|
That's because all the classes are the same :)If you believe that "the same" is a synonym for "unique" then I would would agree with you.
However, this would be at odds with the conventional definition of "the same" in the English language.
So I must conclude that you either have no clue about 4e, or the English language.
From last time I played 4e, I tend to agree with him.
The classes play very similarly, and there simply aren't enough options.
Likewise, you lose your options 10 levels after you get them, so you only ever have 3 combat options at a time.
Because Rogues are supposed to be the best at hurting opponents who can't defend themself efficiently (fanked, flat-footed, etc.), they are not supposed to be the best at killing things in a fair fight, that's the Fighter job.
That's the theory. It's a reasonable theory.
Problem is, in practice, the fighter outperforms the rogue even in an UNfair fight.
In 2E, finding a trap wouldn't help you very much if you were unable to disarm it. Casting fly on all the party members to skip over a single trap is not what I call effective ressources management.
That's a good point. Things are actually worse for the 2E thief than I was implying because of it because the magic penalty applies to removing the trap as well.
2E thief encounters a dangerous magic trap (because if it's not pretty deadly, finding it isn't that important, right? Yeah, there's other kinds of traps. Bear with me for this example.) We'll say he's, oh, a 20somethingth level thief with all the thief skills at 95%, including find/remove traps. That's a ridiculously high level character, because really a thief with a tough but fair DM isn't going to live that long, but again, bear with me. Because it's a magical trap, he halves his skill. 47% chance to find it. Assuming he succeeds at that, 47% chance to remove it. If he fails either of those rolls, probably the trap kills him -- and he's got a 72% chance to fail one of them. Mask help the poor bastard if he's actually something more realistic like a level 3 thief with 40% base in that skill.
2E cleric encounters a dangerous magic trap, assuming he's done the smart thing and casts find traps as he enters the dungeon. 100% chance to find it. Now, you're right, he may not be able to avoid the trap without burning additional resources -- but "I'm out of spells, we need to run for it." is almost always a better option than "72% chance to die doing the thing you're best at that theoretically justifies your existence."
And let's not forget that F/RT automatically fails on large mechanical traps for some reason.
Oh, and the devs "knew" that the Thief was a crappy class, so they gave him a fast level progression to make up for it.
Sure did. We can admit that was a terrible idea in retrospect, can't we?
Level 12 Wizard: I can Disintegrate my enemies, leaving no trace of them behind, or turn them permanently to statues (Stone to Flesh) at my whim!
Level 13 Rogue: Oh yeah? Well, with the same amount of XP, I get to be level 13. That puts me into x5 Backstab country! Which, since it doesn't multiply any possible damage bonus I could have, means I could deal something like 20-30 points of damage in one shot!
Level 12 Wizard: My spells do more damage than that to everything in the room when you make the save!
i would agree with Cheapy here, in 4th ed all the classes ARE the same. They do damage...or they do damage. Little variation.That's because all the classes are the same :)That's where the ultimate search for balance gets you...
In 3e all classes roll a d20. Little variation.
From last time I played 4e, I tend to agree with him.
The classes play very similarly, and there simply aren't enough options
I literally cannot imagine someone being so bad at 4e that they play a shield warrior (attach yourself at the hip to the enemies and refuse to let them get past you) the same way they play a rogue (constantly dodge and twist around enemies to get combat advantage and lay a bevy of debilitating effects on them as you backstab them) the same way you play a wizard (stay away from the melee and either focus artillery blasts on clumped groups of minions or low HP enemies or control and debuff the big guys so the rest of the party can hit/doesn't get hit) the same way you play a warlord (either stand side by side with the warrior and reposition yourself, your allies, and the enemies to ensure it never gets a break, or stand in the back and bark commands as your minio - I mean beloved allies of course do all the work).
My only conclusion is "Why do you lie?"
On the other hand you have the degrees of variance in 3e, such as the warrior that charges and full attacks, the barbarian that charges and full attacks, the ranger that either stands still and full attack with a bow or moves up without charging and then full attack, the rogue who flanks and full attacks, or the paladin who full attacks and is extra good at full attacking when fighting an evil enemy.
Also nobody in their right mind made a single class thief in previous editions. The rogue has sorta always been pooped on (until 4e where they own)
|
|
I literally cannot imagine someone being so bad at 4e that they play a shield warrior (attach yourself at the hip to the enemies and refuse to let them get past you) the same way they play a rogue (constantly dodge and twist around enemies to get combat advantage and lay a bevy of debilitating effects on them as you backstab them) the same way you play a wizard (stay away from the melee and either focus artillery blasts on clumped groups of minions or low HP enemies or control and debuff the big guys so the rest of the party can hit/doesn't get hit) the same way you play a warlord (either stand side by side with the warrior and reposition yourself, your allies, and the enemies to ensure it never gets a break, or stand in the back and bark commands as your minio - I mean beloved allies of course do all the work).
My only conclusion is "Why do you lie?"
On the other hand you have the degrees of variance in 3e, such as the warrior that charges and full attacks, the barbarian that charges and full attacks, the ranger that either stands still and full attack with a bow or moves up without charging and then full attack, the rogue who flanks and full attacks, or the paladin who full attacks and is extra good at full attacking when fighting an evil enemy.
At any given point you have 3 options of each type (at will, encounter, daily). (That is, once you get them). Then you stop getting new abilities, and instead get the ability to swap one out or upgrade it.
The system isnt very open, so you can always only do -precisely whats on the power card-
And for spellcasters: As for spells, they took out pretty much all the spells I actually liked and replaced them with AoEs and Rays (which I never take at all); so all mages are blasters.
Actually.Heres probably a more apt description: Characters within a class play much more similarly to eachother, and characters are strictly stuck in a role which tends to play very similarly. And your character plays the same today as it did yesterday as it will tomorrow. you dont have enough spare abilities to mix it up much.
I get that other people like 4e. My experience is I found it bland in comparison to every other RPG I've tried.
Good stuff.
Yeah, I must admit that I never really played a Thief in 2E, only played countless of them in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 because GOD they were useful in those games, and it might have corrupted my jugement (because those games are far from the real thing). I forgot about the part were you didn't multiply your bonus on a backstab (they did in BG) and the 50% penalty with magic traps. 2E is such a long time ago. :\
When I think about it, the only thing I remember Thiefs being good at back in those days was to put the party in trouble by failing a pickpocket roll. :P
Back then I was too young to understand, but now I get why, in the cartoon "Reboot", the lead character is transformed into a Thief with a butter knife as his only weapon when he and his friends are absorbed into a Sword & Sorcery video game. XD
Also nobody in their right mind made a single class thief in previous editions. The rogue has sorta always been pooped on (until 4e where they own)
4E sounds great! I would really like to try it one day. Maybe I'll get some books for cheap on eBay when 5E will be on store shelves. One of my fellow gamer who tried it told me it was bad, but he likes Stargate SG1, so I don't put too much faith in his opinions. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At any given point you have 3 options of each type (at will, encounter, daily). (That is, once you get them). Then you stop getting new abilities, and instead get the ability to swap one out or upgrade it.
The system isnt very open, so you can always only do -precisely whats on the power card-
No, you can do lots of cool stuff that aren't powers. They're called stunts, and 4e very explicitly has better stuff for it then 4e does. I understand that in 3e - and really only in 3e - there's this idea that you can only do things that are explicitly given rules, but that's a strange 3e-ism, not something that's universal.
And for spellcasters: As for spells, they took out pretty much all the spells I actually liked and replaced them with AoEs and Rays (which I never take at all); so all mages are blasters.
Rituals.
Actually.Heres probably a more apt description: Characters within a class play much more similarly to eachother, and characters are strictly stuck in a role which tends to play very similarly. And your character plays the same today as it did yesterday as it will tomorrow. you dont have enough spare abilities to mix it up much.
Again, this describes 3e far more then it describes 4e. A grappling fighter plays starkly different from a two hand weapon using fighter who plays different from a sword and board fighter who plays different from a tempest fighter. An archery ranger plays starkly different from a two weapon ranger plays starkly different from a beastmaster ranger. A guardian druid plays starkly different from a predator druid, and none of this even touches multiclassing or hybrids or variations within those variations. A guardian druid that focuses on summoning plays different from a guardian druid that doesn't.
While in 3e, a two weapon warrior charges and full attacks, a sword and board warrior charges and full attacks, and two handed warrior charges and full attacks. And a two weapon barbarian charges and full attacks. And a two handed weapon barbarian charges and full attacks. Because every non-caster class in 3e is based around full attacking. Even full-casters like the cleric charge and full attack, they just buff themselves before doing so.
So my question remains: why do you lie? Even a rudimentary game of 4e would at the very least illustrate the differences in playstyles between classes, and once you actually examine the powers and how different classes can specialize themselves, it because very readily apparent that there's playstyle differences in the classes themselves. So why do you lie?
I mean hell, at the very least, ALL 4e classes have Utility powers that explicitly do not do damage or attack enemies.
Asking why someone is lying is pretty low.
I mean, you're putting yourself in the same group that says WotC lied about 4E being developed.
No, because I have actual evidence here in this very thread.
Doesn't matter. Each character gets X gold from adventuring. The wizard spends X/2 on crafting scrolls, the rogue spends X on buying scrolls. The wizard can create twice as much as the rogue can buy.The wizard is creating his own scrolls at half cost while the rogue is buying them full cost when he can find them. The wizard still comes out ahead.Crafting doesn't effect WBL. You get X gold worth the items, no matter what source they're from.
And the rogue can steal a major artifact for free. That doesn't mean you don't add the full market price to WBL to determine what other trinkets you'll find.
Just as you can assume the wizard gets to craft them for half and NOT add their full value, you can assume the rogue steals them and NOT add their full value.
Scribing scrolls is much easier than stealing artifacts.
Just as you can assume the wizard gets to craft them for half and NOT add their full value, you can assume the rogue steals them and NOT add their full value.
Well, I exaggerated, but my point still stands: Wealth by level is for determining how much wealth a character has at a given level, not for determining how much gold he spent to achieve that wealth. Otherwise no loot would go to it, just stuff that's bought/crafted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Know what? Talk is cheap. Let's show it.
I and my buddy Mystia are both gonna make the same character because we're bros, and bros stick together, so we both decide to make a Magus. First off is Pathfinder.
So, I make a dexterity Magus - a kensai at that, since we're gonna use archtypes to REALLY stretch out our imagination. I want great dexterity and intelligence, so I'm going to make it an elf. My elf magus has high dexterity and intelligence but isn't so hot elsewhere; we'll take the admittingly cookie cutter build of 11, 18, 11, 16, 10, 7, I take Weapon Finesse, and being an elf means I'm a bit better at bypassing spell resistance, I've got some immunities, and a fancy +2 to perception. Now I want to use a longsword but...well, can't. So I go with a scimitar instead. Well, a rapier for now - at level 3 I can finally switch over to my scimitar. For now I use a rapier.
Mystia goes for STRENGTH and decides to be a human, so she goes for 17, 12, 15, 14, 8, 7, and takes TOUGHNESS as her first feat because BEING TOUGH OWNS. Because she's a human she'll also take Improved Initiative. She was eying Power Attack but is holding off for now due to the penalty to her attacks from spell combat, and this ensures I don't have an upper hand in initiative. That gives her a nice HP advantage over me, and she does more damage, if a bit less accurate. On the other hand I have better AC and can use my longbow.
So, there are the differences between my Magus and Mystia's. I have less HP and damage, but more AC and accuracy, and I can use my longbow better. I also have low-light vision whereas she does not.
Now we make Swordmages.
This time we switch places - I want to be burly and awesome so I make an Assault Swordmage, while Mystia goes for a Shielding Swordmage. So at the very least, I want better strength while Mystia wants better constitution. Flipping through my options I notice a lot of strength-modifier oriented powers use fire, so I decide to give my swordmage a gimmick - she's going to be big on fire, loves the stuff, very rambunctious, you know the stereotype, and I make her a Tiefling. Mystia on the other hand wants to play something of my opposite, so contrary to my firy assault swordmage, so she makes a cool and collected Eladrin (basically a high-elf).
This means before anything else that when I mark a target, if they attack someone else, I teleport next to them and smack them for it. With Mystia on the other hand, if that marked enemy attacks someone that isn't her, she shields them, reducing the damage done by 5+con modifier.
Additionally, I have a bonus to bluff and stealth (one will be handy, the other...look she ain't gonna be very quiet), a bonus to hit bloodied enemies, fire resistance, and once per encounter, whenever a baddie hits me, my demonic blood reacts explosively (literally) doing fire damage to them. Mystia, on the other hand, has low-light vision, a skill bonus to Arcana and History, an additional skill, and some standard high-elfy-stuff (bonus to will and against charm spells, counts as a fey creature, trances instead of sleeps. She can also, once per encounter, blink in and out of the Feywilde, teleporting her 30 squares.
Now we get into the gritty. First comes our at-wills. We both take Sword Burst because it owns, but I get Greenfire Blade to fit my whole "fire" thing, while she gets Luring Strike, which she thinks better fits the sort of methodical and cunning attitude her swordmage has. For my encounter, I take Flame Cyclone for what should be obvious reasons by now. She, on the other hand, takes Sword of Sigils, which gives her a small bonus due to being a Shielding Swordmage. Lastly comes the daily - I of course take a fire related power, Burning Blade, while Mystia goes with Dimensional Thunder.
That's a lot of words. What does that mean?
I can strike an enemy, causing fire to explode through them into nearby creatures. I can also shoot a blast of flames to engulf enemies in a cone once per encounter. Once per day, as I strike an enemy, I enhance my sword with increased fire powers, causing it's every strike to do more and more fire damage with each blow.
Mystia on the other hand can outmaneuver an enemy, shifting either before or after striking them then, once she's hit them, shifting away (or shifting away further) while luring them into where she once stood. She can with a wave of her weapon cause arcane runes to appear and bind them, dealing damage if they try to strike anyone but her (and giving them an even bigger bonus to reduced damage if they do so), though she can only do it once per fight. And, once per day, she can attack a foe, then teleport away...only to reappear with a roar of thunder that bombards anyone near her when she arrives.
Sounds fancy. How does it translate into actual mechanics?
My character is very aggressive. All my attacks are fire-based, and I generally work best when enemies are clumped together. Greenfire Blade and Flame Cyclone is great for putting the hurt on a lot of enemies perhaps with little HP, and Burning Blade increases my offensive capabilities by a good chunk.
Mystia's character is cunning and methodical. She doesn't have to worry about tricky or fast enemies due to her ability to outmaneuver them, and indeed can do just that to ensure they stay away from our allies or to gain combat advantage on them. Sword of Sigils allows how to mark multiple enemies at once to keep them focused on her, while Dimensional Thunder means she can't be blocked away from where she's needed most - and woe betide any enemy that tries to block her, since she can use the thunder damage of Dimensional Thunder to make them pay.
So far, both characters actively play different. But we're not done.
I get to use that longsword I had my eyes on, and for my feat I take the multiclass into Wizard to gain one of their at-wills as an encounter power. I take Thunderwave - though it's not fire based like my other abilities, it fits the swordmage's personality hilariously well, letting her make a punching motion at the enemy to send them tumbling away. Mystia, on the other hand, doesn't have my strength, so her basic attacks are rather puny; she takes Intelligent Swordmage, which lets her use intelligence instead of strength for basic attacks. She also grabs a Glaive, which counts as both a polearm and a heavy blade; a sign of ideas in the future if the game goes on that long.
[...]
Thunderwave looks kewl. Pathfinder needs more spells like that! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, each times I played D&D 4, at-will were the only differences between two characters. Combat were so long that more than half of our actions were our at-will; and since encounter and daily weren't very decisive, nobody remembered who did what. "oh, you did 4[w] twice while bob did it only once and pushed the enemy 3 more cases? You're probably right, but I didn't notice".
If half of your at-will are the same as Mystia, there's even less differences between your two characters than in Pathfinder.
So if one abilities is the same then they're ENTIRELY THE SAME IN EVERYTHING?
Really?
Incidentally, you must be really bad if your ability to describe combat is so boring that you can't make your dailies sound awesome. I pity your creativity.
While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better.
While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20.
Do you not see how dumb these arguments are?
Oh, and you mentioned utility powers. 3 or 4 of them per combat, and most of them are minor action you use while attacking. "use an utility and attack with the same at-will as any other round" is completely different than "attack with the same at-will as any other round", I guess.
Which again just loops us back into "I am literally incapable of describing what my player does."
RA Salvatore talked about about the different editions at one point. He said that 1e required - required - a good, inventive, creative DM in order to really work...and that 4e required the same of it's players. Sounds like I found the problem.
Edit: A daily that does nothing more then 4[W] sounds really boring. You should pick a different one! Let's see, I'm assuming you mean fighter since they're the prime [W] class and I don't for a second believe you've actually read any of the books or played 4e, so that limits us to Core. Now, I do indeed see one or two dailies that come down to just being extra weapon damage then otherwise (though they have the Reliable keyword which means you don't expend them if you miss), but they also have - in that same level - Villain's Menace which gives you a sizable boost to your attack and damage against that particular foe until the battle is over (very thematic), it has Tempest Dance which lets you shift about the battlefield, striking at multiple enemies all in one go (really cool power, do tons of damage, move a lot without the baddies being able to do anything to you, AND it lets you both mark all those enemies and do even more damage if you're built on dexterity), and Driving Attack, which lets you push the enemy back farther and farther with each blow until you knock him prone (Prone owns, your party rogue will love you forever, plus I can think of a million different ways to describe this)
I'll grant you that 4e is really dumb if you just say "I attack. I attack. I attack." I will however require agreement that this goes for every game under the sun, not just 4e.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better.While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20.
Do you not see how dumb these arguments are?
Your counter argument is flawed. Casting spells and making attacks in 3.5 are completely different in a wide variety of cases.
|
Actually, each times I played D&D 4, at-will were the only differences between two characters. Combat were so long that more than half of our actions were our at-will; and since encounter and daily weren't very decisive, nobody remembered who did what. "oh, you did 4[w] twice while bob did it only once and pushed the enemy 3 more cases? You're probably right, but I didn't notice".
If half of your at-will are the same as Mystia, there's even less differences between your two characters than in Pathfinder.
So if one abilities is the same then they're ENTIRELY THE SAME IN EVERYTHING?
Really?
Incidentally, you must be really bad if your ability to describe combat is so boring that you can't make your dailies sound awesome. I pity your creativity.
While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better.While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20.
Do you not see how dumb these arguments are?
Oh, and you mentioned utility powers. 3 or 4 of them per combat, and most of them are minor action you use while attacking. "use an utility and attack with the same at-will as any other round" is completely different than "attack with the same at-will as any other round", I guess.Which again just loops us back into "I am literally incapable of describing what my player does."
RA Salvatore talked about about the different editions at one point. He said that 1e required - required - a good, inventive, creative DM in order to really work...and that 4e required the same of it's players. Sounds like I found the problem.
ProfessorCirno vs GâtFromKI
*grabs popcorn*
Your counter argument is flawed. Casting spells and making attacks in 3.5 are completely different in a wide variety of cases.While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better.While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20.
Do you not see how dumb these arguments are?
Not really. These are the arguments I heard against 3e when it first came out.
D20 was a new thing. Before it, each thing had it's own mechanic. Percentage die, roll under, different sets of die used for different mechanics, etc.
I'm not repeating anything new, but then, neither are the people here. "It's so samey, it all uses the same mechanic" was tired when 2e fans made it. It's still pretty tired.
|
|
Your counter argument is flawed. Casting spells and making attacks in 3.5 are completely different in a wide variety of cases.While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better.While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20.
Do you not see how dumb these arguments are?
Not really. These are the arguments I heard against 3e when it first came out.
D20 was a new thing. Before it, each thing had it's own mechanic. Percentage die, roll under, different sets of die used for different mechanics, etc.
I'm not repeating anything new, but then, neither are the people here. "It's so samey, it all uses the same mechanic" was tired when 2e fans made it. It's still pretty tired.
I am always impressed at how you are able to use words without saying anything.
It is a gift.
|
Your counter argument is flawed. Casting spells and making attacks in 3.5 are completely different in a wide variety of cases.While in 4e, every character including caster is based around attacking. That's far better.While in 3e, every character including caster is based around rolling a d20.
Do you not see how dumb these arguments are?
Not really. These are the arguments I heard against 3e when it first came out.
D20 was a new thing. Before it, each thing had it's own mechanic. Percentage die, roll under, different sets of die used for different mechanics, etc.
I'm not repeating anything new, but then, neither are the people here. "It's so samey, it all uses the same mechanic" was tired when 2e fans made it. It's still pretty tired.
No, because in 4E virtually every thing your character can do is some kind of an attack (rituals and brouhahahahaha 4E skill system LOL excepted)
You can't make a non-combat 4E character. This is just unpossible.
You can make a crippled 3E character who's only good at running with a silver spoon across bushes and winking charmingly. In fact, there's 3.5 Loyalist who's battling to show that it's a One True Way of playing the game ;) And certainly, there is a way of playing d20 so, and no, your "go play another game" argument is dismissed, thank you.
But in 4E? Whatever you do, you're an attack machine, can't avoid that.
So what DO 4E wizards do in combat besides ranged damage? I played a pregen at DragonCon and pretty much just dropped fire on enemies.
Excluding rituals since they typically have too long casting time (since they're, you know, rituals), wizards have a huge array of different things they can do and/or specialize in (though they can always stay as a generalist too).
For specializations:
Illusionists have a lot of party-friendly spells, and a lot of hard control. Not all their spells do damage - quite a few don't in fact - but then, you don't go into illusion for the damage. You go into it to trick enemies into going in the wrong direction, to slow them down or impede them, cluster them up or render them immobile through illusory mazes, pulls, and hypnotic patterns
Enchanters are opposite of warlords. Where warlords use the whole party as their weapon, enchanters use the enemies. It has a bit of overlap with illusion in that you won't be doing much damage, but you will be doing a lot of controlling.
Summoning doesn't have an Essentials specialization yet, but that doesn't mean it's bad - wizards are with druids for being the best at summoning, though the two are good in different ways. Wizard summons tend to be very versatile - though not nearly as good at intrinsic nature as druids, wizard summons all have a sorta catch or gimmick to them. The succubus can dominate enemies, the magma beast slows them when it attacks, the dust devil throws enemies here and there (wherever you want) and the dretch simply hits like a truck. Note however that summon spells are almost always Dailies because of how potent they can be.
Blasting is, well, blasting. An evocation or pyromancer wizard can throw out some very powerful damage, but that doesn't mean they lack control. They have more soft control - that is to say, rather then outright slowing, immobilizing, moving, charming, etc, the enemies, they set up zones of damage or walls that make enemies choose between diving through and suffering a punishment, or staying away.
Mind you, you don't have to specialize. You can make a generalist who cherry picks from the different areas and is still very good, though not as good as the specialist in their school. So while an Arcanist will never beat a Mage who specializes in Evocation and Pyromancy at those thing, he's also probably better then that Mage at using illusion or enchantment spells.
On top of this, wizard utilities tend to be the amongst the best in the game, both in and out of combat.
Just to sorta illustrate it, looking only at dailies, and even then only at level one, here's how four theoretical wizards could go.
The illusionist would likely take either Horrid Whispers or Phantom Chasm, luckily perhaps the two best dailies of this level. The first does a bit of damage but, more importantly, lowers their attack and slows them until they make their save - at which point they are promptly knocked prone for their troubles. On a miss, it just slows them and lowers their attack until the end of your next turn. The latter knocks enemies prone AND immobilizes them until the end of it's next turn...and the illusion sticks around, causing any enemy that steps into it to also fall prone from falling down and grabbing at the dirt as they picture themselves hitting the chasm.
The enchanter likely goes with Sleep - it's a classic after all! Sleep in 4e is sort of a "delayed effect" compared to 3e - it doesn't kick in until the end of their turn, slowing them with drowsiness until then. But, once they fail that first save, it's naptime.
The Summoner is going to, of course, grab a summon spell. Either Summon Dretch or Summon Dust Devil. Summons in 4e move when you take a move action, and you can either command them as a standard action or let their intrinsic nature take over. For wizards, letting them use their intrinsic command (ie, not spending one of your actions on them) typically has a negative side effect against you, while at the same time, the summons have a Symbosis effect that gives you a small benefit ( the dust devil, for example, increases your speed by ten feet and gives you a large bonus against attacks of opportunity). The dust devil has finer control and shifts enemies around all over the place, while the dretch is much more of a high-risk high-reward summon. It's intrinsic nature punishment outright deal damage to you, but it hits much harder then the dust devil, and it hits multiple enemies at once (plus it's symbiosis benefit makes enemies you attack take five damage if they try to attack).
The evocation master or pyromancer has something different in mind. Fountain of Flame is rather simple but effective - an Area 1 burst that does good damage and also leaves behind a damaging zone that punishes any monster that tries running through it once it's gone. Flaming Sphere is slightly more difficult to use, but potentially more rewarding, as it does damage to everything around it (allies included) as you move it around the fight each turn.
So, there's four hypothetical wizards focusing only on their level 1 dailies. Hopefully I've helped show how they can differ from each other. The illusionist has his debuff combined with time bomb and his zone of prone and immobilize, the enchanter has his wave of unconsciousness, the summoner has two options of different levels of risk/reward and control, and the evocation/pyromancer can choose between a zone of death and a flaming katamari that rolls into a new land of fun (and firey death) each round.
That's because all the classes are the same :)If you believe that "the same" is a synonym for "unique" then I would would agree with you.
However, this would be at odds with the conventional definition of "the same" in the English language.
So I must conclude that you either have no clue about 4e, or the English language.
OR I was making a joke about 4e and how atleast until PHB2, the powers of the classes were strikingly similar, and generally all variations of a few themes.
Prof, you've mentioned a lot of character diversity; wizards, enchanters, evokers, summoners, etc. How many 4e books are required to have all these things that are, in the Pathfinder system, all in the CRB?
I have a picture of this somewhere, if I recall correctly there's about a dozen or 2, hardback, character rules books in D&D4e. While in Pathfinder there's only 4, 6 if you include the bestiaries for the jerks who want animal companions. While Pathfinder has a lot of thinner, soft cover, books, with character options in them, most of those are for Adventure Paths, and the options in them are to give flavor.
So... What should the role of the rogue be?
So... What should the role of the rogue be?Appetizer.
Deep fried? In a light batter? Heavy batter?
Should they be served with ranch?
None of the classses you mentioned (Illusionists, Enchanters, etc.) are Wizards. They are entirely different classes with their own power sets. The Wizard doesn't have access to the powers you listed.
Incorrect. They are all either Mages or Arcanists, who share the same pool of powers. Mages get school specialization, Arcanists get implement mastery.
Prof, you've mentioned a lot of character diversity; wizards, enchanters, evokers, summoners, etc. How many 4e books are required to have all these things that are, in the Pathfinder system, all in the CRB?
One DDI account ;p
Three books in total, including the PHB and Essentials book for the Arcanist and Mage respectively. The third book is Arcane Power.
With only the PHB you are limited to Flaming Sphere and Sleep. The E-book, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, has both of those and Fountain of Flame. Arcane Power has Horrid Whispers and Phantom Chasm. The two summons I mentioned are from Dragon.