The Gaming Den

tic wrote:Renaming isn't an issue, but that does make your battlemage very focused on undead and buffing, and also lessens his offensive casting. Fireball > Searing Light, methinks.

Uh, methinks a wizard that can wear plate and melee with medium BAB shouldn't have the same offensive power as a wizard that wears cloth and has a bad BAB. Just my old-fashioned idea of balance though.

Still house ruling. Is ASF easier than new rituals? Sure it is, you'll get no argument from me. But then, why not just ignore everything that annoys you? Where's the line drawn? Is it subjective? What about the party wizard? Can he bust out the full plate?

What the fuck is this red herring bullshit.

Renaming isn't an issue, but that does make your battlemage very focused on undead and buffing, and also lessens his offensive casting. Fireball > Searing Light, methinks.

Domains, and there are rules to research new spells.

Welcome tic. Although I still note that you aren't making an argument for 4e D&D, you're just trying to rebut arguments against. That's a losing proposition, because even assuming that you win some points as well as lose some, you're still going to be in the net negatives at the end of the day. If I say "negative one!" and you say "not negative one!" then we compromise at -1/2 or something. But that's still a negative number.

Now on to specific points:

tic wrote:When I first got into 3e, I wanted to play a battlemage - a staple of fantasy, the armoured dude swinging swords and spells with equal proficiency. Yes, I could multiclass wizard and fighter, or sorcerer and fighter. I'd have to cop some spell failure from my full plate and heavy shield, sure, but there were ways around that. Mithral cuts it down by 10%. Then there's... no, wait, that was from a later book. Erm... oh! There was... no, that was 3.5... And, of course, my mithral full plate was 10,000 gp to buy. Not that it mattered at first level, because I couldn't even afford iron full plate.

As has been noted, the Cleric and the Druid are both battle mages in the core book who can cast in full armor. Cleric + Fire Domain = Armored Battle Mage. So your point is wrong.

Tic wrote:The 3e PHB came out in 2000. CArc came out in '04, ToB in '06. The first thing that popped to this poster's head as a solution was in a book that took six years to come out. By that logic, how are we to know that 4e won't have solutions to these problems by 2015?

This is a bad argument and you should not make it. Because it isn't 2001 shortly after 3rd edition came out. This is 2009. 3rd edition rules have Warlocks and Dread Necromancers and Crusaders and Warblades. Those are all in the game. And 4e is made in an environment where those rules have already been written. Indeed, large sections of the 4e book are cribbed entirely from the Tome of Battle and Complete Arcane. It is not unreasonable to compare 4e as it exists to 3.5 as it it exists. However it is completely unreasonable to compare 3.5 a it it exists to how 4e might be in six years.

Currently, both 3e and 4e benefit from the experience of having written the Tome of Battle. Why shouldn't we expect the material in the 4e book to be as good or better than the material in Tome of Battle? It was written afterward, it has no excuse for being any worse or more limited in scope.

3,5 wouldn't let me play my battlemage at level 1without house ruling. 4e won't let me play my necromancer.

Aside from the fact that we've shown that we've shown that it would, this is another bad argument. You don't have to start at level 1. Level 1 is just a power level. It's not even an issue if level 1 characters are peasant heroes who can't afford iron plate because you could just play a game at level 4 where the characters are wealthy and have custom fitted steel. It is an issue that characters at level 1 in 4e can have platemail. Because now there's no level that is available if you want to play peasant heroes who can't yet afford iron plate. The inclusion of a power level that is below what you want to play at is not an issue if you can just play at a higher power level that is included. However the lack of an inclusion of a power level that you wanted to use is a serious issue because then there's no level you can start at to tell the story you wanted.

What you've just highlighted is not a point in 4e's favor, it's a huge problem. At level 1 the Paladin has shiny plate armor and the wizard puts enemies to sleep. At level 29 the Paladin has shiny plate armor and the wizard puts enemies to sleep. If you want a different power level you're SOL. In 3e the 1st level Paladin has a suit of studded leather from the town guard and the wizard put enemies to sleep. At level 11 the Paladin has shiny plate armor and the wizard has an army of demons. So you can really starkly see the difference between different power levels and you can play the one that appeal to you.

No system's perfect.

Granted, but irrelevant. The point you're supposed to be arguing is that 4e is worth something on its own merits. The claim that other systems also has flaws doesn't advance your case at all.

-Username17

Fuchs wrote:No clue. But I think it made sense to them, at least at that time. Maybe they needed some "adversity" from "outsiders" so they can feel good about themselves and close ranks.

Typically one would bring some outsiders to one's own forum for that.

Its not even a bad idea. If everyone agrees you rapidly get circle jerkery.

Tic, you kinda missed the point. Even ignoring if things can be done in 3.5 core. (Lots of examples given of how they can.) I'm talking about the difference between what 4e can have exist ever, and what 3e can.

3e has a battlemage. 3e has whatever you want to name. 3e also has a class that can make an infinite number of minions, or that can make a field of tentacles come up at will.

3e can allow the Wizard to have a demon army, can allow the druid to create a huge tornado with a 500ft radius. 3e can have a Demon capable of teleporting anywhere in the world in 3 seconds at will, and throwing around firestorms wherever he goes.

4e can never allow any character to be able to do something as simple as make a wall of stone that stays forever. That would break any 4e character.

The fact that 4e core is worse then the material that was supposedly just a playtest for it tells you all you need to know. It is bad. It will always be bad. Because they decided Tome of Battle was too much fun and 4e needed to be less fun then that.

tic wrote:

Murtak wrote:Still Spell, spells with no somatic components.

Still not possible at level 1.

Wizard 1, Martial Weapon Proficiency. Take True Strike (verbal only), and some out of combat spells. The spell level 1 selection does kind of suck, but you get decent spells at spell level 2. Note that this is Core only.

tic wrote:Renaming isn't an issue, but that does make your battlemage very focused on undead and buffing, and also lessens his offensive casting. Fireball > Searing Light, methinks.

Damage Spells are worse than just smacking stuff yourself. Don't use them. Core cleric non-buff combat spells, spell level 1 to 3:
1) Cause Fear, Obscuring Mist, Shield of Faith, Summon Monster I
2) Darkness, Hold Person, Shatter, Summon Monster II
3) Bestow Curse, Blindness/Deafness, Deeper Darkness, Summon Monster III, Wind Wall

Not to be rude, but who the fuck cares if you can't have the perfect battlemage at level one? That's what character advancement and development are for.

Welcome tic.

Thanks. Long time lurker, first time poster and all that. I was a little wary I'd spark another flamefest, but so far, there's been civil debate. That's not something I'm used to on this topic. It's refreshing. I'm going to answer others, then come back to Frank's points, since they're a little longer.

Tic, you can do it at level 1. Just take wizard and be an elf there you go.

An elf wizard is still hindered by a few other bits and pieces. At level 1, it's limited by armour choices - ASF - and by weapon choices, unless you blow your only feat on a proficiency you'll get when you take your first level of fighter.

How is PR saying take cleric levels is a house rule? Have you looked at the cleric spell list?

My bad, I meant to split that quote up.

Me wrote:Still house ruling. Is ASF easier than new rituals? Sure it is, you'll get no argument from me. But then, why not just ignore everything that annoys you? Where's the line drawn? Is it subjective? What about the party wizard? Can he bust out the full plate?

<insert everything from "Also, clerics function perfectly" onwards here>

Renaming isn't an issue, but that does make your battlemage very focused on undead and buffing, and also lessens his offensive casting. Fireball > Searing Light, methinks.

Tic it seems like you can't divorce flavor from mechanics.

You can, but only to a point. Minor alterations can help to ridiculous amounts. Some tweaking makes an archery ranger a borderline passable spellslinger. An enchanter's fluff can turn him from a benevolent saint to a mercenarial ne'er dowell to a fiend in mortal skin.

Psychic Robot wrote:

Still house ruling. Is ASF easier than new rituals? Sure it is, you'll get no argument from me. But then, why not just ignore everything that annoys you? Where's the line drawn? Is it subjective? What about the party wizard? Can he bust out the full plate?

What the fuck is this red herring bullshit.

From the Wiki (Yeah, yeah, I know, the wiki. It gives me somewhere to start from): "a red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue."

Not a red herring. The original issue has been answered, there's no diversion here. I agree, removing ASF would fix the issue. My carry-on query is, at what point does "remove this rule" cross the line? And, in your example, does it work for everyone, or just for that character/class?

Renaming isn't an issue, but that does make your battlemage very focused on undead and buffing, and also lessens his offensive casting. Fireball > Searing Light, methinks.

Domains, and there are rules to research new spells.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't researching new spells dependent on DM fiat? If so, is that such a great step away from house ruling? Domain certainly alleviates the issue, yes. That and some minor tweaks (Drop Turn and healing to boost blasting? I dunno. Would need more thinking on it, something like that) would probably create a satisfactory fix.

FrankTrollman wrote:Although I still note that you aren't making an argument for 4e D&D, you're just trying to rebut arguments against. That's a losing proposition, because even assuming that you win some points as well as lose some, you're still going to be in the net negatives at the end of the day. If I say "negative one!" and you say "not negative one!" then we compromise at -1/2 or something. But that's still a negative number.

I do see your point, but things like that are subjective. For some people, having to houserule a few rituals might be a -4. For others, it's a -1. For others, it might be a moot point, or even a positive! If you say "negative one!", and I say "positive three!" we compromise somewhere in the middle. Or maybe we don't - maybe what you hate, I love, and what we both find unbalanced or silly, WotC thinks is the greatest thing since Tolkien went "Y'know what? 'Elfin' needs a V'."

What irks isn't that "Bob prefers 4e over 3e", or "I dislike point X", but some of the logic that's being used, some of the reasoning. I sure as heck don't need to shove 4e down your throat, or scream "4e is awesome, you all suck, so there". I'm fully aware that 4e makes some choices that some people find decidedly unpleasant - there's games that I wouldn't bother running in 4e, because the system doesn't mesh with the mood, the theme, whatever. The result someone comes up with is irrelevant if their logic doesn't make sense. If I call them on it, maybe they'll go "Oh, wait, no, I getcha. Adjusted. Fair enough." Maybe they'll go "No, actually, I'm right. Let me explain another way.", and I'll go "Ahhh. Right, now I'm with you." Maybe we'll both butt heads and someone will say nasty things about someone else's mother - who knows?

Aside from anything else, if I can sit in a level-headed conversation, I may come to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both systems a little better, and be able to adjust or compensate when I'm GMing or playing. Lose preconceptions and assumptions and all that jazz.

This is a bad argument and you should not make it. Because it isn't 2001 shortly after 3rd edition came out. This is 2009. 3rd edition rules have Warlocks and Dread Necromancers and Crusaders and Warblades. Those are all in the game. And 4e is made in an environment where those rules have already been written. Indeed, large sections of the 4e book are cribbed entirely from the Tome of Battle and Complete Arcane. It is not unreasonable to compare 4e as it exists to 3.5 as it it exists. However it is completely unreasonable to compare 3.5 a it it exists to how 4e might be in six years.

Currently, both 3e and 4e benefit from the experience of having written the Tome of Battle. Why shouldn't we expect the material in the 4e book to be as good or better than the material in Tome of Battle? It was written afterward, it has no excuse for being any worse or more limited in scope.

You're assuming that everything learned or explored in 3.x is applicable to 4e. You're assuming that everything in 4e has a base that can be drawn upon in 3.x. For a large area, that's true. For some parts, it's not, or not to the same extent.

Does 4e benefit in at least some areas from its predecessors? Yes, it does. Part of the later stages of 3.5 were more or less a testing grounds, things like ToB, and other systems like SW:SAGA. But, even granting that 4e should have learned from 3.5 - even if it should have learned everything that 3.5 had to offer - there's still the issue of variety. Had we been having this discussion 2 or 3 months, ago, there would have been no "holy warrior of nature" archtype fulfilled (actually, there probably would have been, with a reflavoured cleric or druid, but you get what I mean. Apply to pretty much anything that's come out in a post-PHB/DMG/MM book. Vehicles. 'Zone' effects. Whatever.). Now there is.

Debating with what 4e might be in six years is ludicrous, yes. I mean, it could magically become the Perfect System(tm) endorsed by every religious figure known to man, and several known only to woodland creatures. As I see it, the most sensible suggestion, in terms of balance or rules, is comparing 4e as-is, to 3.5 as-is. In terms of "what do I have available", you can't as easily do that. That's not a matter of evolution or learning, that's a matter of variety, in which 3.5 just has the advantage of numbers. There's... what, not even 20 4e classes? 8 in each PHB, the duskblade in FR... a few others, artificer and so on. That's equalled just by PHB and the first four Completes alone. Throw in the later Completes, OA, Heroes of Horror, the PHB2... I'd argue that comparing versatility or options like this is not fair. Of course 3.5 has more options - it's been pumping them out longer.

If I start up a... I dunno, a car company, say. I should incorporate what has been learned in car manufacture and design. But I'll have to accept that, say, Ford will have a bigger variety than I do, at least for the time being. It's been around longer. Maybe we were equal 12 months after startup. Maybe I was ahead, maybe he was - there's no comparison between me and Ford now, because they've got the advantage of age. Even if, at twelve months from startup, I beat Ford at twelve months from startup, Ford isn't twelve months from startup. It's gone waaaaaay beyond that, and now it crushes me in variety.

Probably not the best analogy, but it's not an easy thing to... er... analogise?

Aside from the fact that we've shown that we've shown that it would, this is another bad argument. You don't have to start at level 1. Level 1 is just a power level. It's not even an issue if level 1 characters are peasant heroes who can't afford iron plate because you could just play a game at level 4 where the characters are wealthy and have custom fitted steel.

That, I will grant you. Yes, you can start at level 4. It might be an issue for newer players, who don't think of that, but yeah, for everyone else, a nonissue. Crunch wise. Story wise, there is a certain appeal to "starting from the beginning", but that certainly doesn't matter to everyone. There's also the issue of "we're playing at level 2, your level 4 concept is not valid".

All in all, though, not counting those cases, you're probably correct. I'll cede that one. I have a tendency to look at what can or can't be done at level 1, I guess (within some reason, not 'I'm a level one demigod who can kill people by looking at them angrily').

It is an issue that characters at level 1 in 4e can have platemail. Because now there's no level that is available if you want to play peasant heroes who can't yet afford iron plate. The inclusion of a power level that is below what you want to play at is not an issue if you can just play at a higher power level that is included. However the lack of an inclusion of a power level that you wanted to use is a serious issue because then there's no level you can start at to tell the story you wanted.

I'd argue that that is prevalent in most any system. 3.5 couldn't easily handle apprentice wizards - you started with a few level 1 spells. Sorcerers all had a handful of tricks, they'd begun to master their talents. Fighters all knew how to fight with a whole bagful of weapons. You couldn't play a twelve year old who's about to undergo his first trial after nine years of monk training.

3.5 has a wider scope, true, especially in terms of equipment. Both have a scope.

Granted, but irrelevant. The point you're supposed to be arguing is that 4e is worth something on its own merits. The claim that other systems also has flaws doesn't advance your case at all.

If someone says 3.x > 4e because X, and X is actually present in both systems, then yes, it is relevant, if only to negate that issue. No, it doesn't make 4e 'worth something on its own merits', but it negates one claim to the effect that it is not.

I don't think I worded that properly, I hope you'll get what I mean.

4e can never allow any character to be able to do something as simple as make a wall of stone that stays forever. That would break any 4e character.

Wouldn't a ritual suffice? There are rituals of permanent duration. Maybe a zone, but that's aimed more at encounter-length things, so a ritual'd be the way to go, I think.

Sure it is, you'll get no argument from me. But then, why not just ignore everything that annoys you? Where's the line drawn? Is it subjective? What about the party wizard? Can he bust out the full plate?

How the fuck is that not[/i] a red herring? It's completely diversionary.

Me: "Removing ASF is a lot easier than generating rules for necromancy."
You: "Yeah, but where do you draw the line when you're making house rules?"
Me: "Wtf."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't researching new spells dependent on DM fiat? If so, is that such a great step away from house ruling? Domain certainly alleviates the issue, yes. That and some minor tweaks (Drop Turn and healing to boost blasting? I dunno. Would need more thinking on it, something like that) would probably create a satisfactory fix.

Yes, it is unfortunately left open to DM fiat, but there are guidelines for spell creation.

A red herring would be if I avoided the issue to avoid answering it. I've answered it. You're completely correct in this instance. I then started a new, 'spin-off' issue, wondering at what point you would consider this to be a bad fix. It's not a red herring, it's two herrings of undetermined colouring.

Yes, it is unfortunately left open to DM fiat, but there are guidelines for spell creation.

There's guidelines for class tweaking too, in the 3.5 DMG. They made a 'witch' out of a sorcerer.

tic wrote:Story wise, there is a certain appeal to "starting from the beginning", but that certainly doesn't matter to everyone.

Sure. For some people I'm sure that 4e happens to fall exactly at their sweet spot. Indeed, that is what it was advertised as accomplishing. 30 levels long and all the power levels are essentially identical.

Conversely, D&D in 3e had a starker power curve. The bottom was bottomer and the top was topper. In all of 4th edition you will never get to a place where a 1st level Wizard can't one-hit insta-kill the minions of your main opponent without rolling dice. A 1st level Wizard does not have to roll dice to clear a Legion Devil or a Cyclops Guard from the field. He jut does it. On the flip side, a 13th level 3e party will run around in warrens where the horde monsters are mind flayers, any one of which would contemptuously destroy an entire 1st level party as little more than a formality.

But see, that's more choice. If you decide that you only like 7th level D&D you can just play 3e at 7th level. If you decide that you like 4e's only power level, you can play it at any level, but if you want something bigger or smaller there is nowhere you can go.

Both games have a scope yes, but 4e's scope is explicitly and deliberately much narrower. It was advertised as a feature by David Noonan. He called it "expanding the sweet spot" - but really it just means writing higher and lower power levels out of the game and giving nothing in return.

-Username17

Fair enough. All makes sense - you're right, personal preference (I have to wonder how many edition wars boil down to just that...). One minor quibble, though:

In all of 4th edition you will never get to a place where a 1st level Wizard can't one-hit insta-kill the minions of your main opponent without rolling dice.

As an attack action, that's just not true. Spells like Flaming Sphere do the trick, but only on adjacent minions. And if a level 20-odd minion smacks your level 1 wizard, he really doesn't need to roll - a legion devil legionnaire has an attack modifier of +26. Pitiful damage, sure, but 3 hits and he's down (give or take for Con) . Or maybe a non minion comes up and splatters him while he's messing about with the minions. An encounter of minions is daft at any level. Dragonborn wins.

Tic wrote:As an attack action, that's just not true.

Like the vast majority of times that 4e fanboys have claimed that something we've said here is "not true" (or other less polite ways of saying the same thing), it is in fact you who is not correct. I direct your attention to Cloud of Daggers. See minions in 4e are immune to damage that is inflicted "on miss" - but they are not immune to conditional damage. Cloud of Daggers inflicts a small amount of damage on the condition that the enemy begin the turn in the square that they are currently in. And since that is at least 1 point of damage and enemies don't have a choice on your turn of what space they will begin their next turn in, the Cloud will always kill a minion.

Any minion. A level 1 Minion, a level 27 minion. It doesn't even matter. It's an at-will ability as well, so a 1st level Wizard can chew through an amazingly large number of supposedly high level minions. Indeed, if he has a narrow corridor he can chew through limitless numbers of high level minions. That power just isn't distinguishable from that of a high level character, because the high level character will in fact also be using that same power to the exact same effect.

-Username17

Note that I specified Flaming sphere, and spells like it as exceptions. Flaming sphere does the same thing (if you start next to it, take damage). I missed Cloud of Daggers, but did recognise the hole.

At higher levels, I would imagine, you'd be better off using AoE attacks, with a chance to kill multiple minions at once, rather than definitely killing one. Depending on layout and all. At higher levels, other classes can also contribute. That's the power difference. in the incredibly unlikely situation that a level 1 wizard is facing a horde of epic minions and no regular enemies, rushing at him down a 1 square corridor, he uses cheap tricks and slaughters them. Otherwise, he dies. At high levels, he lobs spells on them while the rest of the party rips into them with weapons.


Also, fanboy? Really? I mean... really? What happened to the maturity, the civility?

tic wrote:Also, fanboy? Really? I mean... really? What happened to the maturity, the civility?

He said you, like many fanboys, missed that. He did not call you a fanboy per se.

tic wrote:What happened to the maturity, the civility?

We traded them for the substantiveness.

tic wrote: At higher levels, I would imagine, you'd be better off using AoE attacks, with a chance to kill multiple minions at once, rather than definitely killing one. Depending on layout and all. At higher levels, other classes can also contribute.

Cloud of Daggers is an AoE. And noone knows how big that AoE is because it's written incorrectly and hasn't ever been errataed. But whatever.

Also, fanboy? Really? I mean... really? What happened to the maturity, the civility?

Yes, really. You're coming in on the heels of a discussion by 4e defenders. I direct you to the first post by you guys:

crazysam wrote:But for these forums, just call me "The 4e Fanboi".

Sorry, I should have called you "Fanbois" I had forgotten that you guys had chosen the slightly more ridiculous moniker. And yes, I find it hilarious and infuriating for a group to tell people that they should call them X and then get offended when people actually call them that.

-Username17

Cloud of Daggers is an AoE. And noone knows how big that AoE is because it's written incorrectly and hasn't ever been errataed. But whatever.

My bad again. It's late, my head's not functioning properly. I'm off after this. I should have said "AoE's that E and A worth mentioning". Y'know, fireball, ice storm, that sort of thing. Not blocking corridors, blasting mobs.

FrankTrollman wrote:

tic wrote:Also, fanboy? Really? I mean... really? What happened to the maturity, the civility?

Yes, really. You're coming in on the heels of a discussion by 4e defenders. I direct you to the first post by you guys:

crazysam wrote:But for these forums, just call me "The 4e Fanboi".

Sorry, I should have called you "Fanbois" I had forgotten that you guys had chosen the slightly more ridiculous moniker. And yes, I find it hilarious and infuriating for a group to tell people that they should call them X and then get offended when people actually call them that.

-Username17

Egads! You're onto us! It's true, everyone who has ever defended 4e on the Internet is part of a vast conspiracy, a hivemind of immense proportions. What one of us thinks or feels, all of think and feel. What one of us says, applies to all. We are legion, my friend, and now matter how many clouds of daggers you lob at us, we'll keep marching up that corridor, and eventually, you'll have to sleep.

Unless you get reinforcements and have some sort of staggered roster, I guess. Bugger. Alright lads, we're gonna need a new master plan.


EDIT:

Fuchs wrote:

tic wrote:Also, fanboy? Really? I mean... really? What happened to the maturity, the civility?

He said you, like many fanboys, missed that. He did not call you a fanboy per se.

Yeah. It was implied.


Cheerio all - I'm off for the night. Thankyou for the debate, and the chuckles. And Frank, mate, fret not - it takes a good deal more than that to offend me.

Blocking corridors, as an example of battlefield control, is vastly more important than blasting mobs, especially with focus fire as the primary tactic.

I don't get the "It's only been out for X time, it's not fair to compare it to existing products!" argument. We're not debating whether it's the holy chalice of absolute perfection, we're debating what game is better or worse to sit down and play now.

See, if someone says "We can play 3E or 4E", they don't mean "We can sit down and play 4E, or we can TRAVEL BACK IN TIME and play 3E when it was only a few months old". No, they mean 3E as it is. Yes, it has an advantage due to being around longer - but that's just it, it's an advantage, another point in the favour of 3E. Having existed longer and gathered more random crap is seriously a good thing here, not some kind of disqualification.

And besides, 2E was basically all of the supplements and house rules of 1E, put in one book, wasn't it? Couldn't they have done that with 4E, basically make it one big "it's 3E, but we include everything that people liked and fixed all the major problems"?

Also, the imperfection of 3E can be answered by this: once again, it's been out for ages. People actually came up with their own fixes to these problems. In some cases they wrote huge Tomes on it. So when we play these games, the work has been done, the fixes are there! Swapping to 4E? That involves having to go through and identify+fix all these new problems.

Let's use your car analogy here: you're offering me a Volvo, but it's missing a wheel and needs repairs done to the motor and one door is caved in. Now, I already have a Sherman Tank (I don't ;_;), and when I bought it, it was just an empty shell. But for whatever reason, I repaired that motherfucker (or in this instance, I sat back and sipped iced tea while Frank, K and Ceilingcat did it for me... suckers) and got it up and running, including the cannon. Now, ignore the fact that I've just been arrested because I don't have a license for this tank. There is no way I'm buying your Volvo and fixing it up, just because my tank used to be broken: my tank has been fixed, it works, and the Volvo does not. My tank will drive over and detonate the Volvo.

Fuchs wrote:

tic wrote:Renaming isn't an issue, but that does make your battlemage very focused on undead and buffing, and also lessens his offensive casting. Fireball > Searing Light, methinks.

Uh, methinks a wizard that can wear plate and melee with medium BAB shouldn't have the same offensive power as a wizard that wears cloth and has a bad BAB. Just my old-fashioned idea of balance though.

Except that BAB and AC are both useless stats. And the mage could get a better AC all natural (as in NAKED WIZARD!). And...

In other words, your old fashioned idea of balance is why WotC fails so hard.

Also, remind me why they're blasting again?

Edit: Fail. Fix your tags tic.

What Roy said. Tic, please fix your posts to close each and every quote tag, or just delete the quotes if you must. This board has a minor error if people don't follow proper formatting rules.

Murtak wrote: Wizard 1, Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Be a LA+0 outsider instead for the proficiencies and alter self cheese.

tic wrote:What about the party wizard? Can he bust out the full plate?

Wearing fullplate starts to be a suboptimal choice at some point. As a DM, I disallow newbs when they ask for yet another option to suck to be available. Want fullplate (or mithral chain or dragonskin leather or whatever) as part of your character's image? Just play magical fvcking teaparty and yes, you'll count as actually wearing this armor if it would be advantageous for some reason.

Somebody edit this into Tic's post, it should fix the thread:

FrankTrollman wrote:
But see, that's more choice. If you decide that you only like 7th level D&D you can just play 3e at 7th level. If you decide that you like 4e's only power level, you can play it at any level, but if you want something bigger or smaller there is nowhere you can go.

Both games have a scope yes, but 4e's scope is explicitly and deliberately much narrower. It was advertised as a feature by David Noonan. He called it "expanding the sweet spot" - but really it just means writing higher and lower power levels out of the game and giving nothing in return.

I don't know. I always considered the rapidly expanding scope of 3E to be a weakness. Because it was really fucking hard to get your adventure to stick in the sweet spot, while still allowing some feeling of character advancement.

About all you could do was freeze people from leveling, but nobody really wants to do that and it makes players unhappy. But at the same time, even a small number of levels in 3E could vastly change the game you were playing. The power curve was just too steep.

If anything, I rather like them stretching out the levels so that each level means less. So you can have character advancement without completely changing the game. The 4E format was actually pretty decent in that regard, separating things into 10 level tiers. You get heroic tier which is your lord of the rings shit. Your paragon tier which was more high powered, and the epic tier for the crazy shit. that's a good idea, because it gives people 10 levels to play with in whatever tier they want. So if I want a campaign about heroic stuff, I can do it, same with paragon, and so I can set my levels such that the punisher can get better, yet remains on a punisher level. He's never taking on Silver Surfer just for the hell of it.

The problem 4E made with this concept was that the paragon and epic tiers didn't really change the game at all. They felt basically the same as heroic. And that sucked.

But I still believe 4E had some good concepts in there. They were just put together in such a way that produced a game that wasn't fun to play.