Pen and Paper D&D

[Sheepherder]

Yeah, it's reflecting that shit Back At Ya if the DM is worth a damn.

He was paralyzed for the entire encounter.  That's a little better than reflecting a Magic Missile.

I shall take up Fordel's challenge!

This is a build I seriously contemplated for a replacement character in a ninth level game:

Wizard with high Str, Dex, Con, and an Int of 11 (which means he could only cast 1st level spells)
Six different meta magic feats, to use all of his 2nd through 5th level spell slots on. Essentially just bumping up the effectiveness of all his various 1st level spells.

Ok, seriously, it was a retarded idea, but I could have made the character, and I probably would have had fun with him, even though he'd be fairly useless. In 4th, you couldn't actually mechanically do this (you can't intentionally gimp yourself out of higher level powers afaik), but even if you could, having those high physical stats would do nothing for you, as none of your powers would use them.

When you pick powers it's x level or lower.  So you pretty much want a bog-standard Wizard picking low level powers out of PHB and Arcane Power, maybe multi or hybrid class it to a martial class (I'd hybrid it to fighter for ultimate gimpage), and maybe pick up the skill powers out of PHB3:


 

I'd still like to hear Fordel's take though.

EDIT: There are enough level 1 Encounter and Daily powers for a level 30 character in the PHB alone, but Arcane Power gives you some flexibility.

[Ingmar]

You can gimp yourself pretty badly by keeping your main attack stat low. Start with an 8 or something (or even the 11 int). If you avoid magic implements, never take an expertise feat or raise your int, etc, you will easily be completely terrible by late heroic tier and by epic you will be just about useless. It doesn't matter too much if you have the powers if you can never hit, that would probably be the 4e equivalent of the high level wizard who doesn't know any good spells.

[Sheepherder]

Don't even have to gimp yourself that way.  The rules explicitly leave open the option of buying low level powers just because you want to be crazy, and you never have more than 2 at-will powers, 4 encounter powers, 4 daily powers, and 7 utility powers.

[proudft]

Don't forget multiclassing either.  Everyone needs a Utility 2 Rogue power, right?  

I do really like the multiclassing feats that let you take power(s) from other classes.  That is great for replicating random weird stuff that may have been around in the past.  Like before they (re)made the assassin class, I made an old assassin as a Rogue with a couple of Fighter whirlwindy-type powers, and it pretty much replicated what I had in my head with not very much fuss at all.

[Ingmar]

By the way it was 8 classes in the first PHB, not 6 (Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.) If you throw in PHB 2's 8 more classes (Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Invoker, Avenger, Warden, Shaman, Sorcerer) the number of options you're at with 2 books is all of one class less than PF with 2 books I believe.

I'll grant you, they probably took too long to give us a 4e monk (and arguably too long to give us bard/barbarian/druid/sorcerer), they should have prioritized getting all the original 3e classes replaced to help ease people converting over. I think they made a mistake by not providing the conversion assistance they did when 3e hit, they made a poor assumption that everyone was going to prefer to start over (I remember statements from them to the effect of "ehh.... you can't really convert, just start over"). Really that was probably the single biggest mistake they made in the transition, they were always going to lose the people who sperged out when diagonal movement changed, etc., but faster support for old options would have gone a long way.

[Rendakor]

Y'all keep saying that, but the PHB and DMG I have don't show it.  If it's true because of all the later supplements then they messed up, because it's too late as far as myself and many others are concerned.

This for me too.

[proudft]

Not that I would advise you to sign up for something for a game you aren't interested in, but fyi, the dndinsider subscription stuff gives you access to everything from every book (as an aside, I hope they are making enough money from this to stay in business, because you can easily have players now who don't need to buy anything but the $25/3 months subscription).  

So something being in some obscure side book is no longer nearly as much of an issue as it used to be.  Basically you can read everything except for flavor text online in the character builder or compendium.  The main problem now is not lack of available options but information overload, with too many options.  Fortunately some crazy people like Fordel read EVERYTHING and so when I have a question like 'what's the name of a feat or power that lets you jump further' he can peep right up and tell me what to look for specifically on dndinsider instead of searching for 'jump' and wading through everything.  But my point is, I wouldn't need to own Jumping Power 2: The Jumpening hardback book to do this, and all the classes that have shown up since the beginning of 4E are now on an equal playing field as far as access to their info for everyone (there is a delay from book->showing up in the online stuff, but it's not too terrible).

 

[Bunk]

 Basically you can read everything except for flavor text online in the character builder or compendium.  

So, they actually decided to start adding flavour text after the first three books? Seriously, that was the first thing that got me worried when reading the 4e PHB the first time - they crammed a shit load of rules in to those books, but there was none of the traditional D&D book flavour.

[proudft]

Well, the style is pretty much the same. They are certainly nothing like the AD&D rules for idle reading, but nothing really is.

[Sheepherder]

PHB1: Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.

PHB2: Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Invoker, Avenger, Warden, Shaman, Sorcerer.

PHB3: Ardent, Battlemind, Monk, Psion, Runepriest, Seeker.

They should have cut this down to one release date, instead of one in spring of each year.  Even more glaring given their release schedule is the numerous times that classes which are almost identical to each other thematically or in role appear side by side in the same book, the number of classes that appear in PHB2 which should have been there on release, and the classes nobody gives a damn about or which are redundant in PHB2 and PHB3.

[RhyssaFireheart]

PHB1: Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard.

PHB2: Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Invoker, Avenger, Warden, Shaman, Sorcerer.

PHB3: Ardent, Battlemind, Monk, Psion, Runepriest, Seeker.

They should have cut this down to one release date, instead of one in spring of each year.  Even more glaring given their release schedule is the numerous times that classes which are almost identical to each other thematically or in role appear side by side in the same book, the number of classes that appear in PHB2 which should have been there on release, and the classes nobody gives a damn about or which are redundant in PHB2 and PHB3.

$$$$$$$

Seriously though, everything is about maximizing the IP and seeing how many different books you can get the players to buy rather than the convenience of having all the information you need in one PHB and being done with it.

[Ingmar]

Show me the edition of D&D that didn't do that? Even 1e had Unearthed Arcana. Players, by and large, WANT more books with more stuff.

This is the first edition that really *does* have everything all in one "book", it is just that book is actually a subscription to DDI.

[Samwise]

In 2E and 3E you had the PHB, the DMG, and the MM, and those were the "core books" that were all you needed to play the game.  Supplements existed, but me and my group by and large didn't use them and didn't miss them.  If you weren't the DM, all you needed was the PHB to know absolutely everything you needed to know about how to make a character and play the game.

On the couple of occasions where I've tried to get into a 4E game, I get a stack of like 6 books dumped on me (or an equivalent quantity of PDFs to scroll through) so I can make a character, and I am told that I can't really make a viable character with just what's in the PHB1, or even with all 3 PHBs put together.

This might just be a marketing difference, where the PHB1 is really functionally equivalent to the old PHB, and WotC has just done a really good job of making the optional supplements LOOK LIKE core books so that everyone THINKS they need them.  At the very least, it's still distasteful.

[Ingmar]

I am told that I can't really make a viable character with just what's in the PHB1

Ah. Well that bit isn't really true, at least, at least no more true than it is for 3E - I eventually kind of hated building PHB-only characters in 3E since a lot of the important feat support for class features and stuff was in other books. You can always build stronger characters in any edition once you have all the options at hand. We all know players for whom the word viable actually means optimal, but you can definitely function in 4e with a PHB-only character - especially if your DM is similarly restricted to the MM1.*

Building a 4E player character without character builder software does suck though, that's a totally fair criticism. It is a bit worse in 4e than 3e in that regard, even with similar piles of options available, just because you're typically making more choices on a 4e character now - not only picking feats on a fighter, but a stack of powers as well, etc.

*One exception is the math bug around attack rolls and non-AC defenses, core-only groups should really consider at least allowing the expertise and defense feats that 'patch' these, by late paragon it gets pretty evident.

[Ratman_tf]

My first character was a Ranger, and my second is a Warlord. Both characters take the majority of their powers from the expanded books. (Whatever they're called) because all the powers I saw in the PHB1 were vanilla bland.
Hell, my Ranger used Twin Strike rather than the lame enounter and daily powers from that book.

[Sheepherder]

Seriously though, everything is about maximizing the IP and seeing how many different books you can get the players to buy rather than the convenience of having all the information you need in one PHB and being done with it.

Except it doesn't seem to be working.  I haven't paid them anything, even though I would want to normally.

[Fordel]

I shall take up Fordel's challenge!

This is a build I seriously contemplated for a replacement character in a ninth level game:

Wizard with high Str, Dex, Con, and an Int of 11 (which means he could only cast 1st level spells)
Six different meta magic feats, to use all of his 2nd through 5th level spell slots on. Essentially just bumping up the effectiveness of all his various 1st level spells.

Ok, seriously, it was a retarded idea, but I could have made the character, and I probably would have had fun with him, even though he'd be fairly useless. In 4th, you couldn't actually mechanically do this (you can't intentionally gimp yourself out of higher level powers afaik), but even if you could, having those high physical stats would do nothing for you, as none of your powers would use them.

As the others already mentioned, you can just take first level wizard powers all the way down every new level and keep your Int at a 8, you'll be throwing basic melee attacks in cloth for 30 levels and suck just as much as you would in 3e.  


The actual THEME of your character build (not it's shittyness) , is generally called an At-Will specialist, where all their feats and power selection goes into buffing their At-Will spells, with their encounter and daily spells being either super situational or simply buffs for their At-Wills. You can do this with a Wizard, but a physical/casting split in stats would work much better on say, a Sorcerer, which actually uses either Str or Dex as their secondary stat. Then you can start multiclassing and powerswaping into a more physical class if you want useful physical stat powers outside of the universal basic attacks and grabs and shit.


Alternatively, you might enjoy a Psion or Ardent from a mechanics standpoint. The way Augmenting powers works in 4e is probably the nearest to Metamagic feat stacking enhancing shenanigans. Psions and Ardent's don't have encounter powers, they just have at-will and daily powers. Their At-Will powers though, are augmentable through power points. So the spell is <herp> baseline, but you could spend a power point and it would now be <herp+derp> or you could spend 2 points and it would be <herp+derp+blurf>. You get a nice pool of points to play with and they regenerate after a short or extended rest. Then you can extend this with feats and PP's and etc.



-fake edit-

Looking over what the old 3.5 MetaMagic feats actually do, most of that functionality is tied into Wizard implement specializations, still in existing feats, or entirely irrelevant in the 4e system.

Heighten Spell, Quicken Spell, Silent Spell and Still Spell are all irrelevant in the 4e action and power system.

Enlarge Spell and Widen Spell have their own Feat equivalents in 4e to increase spell range and radius, though I think Enlarge spell is actually the radius increase in 4e, with something else being for distance, Far spell I think.

The rest are handled through Wizard Implement class features or Feats, though I don't think there is a direct parallel to Maximize spell itself, but plenty of things that fit its theme. Bonus damage when using blah keywords, bonus die when blah vulnerable etc.



So yea, At-Will specialist with Multiple Orb/Tome wizard specs (feat for it) would do it. Toss in a expanded spell book so you can choose from even more low level spells that will never hit thanks to your abysmal intelligence!  

You'll always have magic missle though!



PS. "having those high physical stats would do nothing for you, as none of your powers would use them."

What does this even mean, like, I don't remember having a high str being awesome for a Wizard in previous editions either. Dex for AC isn't required, because you can get AC in no/light armor from Dex OR Int and normally wizards have plenty of Int. Con is actually a Wizard secondary in 4e, Staff spec uses it and it might have a few riders, but wizard powers in general have very few riders.

-fake edit 2- -real edit 1-

Ratman, you and every other ranger in 4e, because Twin Strike is actually the single most damaging At-Will in the game. Double attacking does great things in the 4e system.



-real edit 2-

If you are going FR campaign or including Gensai, then you actually can use Str as a secondary for wizard shit, whole builds built around Gensai Wizards with Int/Str.

[Sand]

Sure, you might have rituals that duplicate similar effects, but essentially rituals in 4e are just spells that the designers decided that you wouldn't be allowed to use in combat, because there was no easy way to balance their effects with every other class.

Wait what?!? You cant cast illusion in combat in 4e?

[Ingmar]

There are illusion type combat-usable powers. There's a whole illusionist build for the mage even.

[Fordel]

Yea, I don't know where this NO ILLUSION thing is coming from either, bards, wizards and psions can all heavily focus on Illusion effects, there's lots of feat support for Illusion specific things and the entire Gnomish Race in 4e is based around Illusions and Charm.

[JWIV]

Illusion stuff was a later add-on and not in the main books. I think it was part of Arcane Power I.

[Ingmar]

There are a number of illusion utility powers even in the first PHB - blur, mirror image, invisibility, greater invisibility, etc.

[CmdrSlack]

This whole thread pisses me off. I haven't had a gaming group since the 80s.

I am seriously looking at Castle Ravenloft and this as potential ways to at least get my wife playing something with me.

I'm sure the linked item may give some neckbearded folks a chance for amazing levels of indignation.

[Ratman_tf]

I'm sure the linked item may give some neckbearded folks a chance for amazing levels of indignation.

AHFUCK! THEY COPIED THE BASIC SET, BUT IT'S NASTY 4TH EDITION! WTF? KIRK IS SUPERIOR TO PICARD!

I'd get Ashardalon for an gateway game. The first time playing, we drew the dragon hisself within about 2 tiles into the dungen. He smushed us all. Good times. 

[Koyasha]

There are a number of illusion utility powers even in the first PHB - blur, mirror image, invisibility, greater invisibility, etc.

When people say 'illusion' they usually mean phantasmal force or silent image or what have you, not just generic illusion school stuff.  That's like, the iconic illusion spell, and when someone says 'cast illusion' that's pretty much always what they meant - those, or one of the upgraded versions.

[Bunk]

As Koyasha said - I'm under the assumption that illusions in 4e all have very specific effects, based onthe power being used. In 3.5, if I want to use silent image to make a Bugs Bunny tunnel through the mountain, there aren't any hard set rules on how that will play out with a given monster - it becomes a collabaration between the DM and player for each specific situation (which I enjoy). I'm sure you could find away to duplicate that type of scenario in 4e (rules are maleable of course) but the system isn't designed for it. To me, 4ed comes accross as a system designed to have a hard fast rule for everything (as far as combat goes).

To me "Bugs Bunny Tunnel" in 4ed would be something like this:

Utility Power. Int vs. Will.  Range 6. On hit, slide target 6 squares towards "Tunnel". 1d8+Int damage.

 

PS. "having those high physical stats would do nothing for you, as none of your powers would use them."

What does this even mean, like, I don't remember having a high str being awesome for a Wizard in previous editions either. Dex for AC isn't required, because you can get AC in no/light armor from Dex OR Int and normally wizards have plenty of Int. Con is actually a Wizard secondary in 4e, Staff spec uses it and it might have a few riders, but wizard powers in general have very few riders.

It was just a reference to the fact that every class has a different stat that seems to determine if they hit or not in 4ed. If I make a 3.5 Wizard with 18 str, he won't be as good in combat as Fighter certainly, but he'll still hit things over the head with his staff quite effectively. Yes, I could do the same in 4ed with a "basic attack" - however my impression of basic attacks in 4ed was basically, something you only ever used if you were absolutely forced in to it by no other options.

My 11 Int, 18 Dex Wizard in 3.5 would have lousy save DCs, but would be awesome at hitting with ray spells.

I'd forgotten that they made AC bonus come from Dex or Int in 4ed. Yea, it makes it easier to focus a build, but it also feels limiting to me - basically railroading you in to maxing out your two primary stats.

Also note - in Pathfinder, Polymorph spells retain the Wizards base physical stats as well, so there is a noticable benefit to that school to have high Str/Dex/Con.

[Sand]

There are a number of illusion utility powers even in the first PHB - blur, mirror image, invisibility, greater invisibility, etc.

When people say 'illusion' they usually mean phantasmal force or silent image or what have you, not just generic illusion school stuff.  That's like, the iconic illusion spell, and when someone says 'cast illusion' that's pretty much always what they meant - those, or one of the upgraded versions.

Yeah thats what I meant. Invisibility is invisibility= you cant see me. Illusion is illusion= Giant Gold Dragon appears in the doorway attempting to eat the evil death knight.
Not the same.

[Samwise]

To me "Bugs Bunny Tunnel" in 4ed would be something like this:

Utility Power. Int vs. Will.  Range 6. On hit, slide target 6 squares towards "Tunnel". 1d8+Int damage.

 

Why do you hate balance?

[Fordel]

Basic Attacks in 4e are just the most baseline, not any kind of 'last resort' or anything. Defenders get the most use out of them (usually through OAs), but they are also a way to provide bonus damage, usually via a more support oriented character granting basic attacks to an ally. By default they are STR based, but you can feat around that easily (think Weapon Finesse but without weapon restrictions and for any stat) and many class at-wills also count as a 'basic attack', such as magic missile for example. 


The only stat you get 'railroaded' into is your attack stat, for a wizard that would be INT. Wizards have very few riders on their powers that use a secondary, and even the most rider dependent classes still have roughly half of their powers without a rider and most classes have at least two different stat choices in rider. Maxing a rider isn't nearly as important as maxing your primary attack/hit stat, and plenty of builds spread their stats around for skills and multi-classing.


It's just a difference in the combat system, instead of all melee being STR based and all ranged being DEX based, there's a class specific stat instead. It doesn't limit diversity of builds at all. Arguably expands it if anything.


Even with 18 str, your 3e wizard isn't hitting with any kind of effectiveness, not with a wizards BAB table

[Sjofn]

Pretty sure utility powers don't do damage ever.  

I also have to laugh at the notion that having more than one stat cover a defense is somehow "railroading" you into keeping your two main stats as high as possible, rather than simply "not punishing." If you're the type of person that thinks an 11 int wizard with awesome physical stats is a great idea, I seriously doubt letting int and dex cover the same defense is going to deter you.



Also, how many level 1 ray spells are there in 3.5? I can't think of any, unless Pathfinder added some. I only remember the level 0 one. I mostly ignored the wizardy type classes though, because I fucking hated them. I had a vanara wu jen and that was MORE THAN ENOUGH for me. I have a high level cleric, but as I got to start her at level 16 or 17 (I forget), it doesn't count.

That cleric is also way, way, way closer to her original in-my-brain concept in 4th than she was in 3rd, it pleases me.

[Ingmar]

Ray of enfeeblement is the only one that comes to mind from the core rules - there are a bunch of 'lesser orb of <element>' ones added in a later book (Complete Mage or Arcane, reprinted in the Spell Compendium) but I don't think we get to count books outside the core 3 right now.  

EDIT:
The spells like phantasmal force and stuff always bothered me from a resolution standpoint, I know some groups see it as a method for some kind of narrative collaboration between player and DM but a lot of the time I saw it coming down to players expecting to be able to do things they shouldn't be able to do at a given spell level, etc. I've never really been a fan of 'blank check' spells going back to first edition. /shrug There are rituals that cover various out-of-combat uses of these things, although I do think rituals are still kind of underdeveloped as a game mechanic, they could use a once-over.

[Fordel]

I think the biggest issue with rituals is simply their component cost. Equal level rituals are a significant chunk of your character wealth while under level rituals are trivially cheap but often still scale perfectly with skill/level.


It's not like 3e didn't have component costs either, but it seemed easier to hand wave them away when it was like 5 pinches of bat guano and gold dust or whatever.

[Bunk]

Also, how many level 1 ray spells are there in 3.5? I can't think of any, unless Pathfinder added some. I only remember the level 0 one.

Heh, you spotted the major flaw in my build, which was one reason I never tried it.

Just to be clear guys, I'm continuing on with this discussion primarily because I consider it a fun topic to argue, and I may be trolling a little here and there. If you want me to really go off on an RPG concept, lets talk SDC/MDC. 

[Bunk]

I think the biggest issue with rituals is simply their component cost. Equal level rituals are a significant chunk of your character wealth while under level rituals are trivially cheap but often still scale perfectly with skill/level.


It's not like 3e didn't have component costs either, but it seemed easier to hand wave them away when it was like 5 pinches of bat guano and gold dust or whatever.

Yea, there are some issues with how they did rituals.

Longest game of 4ed I played in, I played an Eladrin Paladin who multied in to Wizard, because it fit the concept I had in mind. This was first three books only.
I took the feat or whatever it was to allow me to do rituals as early as I could. (side note - being stuck as the only healer in the party as a 4ed Paladin was not a good thing)

I did two rituals in the 7 or 8 levels I played that character... Not becuase I didn't like them, or didn't want to do them - but becuase I couldn't afford them. 3.5 at least limited the expensive components to spells that had a fairly major game impact, like Raise Dead or Restoration.

[Fordel]

(side note - being stuck as the only healer in the party as a 4ed Paladin was not a good thing)

Well not if you MC to Wizard no