as to make the decision a matter of such grand importance.
Matthew Koelbl wrote: The only cost to doing so is the expenditure of one or two first level spell slots. The ability to extend the spell - either through the feat or through a Metamagic Rod - reduces your need to a single first level spell slot, or lets you use two and be protected 24 hours long. Just to nitpick, it would require a 2nd level slot to use the extend feat with mage armor.
Scott Betts wrote: Polaris,
Go back to char op and ask how many people subscribe to LN's theory of Wizard play. Then go read LN's guidebook. Then come back here. I'll wait.
Link it or forget it. I've hung out at Char-Op for years (about eight) and this is the first I've heard of "LN's handbook". I have heard of Squirelloid's, Ninja's, and of course TM20's and none of these state what you are stating about mage armor.
I am not saying that mage-armor doesn't have it's place or isn't useful for a first level wizard. I am sayng it's overrated.
Twilight shirts are about the best deal in the game for a wizard for his entire career.
-Polaris
pres man wrote: Just to nitpick, it would require a 2nd level slot to use the extend feat with mage armor. Nit pick to your nitpick, but if he's using the rod (which is 3000!!!! gold), he gets to use his first level slot. Of course for that same 3000, I could have my twilight shirt.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote: pres man wrote: Just to nitpick, it would require a 2nd level slot to use the extend feat with mage armor. Nit pick to your nitpick, but if he's using the rod (which is 3000!!!! gold), he gets to use his first level slot. Of course for that same 3000, I could have my twilight shirt. Both nitpicks are correct. ;) I mentioned both the rod and the feat, but my summary only mentioned the use of the rod, so my bad on that.
And Polaris - note that was exactly what I was saying, that the rod could easily be a replacement for the money you spent on your shirt. And that the purchase of the rod would leave enough left over to make up the AC difference - and that, personally, I would find the rod itself a far more versatile and useful item for the wizard in the long run.
Mathew,
Actually, craft arms and armor comes very early for most wizards (same as the improved mage armor) and if you don't mind the 160XP cost (which obviously the scroll burners don't care about), that twilight shirt only costs 2000 to enchant for a total of 3100 gold. Your rod alone (which can't be crafted until much later in the wizard's career...and unlike craft arms/armor, craft rod is not a good feat) costs almost this much let alone the rest of what you are talking about.
I mean what I say when I say that wizards are perfectly good archers at low levels AND the twilight chain shirt is probably one of the best if not the best deal in the game for a wizard. Certainly a wizard should take the shirt before even considering bracers of armor!
-Polaris
Matthew Koelbl wrote: And Polaris - note that was exactly what I was saying, that the rod could easily be a replacement for the money you spent on your shirt. And that the purchase of the rod would leave enough left over to make up the AC difference - and that, personally, I would find the rod itself a far more versatile and useful item for the wizard in the long run. Disagree about the rod. Metamagic rods are great, but extend is lame. There are much better metamagic rods for lower level spells than extend because by the time you get the rod (as you noted yourself) the spells last long enough that you don't need it.
I, however, have an armor platform (i.e. an INVESTMENT) that will last me until the end of my wizard career and NEVER goes away.
I think it's pretty clear which is better.
-Polaris
P.S. If you don't think that monsters don't use dispell magic and the like, think again. Unlike PCs who have to husband resources, it's worth it for monster/npc casters to hit the entire party with an area dispell magic just as a matter of course (or hit the wizard with a targeted one) since they (the monsters) can burn their slots all at once. In addition NPC casters generally have HIGHER caster levels than PCs which makes the dispell tactic hellishly effective.
Edit PPS:
What it comes down to is this? Which is better, a twlight mithril chain shirt for 5100 (or 3100 if you craft it), or spending a third level slot for Improved Mage Armor. The 3.5 DMG answers this question rather dramatically. The COST of a third level slot in money is 9000 gold which means to make up the slot for Improved Mage Armor, you have to spend about 4000 more than I do for the shirt and that's assuming I didn't craft it. The shirt seems to be clearly the better deal.
pres man wrote: Am I right in thinking that in 4e you don't run out of bolts for crossbows? If that is true then it seems like they have made the mundane, magical. When everyone (or everything) is special, then none of it is. Technically you do run out - though I don't know any DM that enforces that for mundane ammunition in either 3.5 or 4E. Its just not really worth the time as it adds so little to the game.
Polaris wrote: pres man wrote: Just to nitpick, it would require a 2nd level slot to use the extend feat with mage armor. Nit pick to your nitpick, but if he's using the rod (which is 3000!!!! gold), he gets to use his first level slot. Of course for that same 3000, I could have my twilight shirt.
-Polaris If you're a fifth level Wizard giving up his Lesser Metamagic Rod of Extend for a Twilight Chain Shirt, you need to stop and rethink your life for a few moments.
LN's guide is at http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18500
I shouldn't need to point out where he discusses Mage Armor ("What mage doesn't take it?") and Greater Mage Armor ("at higher levels, replace Mage Armor with this, even if it costs a little money.")
Polaris wrote: Actually, craft arms and armor comes very early for most wizards (same as the improved mage armor) and if you don't mind the 160XP cost (which obviously the scroll burners don't care about), that twilight shirt only costs 2000 to enchant for a total of 3100 gold. Your rod alone (which can't be crafted until much later in the wizard's career...and unlike craft arms/armor, craft rod is not a good feat) costs almost this much let alone the rest of what you are talking about. I think Craft Arms and Armor is a pretty uncommon feat for a wizard to have. Not unknown, sure - but Craft Wondrous is a far better investment, and there are many much more useful feats that the majority of wizards will take first.
Honestly, you are doing a great job at weakening your own argument. 5,100 gp for a Mithril Twilight Shirt is a decent investment - that was something I readily accepted as a reasonable claim! Invested 3,100 gp and a feat for it, on the other hand, is a terrible deal.
Would you care to respond to, say, any of my other points, namely the requests for clarification about your previous nonsense post?
Polaris wrote: I mean what I say when I say that wizards are perfectly good archers at low levels AND the twilight chain shirt is probably one of the best if not the best deal in the game for a wizard. Certainly a wizard should take the shirt before even considering bracers of armor! Claiming you "mean what you say" doesn't prove your point. Nor does throwing up completely irrational arguments as straw-men! Not a single person was claiming Bracers of Armor were a better deal than the shirt - it is a terrible magic item for wizards, since they can already cast Mage Armor.
Polaris wrote: Disagree about the rod. Metamagic rods are great, but extend is lame. There are much better metamagic rods for lower level spells than extend because by the time you get the rod (as you noted yourself) the spells last long enough that you don't need it. Ok, I think you've lost all credibility with that statement. Lesser Rods of Extend are one of the most popular items for spellcasters, period.
The reason is this:
1) At mid-levels, it lets one casting of hour/level spells last all of the adventuring day, or two castings cover a full 24 hours. At higher levels, it gets even better, eventually letting you cast some spells every other day!
2) It lets 10 min/level spells get a vast increase in use, suddenly now covering several hours in duration - enough to last through generally the most important part of the adventuring day.
3) It lets rd/level spells last for a more useful amount of time. Some combats this will matter, others it will not - but in a slower encounter, 6 rounds of Haste isn't enough, but 12 rounds will definitely last the battle.
There are very, very, very few items as effective for the cost. Track down the fellows you regard as 3.5 wizard gurus, and make the claim that the Rod of Lesser Extend is lame. See how they feel about that claim.
Polaris wrote: I, however, have an armor platform (i.e. an INVESTMENT) that will last me until the end of my wizard career and NEVER goes away. Does my ability to cast Mage Armor goes away? You keep saying the word investment, and I'm not sure what you mean by it - can you cash in your armor later for extra gp?
If you mean it is more reliable than a casting of Mage Armor, then yes, this is true. Which is why it costs money, and Mage Armor does not. And it has its own vulnerabilities, though admittedly rust monsters and acid oozes are less common than Dispel Magics.
Polaris wrote: What it comes down to is this? Which is better, a twlight mithril chain shirt for 5100 (or 3100 if you craft it), or spending a third level slot for Improved Mage Armor. The 3.5 DMG answers this question rather dramatically. The COST of a third level slot in money is 9000 gold which means to make up the slot for Improved Mage Armor, you have to spend about 4000 more than I do for the shirt and that's assuming I didn't craft it. The shirt seems to be clearly the better deal. Again, you are putting up a pretty deceptive comparison. Why not compare a casting of Mage Armor, a 1st level spell, which comes out to 1,000 gp? Spend your remaining cash on 2,000 gp for an Amulet of Natural Armor +1, and our AC comes out equal! Indeed, I'm now ahead 2,000 gp or a feat, either one of which is a nice trade.
Your armor isn't a bad choice, sure. As I said before, there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides. But claiming that the Twilight Mithril Shirt is so good that nothing else comes close - indeed, your absolutely ludicrous claim that it might be the best deal a wizard ever sees... well, that is simply absurd.
Are you guys done arguing about 3.5 cause it's clogging up the 4e board :-)
crosswiredmind wrote: Are you guys done arguing about 3.5 cause it's clogging up the 4e board :-) Haha, you're right. It's been such a long time since I've had a 3.5 char op discussion though.
Scott Betts wrote: Charles Evans 25 wrote: Observation:
Creatures in 4E often have more Hit Points than their 3.5 counterparts (unless they're 4E minions). Not having the 4E monster manual though, I can't put any sort of estimate on how many successful hits with 2d4+Int it would take to bring down a 4E adversary on average, as compared to the 3.5 numbers.
Oh, creatures certainly died a lot quicker in D&D 3.5. They had very few hit points at lower levels and could easily be picked off in one swing of a greatsword. That's one of the ways in which 4th Edition combat is so much improved - fights actually last an entertaining amount of time, even at low and high levels.
For reference, a 1st-level Goblin Warrior has 29 hit points in 4th Edition. At 2d4 + 4 damage per hit (9 damage average), it would take around four successful hits to kill. If you call, "We've been fighting for 20 rounds and things still won't die. When will it end?" an "entertaining" amount of time than 4E does do that. I call it monotonous and boring. I don't want everything to die anticlimatically in the first round, but the 20 round snorefests of spamming at-wills that happens all too often in low level 4E combat is not desirable either.
WotC's Nightmare wrote: Scott Betts wrote: Charles Evans 25 wrote: Observation:
Creatures in 4E often have more Hit Points than their 3.5 counterparts (unless they're 4E minions). Not having the 4E monster manual though, I can't put any sort of estimate on how many successful hits with 2d4+Int it would take to bring down a 4E adversary on average, as compared to the 3.5 numbers.
Oh, creatures certainly died a lot quicker in D&D 3.5. They had very few hit points at lower levels and could easily be picked off in one swing of a greatsword. That's one of the ways in which 4th Edition combat is so much improved - fights actually last an entertaining amount of time, even at low and high levels.
For reference, a 1st-level Goblin Warrior has 29 hit points in 4th Edition. At 2d4 + 4 damage per hit (9 damage average), it would take around four successful hits to kill. If you call, "We've been fighting for 20 rounds and things still won't die. When will it end?" an "entertaining" amount of time than 4E does do that. I call it monotonous and boring. I don't want everything to die anticlimatically in the first round, but the 20 round snorefests of spamming at-wills that happens all too often in low level 4E combat is not desirable either. I've run a number of games in two separate groups in 4th Edition, played in a different one, and a half-dozen LFR adventures. I'm having difficulty recalling even one combat that lasted more than 10 rounds.
<head-scratch> Is mithral armour in 3.5 susceptible to rust monsters?
Edit:
Never mind. Question already considered... Should have checked everything before I posted. :D
WotC's Nightmare wrote: If you call, "We've been fighting for 20 rounds and things still won't die. When will it end?" an "entertaining" amount of time than 4E does do that. I call it monotonous and boring. I don't want everything to die anticlimatically in the first round, but the 20 round snorefests of spamming at-wills that happens all too often in low level 4E combat is not desirable either. I have rarely seen a 4E combat go beyond 10 rounds. At low levels, 6 or so seems to be about right. 6 rounds of combat - with a variety of different attacks for characters to perform throughout - is, indeed, much more fun than the 6 second combats of the past.
I can understand your worry - I don't think a 20 round snorefest would be especially exciting, either. But I haven't seen it actually happen, and I've been playing a good bit of 4E.
crosswiredmind wrote: Are you guys done arguing about 3.5 cause it's clogging up the 4e board :-) Yeah, fair enough. :P I'm not even sure how the topic of discussion got dragged onto such a tangential point, to be honest!
Just to post an experience, I have had 4e combats last a lot of rounds, 20+ on multiple occasions.
Perhaps its more a symptom of dice rolls than anything else. Though I would have to say, this is true for both 3.5 and 4e. If the players are rolling hot, that combat is never going to last as long as you think.
Scott Betts wrote: crosswiredmind wrote: Are you guys done arguing about 3.5 cause it's clogging up the 4e board :-) Haha, you're right. It's been such a long time since I've had a 3.5 char op discussion though. Yeah we can ... I mean, it has been fun. :D
Paul Watson wrote: This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.
You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.
*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*
:::Runs for Cover:::
|
