4Edition. Do you like it?

[alhoon]

Heh, I love debating the details with people we agree on the 90% of the topic.

Depends on the level of the orc. It's static damage from feats and items that really make-up the difference in the epic tier. A wizard probably will dish it out, even with at-wills.

The usual, out of MManual 4th level orc. 66 hp.
Nope, There's no way a wizard could do that much damage with an at will.
Intelligence: starting at 20, +6 =26 = +8 damage.
Wand +6 = +14 damage total.
Feats that increase force damage by say +2 = +16 total
Bracers of the perfect shot (+6) = +22 total.
Paragon path feature that increases damage by+1 =+23 total
Things that I missed/forgot (+3) = +25 total.

Magic missile: 4d4+25 damage. Nope the wizard will need 2 rounds with at will powers to kill that single, unwashed orc.
Even with a critical, he would propably need 2 rounds as the crit does 41 damage +6d6.
Oh, and this wizard is known as the "Master of the Magic missile".

Now, if that wizard was ambushed by 3 orcs, 1 raiders and 2 bersekers, that would be about 5-6 rounds of combat if he decided to fight with at will powers only.

By the way, a 25th level elite usually has about 360-380 hp.

"I'm the embodiment of magical knowledge. I have read forgotten libraries constructed aeons ago by mythical beings... Fly? Well, not more than 20' over the surface. Change to a bird? Nope."

Rituals do let you fly. There's an overland flight one from Dragon for mid-Paragon that makes travel easy.
Shapechanging... they might have one, but it'd likely work for travel only and in combat you resume your own form.
[/quote]
My point exactly. "There's one in dragon" i.e Not PHB, not Arcane power. And you CAN'T fight when flying. It's like the spell lands you to the encounter.
"Hey, guys! See those giants down there 1 mile down? Well, take out your swords and let's get them! No, we can't peper them with spells and arrows from over here you moron! Once we decide to attack the magic starts unraveling!"

The same goes for shapechanging. Because the magic of shapechanging is also too fragile to accept the stress of combat. Heh... here, I got an explanation. Too fragile magic, not withstanding the stress of combat. I believe it was too hard for WotC staff to think of that, when they wrote the ritual. They just divided the game to "combat mode" and "traveling mode"

Bragan the 10th level fighter with his items has a save vs spells at 9. So, if the 1st level mage threw a charm person on him, OR a 20th level archmage ... he resists with a 9.

I was ranting about the Pre-3rd edition saves here. Save vs wands... different from save vs spells for some reason.

Now, traps are essentially a mini-combat and best used in-combat. And exploration is the tiny length of time spent in halls between rooms where combat occurs. So the game is has moved from combat and traps and exploration to combat, and combat with traps, and short rests.

Hey, I disagree here. Traps are best used as... skill challenges! Far better option IMO than "search DC 22, Disable device DC 23" or even worse... find traps 32%, disable traps 35%... good luck finding the trap. Oh and in 2nd edition, traps aimed at 6th level or so parties could actually kill. Save vs Poison (i.e 14-15 for the poor wizard) or DEATH.

[HuManBing]

Heh, I love debating the details with people we agree on the 90% of the topic.

Be careful. As any historian will tell you, it's the 10% difference of opinion that leads to problems.

(100 years' war, Sino-Soviet split, etc.)

[Cronax]

Now, if that wizard was ambushed by 3 orcs, 1 raiders and 2 bersekers, that would be about 5-6 rounds of combat if he decided to fight with at will powers only.

You are making the assumption that the orcs would retain identical statistics when battled by a heroic tier wizard and by an epic tier wizard. Should said epic level wizard decide for whatever reason to slaughter those level 4 orcs, any reasonable GM should reduce them to minion status, or more likely dispense with the need for any rolling at all. Honestly, even in 3rd edition, if a GM is forcing an epic level character to go through all the motions of combat against 4th level opponents, something has gone wrong.

Also, in 4E, wizards are not damage specialists, especially not against single targets. If you want to frag orcs with magic, you'd do far better with a Sorcerer or Warlock.

And you CAN'T fight when flying.

IIRC overland flight had downsides to make doing battle difficult in every edition. If you want to fly around while fighting, you're much better off with the level 16 Wizard Utility Power: Fly (From the PHB no less).

The same goes for shapechanging.

Are you familiar with the Druid? (or the Warden for that matter)

[Jester of the FoS]

The usual, out of MManual 4th level orc. 66 hp.
Nope, There's no way a wizard could do that much damage with an at will.
Intelligence: starting at 20, +6 =26 = +8 damage.
Wand +6 = +14 damage total.
Feats that increase force damage by say +2 = +16 total
Bracers of the perfect shot (+6) = +22 total.
Paragon path feature that increases damage by+1 =+23 total
Things that I missed/forgot (+3) = +25 total.

Magic missile: 4d4+25 damage. Nope the wizard will need 2 rounds with at will powers to kill that single, unwashed orc.
Even with a critical, he would propably need 2 rounds as the crit does 41 damage +6d6.
Oh, and this wizard is known as the "Master of the Magic missile".

Now, if that wizard was ambushed by 3 orcs, 1 raiders and 2 bersekers, that would be about 5-6 rounds of combat if he decided to fight with at will powers only.

But, a wizard does not deal damage primarily. They're AoE damage and crowd control (which they do badly compared to the invoker and druid).
Any decent striker will tear through a level 4 monster.

My point exactly. "There's one in dragon" i.e Not PHB, not Arcane power. And you CAN'T fight when flying. It's like the spell lands you to the encounter.

Dragon is official. It's just as valid as source as Arcane Power.

Now, traps are essentially a mini-combat and best used in-combat. And exploration is the tiny length of time spent in halls between rooms where combat occurs. So the game is has moved from combat and traps and exploration to combat, and combat with traps, and short rests.

Hey, I disagree here. Traps are best used as... skill challenges! Far better option IMO than "search DC 22, Disable device DC 23" or even worse... find traps 32%, disable traps 35%... good luck finding the trap. Oh and in 2nd edition, traps aimed at 6th level or so parties could actually kill. Save vs Poison (i.e 14-15 for the poor wizard) or DEATH.

I'm less in love with skill challenge traps.
They tend to only involve a single character (rogue) and be repetitive (three thievery checks in a row). There's also the big question about WHY the master rogue needs three tries to turn a mechanism off.
I'm fond of minion-traps that are one-shot obstacles and sudden surprises (like traps in 1-3e).

[alhoon]

Now, if that wizard was ambushed by 3 orcs, 1 raiders and 2 bersekers, that would be about 5-6 rounds of combat if he decided to fight with at will powers only.

Should said epic level wizard decide for whatever reason to slaughter those level 4 orcs, any reasonable GM should reduce them to minion status, or more likely dispense with the need for any rolling at all. Honestly, even in 3rd edition, if a GM is forcing an epic level character to go through all the motions of combat against 4th level opponents, something has gone wrong.

I agree. I have house-rules in place to change all standardmonsters of level = party-6 to minions. My point in that was that 1. that's a house rule and 2. The difference between the level of power between lvl 1 and level 30 monsters isn't to my liking mostly because I find it unrealistically low.

IIRC overland flight had downsides to make doing battle difficult in every edition. If you want to fly around while fighting, you're much better off with the level 16 Wizard Utility Power: Fly (From the PHB no less).

In Core 3.5 edition you could either fly, or not. NOT traveling / fighting modes. No downsides. Fly spell would allow you to fly usually at 80' per round for 1 min/lvl. That's it. If you wanted to just flyyyy to the sky or just pelt melee combatants with spells from a vantage point didn't matter to the spell.

About the 16th level spell: I stand corrected! I thought it was for encounters only although it says "You can sustain this power until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes" The last part, I have missed.
I hereby declare that I'm OK with the fly wizard spell. As simple as that. Would I prefer it to be a bit different? Well... yes. But it makes sense. You fly for 5 mins if you mantain the spell with concentration. Once per day? Yes, that's how magic works, but it works in an understandable way at least.

The same goes for shapechanging.

Are you familiar with the Druid? (or the Warden for that matter)

Nope. I'm not. I don't have the book... AND I can't renew my CB subscription for some reason!

[Kaitou Kage]

But, a wizard does not deal damage primarily. They're AoE damage and crowd control (which they do badly compared to the invoker and druid).

I think this is a product of the wizard being the first controller. By the time invoker and druid came along, Wizards had some more hands-on experience and feedback about how controllers played, so they were presumably able to smooth out some more rough edges within the controller concept. As a result, you see the later classes having a slight edge on earlier classes. That being said, I think a wizard augmented with Arcane Power is a pretty potent character.

You see this happen with a few other classes. I've seen it argued that warlocks are the weakest striker. I have no particular stance one way or the other, but I can say that many later strikers, especially the sorcerer, have better and more reliable damage. My level 6 sorcerer does 1d10+12 with an at-will. Paladins were "okay" in the beginning, but became much more potent defenders when Divine Power came out and better able to keep up with classes like the warden and swordmage. So I think many of the less-effective core classes do get caught up to the curve when the supplements come out. I don't think it should have to happen that way, but I think it's for the better that they close the gap in the end.

[NeoTiamat]

I should point out that with 3rd Edition, Wizards saw fit to release an entire 'half' edition with 3.5, so it's not like learning curves with systems are a new thing.

[Jester of the FoS]

But, a wizard does not deal damage primarily. They're AoE damage and crowd control (which they do badly compared to the invoker and druid).

I think this is a product of the wizard being the first controller. By the time invoker and druid came along, Wizards had some more hands-on experience and feedback about how controllers played, so they were presumably able to smooth out some more rough edges within the controller concept. As a result, you see the later classes having a slight edge on earlier classes. That being said, I think a wizard augmented with Arcane Power is a pretty potent character.

You see this happen with a few other classes. I've seen it argued that warlocks are the weakest striker. I have no particular stance one way or the other, but I can say that many later strikers, especially the sorcerer, have better and more reliable damage. My level 6 sorcerer does 1d10+12 with an at-will. Paladins were "okay" in the beginning, but became much more potent defenders when Divine Power came out and better able to keep up with classes like the warden and swordmage. So I think many of the less-effective core classes do get caught up to the curve when the supplements come out. I don't think it should have to happen that way, but I think it's for the better that they close the gap in the end.

Yes and no.

The best strikers in the game are arguably the bow ranger and the rogue, the best leader is the cleric and the best defender is the fighter.

The wizard got shafted because he was so amazing in 3e and earlier; they responded by toning him down a little much. Arcane Power *almost* brings him in line with the invoker pre-Divine Power, but not quite.

The warlock is decent but flawed and the pally suffers from a role-playing nerf (when they changed his mark to avoid un-paladin running and kiting).

Other classes can work in a pinch, but are preferred as a secondary. A warlord or shaman can fill the hole and a bard is nearly as effective as a cleric, but the latter is just very good at what they do.

An ideal party would be fighter/cleric/invoker/ranger with anything else acting as 5th.

[Mortavius]

After playing both, one of my players swears that Swordmage is a better Defender than the Fighter. But I haven't crunched any numbers on this; just offering up his opinion and feedback to the matter.

[Jester of the FoS]

The swordmage is decent, especially if you need more controlling. Or if the party only has one person that needs defending at a time. The fighter is really solid at protecting multiple people and shutting-down enemy movement.

[Cronax]

The best strikers in the game are arguably the bow ranger and the rogue, the best leader is the cleric and the best defender is the fighter.

From the games I've run, a tactical inspiration warlord blows a cleric out of the water when it comes to leading. Sure, the cleric has better healing powers, but the sheer quantity of to hit and damage bonuses the warlord can pass out mean the extra healing is rarely even needed.

I completely concur with you about the others though. Rangers and Rogues are in a class above pretty much all other strikers and nothing quite compares to the lock down that fighter combat superiority provides

[Jester of the FoS]

Leaders are a bit of a hodge-podge of a role, like controllers.
The former are a combination of buffing/heals while the latter are AoE dps and crowd control.
Games like WoW tend to just lump control with dps and allow self-buffs or group buffs in multiple classes and let healers focus on healing.

In that respect a cleric and bard works nicely.
For straight-up buffing a warlord works nicely. My 4e group is working quite well with its warlord as sole leader (tactlord, with what is arguably the best daily leader power in the game). Great once a day. Meanwhile, a laser-cleric/ healer (and bard) shines each and every fight.

Warlord and cleric do have the problems, most with the PHB1 power design (hit, miss does something but not as cool or effective as a hit) compared to the PHB2 design (an effect, with something extra on a hit). Whenever our warlord misses with the daily - which happens alot because she only has a 15 strength - it really hurts.

[alhoon]

I only have PHB1 and the cleric in my game is good for healing, good to "draw" attacks because he's a dwarf with durability and trained in scale armor + shield = lot's of AC. But he's next to worthless as a damage dealer. Flame strike and the radiant paragon path powers are doing something but he's just not good... except for healing.

As for wizards, with Arcane power they gave them back their most important aspect of 3rd edition.
Versatility. Sure, not as good controlers. But they have the most choices in the game if made correct. The Tomes of knowledge allow versatility to even encounter powers. Add this to the fact that magical tomes of knowledge often contain more than one per-encounter substitute.

A paragon wizard has 4 per encounter powers like everyone else, but if he has a tome he can pick his 4 per encounter powers from a list of 7.

[MadStepDad]

I know some old school heads who have a lot of positive things to say about 4E, the way it's more streamlined and the combat is more visual and visceral. But from what I've seen (nothing), the only real difference in edition is the rule set. Which basically means "combat". So yeah, the combat changed a little but it's still the same game right?

With that said, I want to give extra special props to Dion for the 4E Monster conversion, Jester for his stuff and to Niotamet for running an actual 4E adventure. Madd props for the enthusiasm and keeping RAVENLOFT alive no matter what the rules God brings.

peace,

MSD

[alhoon]

Hey, I ran a 4E campaign... don't I get anything?