The Gaming Den

You can certainly attack a door till it hits 0hp. Depending on the DM, and the door, and what you're attacking it with, that either means it falls over in a pleasing pile of sticks, or it means that the door is jammed shut, or it means that you broke the door handle on this side. The 4e object damage rules are completely dependant on DM rulings like that. Which is part of why they suck. But it is also why Knock doesn't suck quite as much as you think.

WTF?

Yeah, so hitting a door with an axe three times will just cause the handle to come off. NO RAILROADING HERE!

So, in case these brain trusts decide that an appropriate outcome for a door suffering 20 hp or more worth of damage is to HAVE THE DOOR JAMMED what's going to happen when a player says 'fuck that, I'm a goddamn hammer dwarf, I'm going to pound on that door all day and night if I have to'?

Kaelik wrote:1) Excuse me, how dare I exaggerate. I should be shot for my crime.

Ignoring the fact that it's rather unrealistic to expect people to separate your hyperbole from your serious claims when even the serious ones sound absurd to a large portion of your audience...do you really believe my point is substantially weakened if you replace "in your own castle" with a weaker example? If hostile things wander close enough to you to have any substantial chance of noticing you every 10 minutes, you are almost definitionally in an enemy stronghold, and there's a long list of things other than rituals that you will be unable to do safely.

Kaelik wrote:2) Yes, chanting for 10 minutes straight is more attracting then talking, unless you seriously talk for 10 minutes straight in your average romp through the woods.

Talking for 10+ minutes straight would be my usual expectation, yes. Group of friends spending a long time together...if they are not winded, being deliberately stealthy, or focused intently on something else, casual conversation seems to me like a good default assumption.

Kaelik wrote:For starters, it means that every monster gets an automatic take 20, since you make the same noise for 20 rounds straight.

That certainly sounds like a terrible abstraction for a listening mechanic; hearing is evolved to detect sudden, short noises, not repetitive, consistent ones. If you want to avoid being distracted by occasional noises, getting something that generates a louder constant noise is an excellent way to accomplish it.

Even ignoring that, the distance range at which chance plays a significant factor in whether I notice a sound at all is pretty narrow. If you're close enough (and not distracted), there's no appreciable chance that you'll fail to notice someone talking; if you're far enough (or the environment is loud enough), there's effectively no chance of noticing at all.

I don't know if 4e gives specific guidelines for how well hearing is supposed to work, but in most environments it seems implausible that detecting someone by their conversation is significantly easier than detecting them by their campfire.

Kaelik wrote:Secondly, for those creatures intelligent enough to tell, yes, chanting a ritual that looks like you are calling out to magical power in the middle of their forest is more likely to start something, or at least cause them to try to stop you, then talking.

I mean, just because in the only magic they know summoning forth fire to kill everyone takes 1/100th of the time as making a pretty little magic image.

Perhaps, but if nontrivial amounts of non-combat-oriented magic exists, I think it would probably register as less threatening than, say, openly displaying a weapon, glaring at me, or shouting something incomprehensible while looking at me. Especially if I have reason to believe that you didn't know I existed when you started.

I suspect it's unrealistic to suppose that there is a large segment of the population that recognizes activities designed to invoke magic but is cognizant of only a tiny fraction of the purposes for which it can be used--especially if we've got the "village healer" trope in play--though of course it depends upon the setting.

It's my impression that non-offensive magic is a relatively big thing in 4e. That means that assuming that an unknown spell being cast by a stranger is intended to hurt you is less reasonable than assuming a weapon in the hand of a stranger is intended to hurt you--with the weapon, at least you can be reasonably certain the intent is hostile to someone, whereas anyone who knows anything about magic probably knows there's a bunch of magic that could plausibly be used on yourself or your friends.

The point is that many rituals take a long time to cast, and are intended to be used (or are most useful) in unexplored enemy territory. As a result, you are likely to be interrupted much more often than in 3.x.

I looked up the rules; components are not wasted on interrupted rituals.

I haven't yet found if enemies are able to destroy components while you are performing a ritual. I'm guessing I'm not supposed to think of such possibilities, given that 4e is a bad video-turned-tabletop game.

1) THERE IS NO FUCKING DM! Seriously, I don't play 4E, there is no goddam DM, there never was, I don't need a new one.

2) Yes replacing, "in your own castle" with "anywhere you would plausibly want to teleport from" (a subset which is largely composed of places that you could easily be interrupted).

3) That list of places that you would be interrupted was not a list of places to actually try, it was a list of places designed to show you that it doesn't work anywhere.

And no, you can't do it inside the dungeon because you can't kill everything in a dungeon, and when you walk out side, you are outside, within a mile of wild creatures who probably want to move into that dungeon anyway.

4) The door thing? Absolutely hilarious joke there. But I'm pretty sure that if a DM decided slamming my hammer into the middle of the door caused the hole thing to shake and the handle to fall off, I'd laugh at him and ask what happens when it reaches -1000HP, because I am not going to be railroaded to be forced to find a key just because the DM wants me to follow his tracks.

5) Yes we run into wild animals and crap all the time, mostly we are flying over them, of course, most of the time we teleport around instead.

Apparently, clerics have an auto-kill ability: seal of binding stuns the target and does 3d10+Wis damage. Sustain minor, both you and the target take 2d10+Wis damage. With the demigod's divine regeneration ability that lasts for the end of the encounter, you can keep the ability up indefinitely.

So, more quirky shit. there is a preview for the RPGA up on their site
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=rp ... characters

for living FR characters. Includes the genasi and swordmage (to a degree... 3rd level), and yeah. There is some quirky shit here.

Genasi are all one race now, with an elemental specialization, which they can change or add more too as they level. And they're a str/int race, which is different, and perfect for the swordmage which is an Int, str/con class. The 'watersoul' genasi shifting power is absurdly good for 4e, because you can shift your speed through pretty much everything- terrain, people.


The swordmage is... well, odd. Its an arcane defender... in light armor. Just leather, but it gets a +3 AC bonus if it has an empty offhand, which... isn't terribly good, since it doesn't use dex in any way whatsoever. Some of the at-wills are decent, but several of the powers just suck, even by 4e power standards. Some wacky shit to cherry-pick from for wizards.

The strength variant seems worthless. Strength does far less for you than Con does, (since all your attacks are int based) so why would you forgo the benefits of extra hit points and surges? Especially since until you blow feats on real armor, you're going to need both.

Swords are weapons and implements for you, which just means... that you don't actually need implements. Everything should just be weapon based, except all your implement based powers are attacking without the +3 proficiency bonus, so the fact that they attack reflex, fort or will rather than AC is kinda irrelevant. You just have to hope that players remember that little fact.

Overall it looks like an almost interesting concept that is riddled with shitty mechanics and a complete lack of forethought. But there is stuff for wizards to cherry pick. Happy day!

Voss wrote:Its an arcane defender... in light armor. Just leather, but it gets a +3 AC bonus if it has an empty offhand, which... isn't terribly good, since it doesn't use dex in any way whatsoever.

Int to AC.

Voss wrote:Its an arcane defender... in light armor. Just leather, but it gets a +3 AC bonus if it has an empty offhand, which... isn't terribly good, since it doesn't use dex in any way whatsoever.

Oh, I was afraid that ability was going to be a flat bonus instead of being based on INT... and without even the choice to just use heavy armor/shields instead (without setting bonus feats on fire)no less.

Great job there WotC... you made a squishy defender class.

Also did I read that part about implements/weapons wrong? Can they not actually apply their weapon's enchantment bonus when using it as an implement?

The Swordmage description is riddled w/ errors. Fortunately, you can figure out how it's supposed to work.

Given we only see 7 powers, this class could be half-way decent. Remember, 15 points of damage is a lot of damage in this game, and the Swordmage is sucking at least that much from every marked foe in the 20's. If it gets powers to make it survivable, it'd be useful.

Ten gold they mess it up, though.

Harlune wrote:

Voss wrote:Its an arcane defender... in light armor. Just leather, but it gets a +3 AC bonus if it has an empty offhand, which... isn't terribly good, since it doesn't use dex in any way whatsoever.

Oh, I was afraid that ability was going to be a flat bonus instead of being based on INT... and without even the choice to just use heavy armor/shields instead (without setting bonus feats on fire)no less.

Great job there WotC... you made a squishy defender class.

No... actually their defender class AC can be higher then those wearing plate with a heavy shield, before powers and damage absorption.


Note that a base full plate wearing defender with heavy shield has, at most, +10 to armor, since dex/int isn't used with heavy armor. This of course does not count for specialization feats needed for said armor.

However, with a decent con/str, one can easily qualify for Hide Armor, and with Genasi or another +2 Int race, can get an AC equal to this at first level (if choosing an 18 for int before the +2 mod) or by 4th level (if putting a 17 in int before the +2 mod), as Int can be used in conjunction with light armor for AC.

In addition, this defender actually has a BETTER reflex def then the heavy armor wearing defender, and since the swordmage seems almost completely Int based, can boost its con and cha/wis as it wishes to boost the other defenses up, making this an EXTREMELY viable defender.

(note: this is predicated that you think this class isn't a 'good' defender by the squishy aspect, not that you meant this is a good defender despite not wearing heavy armor. If so, I apologize)

Also did I read that part about implements/weapons wrong? Can they not actually apply their weapon's enchantment bonus when using it as an implement?

You did. They just do not get the proficiency bonus for the blade when using it as an implement, i.e. the +3 to hit you always get with a longsword when proficient with it, even if it's nonmagical.

You DO get magical bonuses though, as it only specified the prof. bonus.

Tydanosaurus wrote:The Swordmage description is riddled w/ errors. Fortunately, you can figure out how it's supposed to work.

Given we only see 7 powers, this class could be half-way decent. Remember, 15 points of damage is a lot of damage in this game, and the Swordmage is sucking at least that much from every marked foe in the 20's. If it gets powers to make it survivable, it'd be useful.

Ten gold they mess it up, though.

Well, the catch there is pretty big. You have to mark someone and they have to attack someone other than you... with full knowledge of what the mark does. So while its preventative, it will never actually come into play, because they simply won't attack your buddies. The damage resistance it does grant has a pretty good chance of negating attacks. At 21st level, you could seriously negate 25 points of damage, and the fucking tarrasque does d12+16, so you'll be completely denying his hits more often than not, but since he knows that, he'll just focus on you.

I kind of get what they're going for, as a defender enemies should focus on you rather than your squishier friends, but they made as 'you can do something really awesome [to the point that *nothing else in the game so far* is this awesome], but no one ever needs to trigger it, so neener, neener, you get an amazing ability you will never ever use. Which is good, because if you *could*, it would break the game. Which is fucking stupid design.


Oops, I forgot the INT to AC bonus. So a swordmonkey can have a 20 AC to start, so they can match. Hurrah, they didn't completely drop the ball on the obvious stuff.


Much like the rogue, I'm annoyed with the 'you can only use this weapon type, just because we say so'.

Voss wrote: I kind of get what they're going for, as a defender enemies should focus on you rather than your squishier friends, but they made as 'you can do something really awesome [to the point that *nothing else in the game so far* is this awesome], but no one ever needs to trigger it, so neener, neener, you get an amazing ability you will never ever use. Which is good, because if you *could*, it would break the game. Which is fucking stupid design.

I kind of like the concept. It's basically a passive aggro system and exactly what a defender type should be able to do. He forces the enemy to go after him, without actually controlling their actions.

One thing I found really lacking in 3.5 is that the meat shields had no way to actually draw fire. If you were based on defending other people and not dealing damage, you were pretty much ignored. And that really limited anyone from being a decent bodyguard style character.

It seems sort of passive-aggressive to me. I just can't get past the idea that you've got an ability that you can use once per round, at will, thats actually stronger than daily abilities (really, compare it to any DR ability in the PH, this 1st level ability is equal to or better than 29th level dailies), but because of the way marking works, you never actually get to use it, because every monster will automagically know you will negate their attack.

This sort of 'not really force' aggro system just seems absurd to me. If the DM plays monsters reasonably, they generally aren't going to ignore a guy in their face with a sword, unless they have an overwhelming reason to do so. So when it isn't actively stupid, it just seems redundant.

For a defensively oriented character to mean anything at all, they have to either provide defenses to the entire team or provide offensive opponents to the enemy (much the same thing actually), or they have to personally have good defenses and draw fire from enemies (at which point their increased defenses are just like defense bonuses to the whole team because they are the team member being attacked).

The part I don't get is where the authors of 4e think that being a guy with decent defenses who draws fire is one of the central 4 character roles. That's just silly, because there are two other means of being a defensive character that are at least as easy to implement. Indeed, 4e design seems to have fallen right on its ass because frankly the Defenders don't provide enough incentive to attack them. Seriously, they don't. Fundamentally, a Paladin is just a character who does a little automatic damage every round and provides a global +2 AC to all his friends (that doesn't stack with other defenders and only works against one enemy at a time). That's not even a big deal.

-Username17

The truly sad thing is this guy actually is a superior defender [by 4e standards]. Largely because the fighter and paladin aren't good, partly because of the crazy damage absorption deterrent, but mostly because he can actually have a good CON score, and have more healing surges and higher hit points. Plus his at wills seem inherently superior. The burst ability alone means he can hack down multiple minions and thin out the combat advantage causing obstacles.
Greenfire blade is pretty much superior to cleave, a lightning lure is actually useful. Unfortunately his encounter powers kinda suck.

Yep, the swordsage is definitely a better defender than the two core defenders. Basically, he gets marking powers that actually have teeth in them, at least at low levels. Furthermore, it looks like they're making some of the later encounter powers work with Aegis of Assault and Aegis of Shielding, possibly as a backdoor method to make the disincentives to attack scale decently. Of course, anyone can feel free to start the betting pool that WotC won't follow up on this concept at all in the final version. And in addition to Greenfire Blade (a.k.a. Mass Cleave), they also have an at-will (Lightning Lure) that lets them pull an opponent into melee with them. By comparison, the fighter has to wait until Level 7 to get an encounter power (Come and Get It) that has that kind of effect.

It's also nice that they actually made Genasi playable in the new edition. Too bad the new edition as a whole is underwhelming. Overall, it looks like FR is going to perform its usual function of cheesing out the game. Of course, by 4gettable Ed. standards, "cheesing it out" means "making it almost interesting and playable enough to bother with."

FrankTrollman wrote:Fundamentally, a Paladin is just a character who does a little automatic damage every round and provides a global +2 AC to all his friends (that doesn't stack with other defenders and only works against one enemy at a time). That's not even a big deal.

-Username17

You're being a little bit unfair here. A "Protecting Paladin" can do much better than that from level 1. Every generic attack is really an Enfeebling Smite, which gives an extra -2. Assuming a 50% hit rate, he really gives a +3 to AC. The enemy also takes 7 damage if it attacks someone else, which is almost as much as a random hit form the party leader/controller/defender types.

A -3 to hit *and* suffering the equivalent of *two* attacks back (assuming 50% accuracy) isn't enough defense for you? It may not be that much, but then again, a 1st level 4E healer doesn't have that much healing either. And It's not like the resident strikers hit that much harder than you either.

As he goes up levels, he gets powers that boost allies AC and let him take their damage. If he's crazy about tanking, he goes Hospitaler, and at level 11 every ally heals 9 on every attack-- that's a -18 per attack, assuming 50% accuracy, almost completely neutralizing some creatures.

Plus, tanking shouldn't be as good s in WoW anyway. Variety in play experience means that squishy casters should sometimes get attacked and sometimes not get attacked. In WoW, this happens because sometimesyou team with a warrior or a bear, and sometimes you don't. In 4e, you ar eon the same team every time, so while is should occasionally be right for the monsters ot go fo rthe paladin first, just as often that should go for the squishies anyway. At which point the paladin has to use physical interposition, AoOs, his volley of dazes/trips/weakens, or some fo his healing powers.

Seriously, if 4e Defenders aren't good, what *does* count as a good 4e character? I've heard you declare wizards suck, I've confirmed for myself that Rogues do (their schtick is damage but they don't do enough to matter). Are you proposing an all-cleric team again, or what?

It probably IS best to have an all-cleric team.

Anyway, I forgot and don't feel like torturing myself by looking through the rules again, so tell me: can two people mark the same person?

If they can, then it's just like the Knight in Tome edition: have two of them. Done. Enemies attack one of them, and take the penalty from the other.

No. I believe every marking feature written in the game specifies that no creature can have more than one mark at a time.

Damn.

And I suppose this allows for the stupidity of people with fairly useless marks using their own marks to override/prevent enemy marks.

That's retarded.

FrankTrollman wrote:The part I don't get is where the authors of 4e think that being a guy with decent defenses who draws fire is one of the central 4 character roles. That's just silly, because there are two other means of being a defensive character that are at least as easy to implement. Indeed, 4e design seems to have fallen right on its ass because frankly the Defenders don't provide enough incentive to attack them. Seriously, they don't. Fundamentally, a Paladin is just a character who does a little automatic damage every round and provides a global +2 AC to all his friends (that doesn't stack with other defenders and only works against one enemy at a time). That's not even a big deal.

Actually I find that the paladin's challenge is pretty effective at controlling monsters. I mean, if you ignore him, and attack allies, you're taking a -2 to hit and you're also taking 8 or so damage each round automatically. Now given that you hit only about 50% of the time, that 8 autodamage is equivalent to a +16 to your damage rolls. And that means that ignoring the paladin probably makes the paladin the largest damage dealer of the group.

Further, he's got lay on hands to heal people.

Now the fighter is fairly lacking, but the paladin seems like a very effective defender. I just don't see ignoring his challenge as an optimal strategy. Even if you do that, then he can just use his lay on hands as a minor action to heal whoever you end up attacking. So he's doing 8 damage to you each round, you're attacking at a -2 and you're probably still not going to drop the rogue by focusing on him. Not to mention when you ignore the paladin he can do striker level damage too, if not greater than striker normal damage.

I'm just not seeing how ignoring the paladin's divine challenge is going to help you. this isn't 3.5 where you can run up and drop the wizard in one shot. You're going to hurt the wizard, maybe even bloody him, but then the paladin is going to throw his lay on hands down on the wizard and you're going to look like a fool.

Voss wrote:It seems sort of passive-aggressive to me.

Same basic idea as the RoW knight really. Other than mind controll passive agressive stuff like this is about the only way to draw fire. That and melee applied root effects.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:The part I don't get is where the authors of 4e think that being a guy with decent defenses who draws fire is one of the central 4 character roles. That's just silly, because there are two other means of being a defensive character that are at least as easy to implement. Indeed, 4e design seems to have fallen right on its ass because frankly the Defenders don't provide enough incentive to attack them. Seriously, they don't. Fundamentally, a Paladin is just a character who does a little automatic damage every round and provides a global +2 AC to all his friends (that doesn't stack with other defenders and only works against one enemy at a time). That's not even a big deal.

Actually I find that the paladin's challenge is pretty effective at controlling monsters. I mean, if you ignore him, and attack allies, you're taking a -2 to hit and you're also taking 8 or so damage each round automatically. Now given that you hit only about 50% of the time, that 8 autodamage is equivalent to a +16 to your damage rolls. And that means that ignoring the paladin probably makes the paladin the largest damage dealer of the group.

Actually, the damage isn't ongoing. It only happens the first time the marked enemy attacks another creature.

Further, he's got lay on hands to heal people.

And lay on hands really sucks. For some reason, the paladin has to spend a healing surge to heal other people, even though there's a hard limit on uses per day and per round. So you better hope your paladin isn't getting hurt a lot. Oh wait, he's a defender. If he manages to fulfill his role in spite of the futility of his marking power, he's going to take lots of damage.

Now the fighter is fairly lacking, but the paladin seems like a very effective defender. I just don't see ignoring his challenge as an optimal strategy. Even if you do that, then he can just use his lay on hands as a minor action to heal whoever you end up attacking. So he's doing 8 damage to you each round, you're attacking at a -2 and you're probably still not going to drop the rogue by focusing on him. Not to mention when you ignore the paladin he can do striker level damage too, if not greater than striker normal damage.

Actually, the fighter is potentially a better defender than the paladin. A fighter can have multiple targets marked, so anyone he ends up in melee with gets marked and stays marked. Furthermore, once he closes into melee and marks you, he gets to make a basic attack against you anytime you attack anybody else or try to move out of melee with him. Really, the fighter's only weakness as a defender is that he's short on surefire ways to force enemies into melee so he can mark them.

In fact, after rereading the fighter's Combat Challenge, I'm going to have to qualify my previous statements about the Swordmage. Really, the fighter's mark is pretty good, at least at low levels, if he gets to use it. Of course, the swordmage is still a better defender because of the at-will that drags an enemy into melee and the fact that they seem to be planning to allow some higher-level encounter powers to supplement/replace the basic effects of his marks.

I'm just not seeing how ignoring the paladin's divine challenge is going to help you. this isn't 3.5 where you can run up and drop the wizard in one shot. You're going to hurt the wizard, maybe even bloody him, but then the paladin is going to throw his lay on hands down on the wizard and you're going to look like a fool.

Actually, if the DM is running the monsters strategically, some enemy's going to be in a position to make it hard for the paladin to do that. After all, the mark and its -2 to damage goes away if the paladin doesn't attack or move next to the target. And if it's a solo, it's got so many hit points it doesn't care how much damage you throw at it.

Absentminded_Wizard wrote: Actually, the damage isn't ongoing. It only happens the first time the marked enemy attacks another creature.

Well no it's not true ongoing damage, but you take it every round you ignore the paladin by attacking his companions so if your tactic is to just do that, then it might as well be ongoing damage.

And lay on hands really sucks. For some reason, the paladin has to spend a healing surge to heal other people, even though there's a hard limit on uses per day and per round. So you better hope your paladin isn't getting hurt a lot. Oh wait, he's a defender. If he manages to fulfill his role in spite of the futility of his marking power, he's going to take lots of damage.

Well, if his defending isn't working he can heal others. If he's the guy soaking, he heals himself. Considering he gets the most surges of any character. That's actually not bad.

Actually, the fighter is potentially a better defender than the paladin. A fighter can have multiple targets marked, so anyone he ends up in melee with gets marked and stays marked. Furthermore, once he closes into melee and marks you, he gets to make a basic attack against you anytime you attack anybody else or try to move out of melee with him. Really, the fighter's only weakness as a defender is that he's short on surefire ways to force enemies into melee so he can mark them.

I don't know I mean I've always felt that the AoO you draw isn't qite as bad as the damage that you're taking from the paladin's divine challenge. At least at low levels. A sword and board fighter is going to do about 1d10+4 damage, which is 9.5. A paladin is doing around 5-7 automatic damage. now consider that the fighter only hits about half the time and he's only doing 4.25 damage. The paladin's automatic damage is much better.

Now the fighter can mark more than one person which is kind of nice, but I'd still probably rather have the paladin since he can heal as well. The fighter just doesn't really have the staying power. While he can draw fire decently, he cant' heal himself well enough, and his AC isn't any better than anyone elses.

Not to mention if you do hit his companions there's no a heck of a lot he can do to you, besides take his AoO. And given how 4E works, you're best off ignoring the fighter to hit the cleric or the warlord because taking out the healer should be your top priority if the group only has one healer. The paladin is nice because he can heal too. So if they do decide to ignore him, it was all for nothing, because he can heal up a fallen comrade.

Actually, if the DM is running the monsters strategically, some enemy's going to be in a position to make it hard for the paladin to do that. After all, the mark and its -2 to damage goes away if the paladin doesn't attack or move next to the target. And if it's a solo, it's got so many hit points it doesn't care how much damage you throw at it.

Solos take a while to kill, but extra damage per round can't hurt. You're going to have to saw away at it, so being able to autodamage it and also be able to heal the guy that it hurts is a pretty useful ability.

Look, if the paladin is taking all the hits, he doesn't need Lay on Hands. And it's not as though a Paladin is short on surges -- CON should be his second- or third- highest stat (after CHA and possibly WIS)