[Menchi]

Originally Posted by midnightq2

Alright, I’m going to try this one last time.



You mean other than the nine examples I gave in the review? As far as "accurate," I addressed that in a previous post. If anyone wants to post the complete text of all nine powers with explanations of the terminology, go right ahead.

You mean these examples:

Originally Posted by The review

* Cleave: Str vs. AC; 1[W] + Str mod damage, and an adjacent enemy takes Str mod damage.

- Attacks two targets with one strike.

* Passing Strike: Str vs. AC; 1[W] + Str mod damage, and you can move one square and attack a second target. Secondary attack: Str +2 vs. AC; 1[W] + Str mod damage.

Allows you to attack a target, and then move past to attack a second target nearby with more ease.

* Rain of Blows: Str vs. AC; 1[W] + Str mod damage, and you can attack the same or a different target. Secondary attack: Str vs. AC; 1[W] + Str mod damage.

Allows you to take a flexible second attack either on one target or two.

* Tide of Iron: Str vs. AC; 1[W] + Str mod damage, and you push the target one square.

Hits a target so hard they are knocked backwards...

So far I'm not seeing powers that are doing the exact same thing - but rather show a theme and a number of distinct results. YMMV obviously - but hardly proof of repetition. You claim these are minor variations - but in 4e the difference between Str vs AC and Str +2 Vs AC against a target one square away is considerably different. Cleave will not effect an opponent one square away, and +2 is a significant bonus.

Knocking an enemy back one square is also a significant effect in a tactical game, as you can set up attacks for other players - with that one ability you are able to give your opponents useful advantages - such as in one of the playtests we did where a simple push like that placed an opponent in the line of fire for a Dragonborn's breath attack. Hardly a minor variation on the previous attacks, nor the other abilities you list. Chalk up one misunderstanding and underestimation of the tactical nature of the system.

Also, I never claimed that that 3.5 had less repetitious powers, because 3.5 didn't have powers in the same sense. The closest equivalents were class features, most of which weren’t chosen, and feats, some of which were somewhat repetitious, but there weren't as many of them, and they weren't a central feature of the game. I wasn't specifically comparing 4e to 3.5 here.

Funny. You said before in this thread you were. And you also said:

Originally Posted by The Review

Let me make it clear up front that this review is going to be somewhat hypercritical and will focus on the differences between this edition and the previous edition.

Which is it going to be? Comparison or no comparison.

The similarity lies in the basic structure of the classes. All classes now have the same number of powers, the same number of which are once-per-day, once-per-encounter, etc., and most of which are combat attacks. Individual powers are different, but their basic purpose and structure are the same. I don't know how to "prove" this, other than quoting several entire chapters.

Funny - Wizards get more choices than Warlocks or fighters, the actual power effects vary widely. You mistake consistent design for repetition. A Wizard's powers do not allow him to go up and aim to be bloodied by the enemy so as to make him more powerful. A Paladin - on the other hand - does. A Cleric uses his larger number of healing surges so as to help his allies save theirs for dire emergencies. The classes are not all the same, their powers mean that they all have different tactics. What the system does do is try to ensure that every class is equally effective in combat in their own unique way so that no single class will outshine the other. That may not appeal to some people who prefer to have weaker combat classes. But that is different from claiming that they are all the same or that they are repetitions of each other.

Actually, I did note all of those things, albeit briefly. My point was, I’d rather have a limited number of spells each day and a larger number to choose from. The new edition does not provide the option of playing this way.

Thus showing how you are fixed in a 3.5 game design bias, rather than considering how the change might alter a Wizard's overall effectiveness. Furthermore, your point seems to be that there aren't enough spells for a Wizard and he's limited to his uses.

Originally Posted by The Review

Or, if we get a small selection of spells, like a sorcerer, we should at least be able to cast them on the fly. Instead, we get a tiny selection of spells and we have to memorize them.

Yet, this "tiny" selection of spells involves 6 at will spells that you can cast, and cast, and cast, and cast - several of which have out of combat use and two of which have strong combat use. Then there is the one encounter spell that you can keep casting once per encounter all day long. And two daily spells of considerably high power, of which you choose one to memorise each day, and with an expanded spell book this equals three powerful spells to use.

So one out of eight spells that you can call on is limited. Compared to a level one 3.5 Wizard who gets... 2 first level spells, of which he can only cast 1 per day and has 3 level 0 spells that have little combat effectiveness.

Yes. Clearly Wizards have been nerfed completely. Sure in 3.5 you can cast form your spell book if you want to make that concentration check in the middle of a fight... Plus you need to *find* the spells to cast. Like I said, if you are going to make a comparison, you need to show it. From what I can see, the 4e Wizard casts magic more often and has more flexibility. I'm struggling to see how they have been disadvantaged.

I notice that you didn’t give any examples of other reviews that satisfactorily “prove” their points.

Namely because others in this thread have already linked to such reviews.

First, I didn’t use the sample scenario in the DMG. Second, the warlord’s problem was that for most of the combat, he wasn’t close enough to any allies who would be able to take advantage of his powers (see examples in the review).

So let me get this straight. Because the players didn't work together to play on each others strengths, the game is to blame? If the Warlord player or the other players weren't working together to ensure they get those ideal set ups to take advantage of the warlord's ability, that can hardly be blamed on the game unless you can show that the abilities present unrealistic requirements to be met.

Sounds more to me like a group who weren't playing as a party, but as loner adventurers hanging out together.

You still haven’t given any specific examples of misunderstandings. What rules do you think I misunderstood? Am I wrong in thinking that many of the warlord’s powers require him to be close to an ally? Your reasoning seems to be that if I didn’t enjoy the game, it must be because I didn’t understand it.

Read above. As I stated, you have misunderstood not only 4e, but it seems you have an odd remembering of 3.x as well.

I’m not going to bother further addressing the issues of “bias” or of being “incomplete.” These issues have been exhausted.

That's your choice. I feel that I have reasonably shown proof that you're review is inaccurate and incomplete. I even checked out the hypertext SRD to check up on 3.5 to show that Wizards have, in fact, been given more effectiveness and flexibility in 4e. Now I will agree that the overall selection of spells is currently small compared to 3.5 - but given that 3.5 has a huge array of resources compared to 4e, that is to be expected.

Some people may not like the way the powers are set out - but to claim that they are all cut and paste jobs with minor variations betrays a considerably poor understanding of how effective the tactical structure of the game is - and how much something as simple as a one square movement can have dramatic repercussions on the outcome of a fight. You bemoan the lack of examples - and yet your own review suffers because you never explain either edition to back up your claims.

Two fully written powers that were exactly the same mechanically would have had more effect than nine paraphrased powers that showed up to not be exactly the same, nor with minor variations.

Comparison of the number of effective spells cast by a 3.5 wizard per day compared to a 4e wizard would have been better than loosely claiming that 3.5 Wizards had more flexibility and spells - when I was able to show that from the first level, the 4e wizard had more spell options and flexibility. Sure, nothing wrong with preferring the 3.x version - but back it up with something. Otherwise you will get caught out if someone challenges you.

Edit: I now realise I had forgotten Rituals as well. Add an additional 3 spells for a Wizard at beginning level. They are out of combat spells, and a Wizard can learn any number of rituals. So in the end, a Wizard has access to more spells than his 3.5 equivalent and starts off more flexible and combat effective. I think it is safe to say that this can be chalked up as a second case of you, the reviewer, misunderstanding the rules and providing an inaccurate representation of the game. A 3.5 wizard starts with seven spells, two of which are genuinely effective and only one that can be cast without needing to refer to a spellbook all of which are gone after cast until the Wizard rests.. Conversely, a 4e wizard starts with a whopping 12-13 spells, 6 of which can be cast all the time all day, 1 of which can be cast once every 5 minutes (effectively) every day and two of which only one can be cast each day for a powerful effect that exceeds what a 3.5 Wizard could have done and 3 spells which can be cast all the time all day as long as the Wizard can afford the components. Again - show me how that is a) less actual spells and b) hindering Wizards.

Conan