Mearls says: We made more fail!

[RandomCasualty2]

The problem is that they gave each character type self-synergy and didn't give any character type cross-synergy. If melee guys threw down slow effects so that the ranged attackers could stay safe and ranged guys through down melee de-buffs so that the front liners could cleave through them then you'd want both groups in some kind of ratio. But since it's the other way, you just want to grab one tactic and super specialize the entire party to do it super hard.

Yeah, seriously, melee characters should basically be the controllers who are throwing down slow and immobilization effects, while ranged should mostly just be lightly armored DPS stuff. Another main problem with 4E too is that the wizards don't really have that bad defenses, so it's not even really like you've got to protect them as much as you had to in prior editions.

Mostly, in 4E you're happy if damage is being divided amongst the party. That's all you really care about.

[TOZ]

Another main problem with 4E too is that the wizards don't really have that bad defenses, so it's not even really like you've got to protect them as much as you had to in prior editions.

Mostly, in 4E you're happy if damage is being divided amongst the party. That's all you really care about.

Amen. That was the biggest thing I noticed when I got in on a game at DragonCon. I played the wizard, spammed flaming sphere or whatever, then realized I wasn't going to get off my encounter before it was over and just ran up to the front line. I mean, hell, I had the HP and defenses to survive it! I could never see myself doing that in 3.5 as a 1st level wizard.

[SunTzuWarmaster]

...Or in 2e, or in any game in which you called yourself a 'wizard', 'sorcerer', or 'magic-user'.

The standard controller at-will power at level 1 should be: "Target enemy loses his turn" (whatever the 4e equivalent of Daze is), and has about a 75% chance of success on lousy monsters, about a 60% chance on a normal monster, and about a 40% chance of success on a boss monster.

At level 10 (or a third of the way through the game in an other edition), this should apply to a group of people/monsters that are close together.

The standard controller "power that he uses sometimes but not always" at level 1 should be something like "knock someone over" or "illusion wall that you can walk through but might not".

At level 10 this should be something like the 3.5 Slow or Wall of Stone.

At level 1, the standard controller spell to use 1x/day should be "eliminate opponent from combat for a long time" as per Color Spray. Short Range, high damage, last-defense kind of spell.

At level 10 this upgrades into the 3e Hold Person (ranged version of the level 1 power) or the 3.5e Black Tentacles.

All through this time, if the character is to be called a wizard, he should have the utility movement powers (break someones fall, climb, teleport short distances, make a bridge, planar travel, summon a horse/flying mount), and the utility (mild debuff) powers (fog, alarm, arcane sight, identify, dispel magic).

[Judging__Eagle]

The problem is that they gave each character type self-synergy and didn't give any character type cross-synergy. If melee guys threw down slow effects so that the ranged attackers could stay safe and ranged guys through down melee de-buffs so that the front liners could cleave through them then you'd want both groups in some kind of ratio. But since it's the other way, you just want to grab one tactic and super specialize the entire party to do it super hard.

-Username17

I always have found it hilarious to note that, when the actual problem is identified, then the solution becomes pretty easy to find.

[Psychic Robot]

I always have found it hilarious to note that, when the actual problem is identified, then the solution becomes pretty easy to find.

TNE?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

We've never before had the ability to so clearly compare classes/roles and, when necessary, make adjustments. It's a lot easier to listen to feedback, gather hard data, and make comparisons between powers when we have a unified power scale.

"...yet somehow we were unable to do these things effectively during playtesting."

In Chris Perkins’s Wednesday game, we often refer to the invoker as the controller-leader-striker.

Herein lies another big problem with the whole roles system. Even if you can clearly define and separate the roles, you run into a huge problem. There are only going to be so many interesting ways to do each of the roles. Therefore, the only way you can make splatbook/PHB sequel classes interesting is to have them function in multiple roles. Classes that function in multiple roles tend to either suck at all of them or rule at all of them. Since weaker classes don't sell books, you end up with cleverly rationalized power creep.

[Username17]

Herein lies another big problem with the whole roles system. Even if you can clearly define and separate the roles, you run into a huge problem. There are only going to be so many interesting ways to do each of the roles. Therefore, the only way you can make splatbook/PHB sequel classes interesting is to have them function in multiple roles.

At which point there's really more roles than you claim to have.

If you can make a guy who does some things like a Tank and some things like a Crowd Controller (or whatever), then by definition Tank and Crowd Controller are not real roles. There are a certain number of sub roles that are "real" and the originally defined roles are just collections of those roles. So maybe the standard Tank contributes by restricting enemy actions and increasing the amount of blowback the party can sustain ; while the standard Crowd Controller contributes by being able to blast away mook monsters and nuke bosses for ridiculous DPS in uneven spurts. If you can make a balanced character called the Fencer who locks down enemy actions and nukes for big DPS you don't have a new role that is a hybrid of Controller and Tank, you just had a system where each character class had two roles chosen from Restricting, Defending, Nuking, and Clearance. That you decided to put a name on classes that took Restricting and Defending or Nuking and Clearance while not putting a name on classes that took Defending and Clearance doesn't make those names any more real.

Leader, Striker, Controller, and Defender are not real roles. They are all hodge-podges of things that characters do.

-Username17

-Username17

[tzor]

"...yet somehow we were unable to do these things effectively during playtesting."

BINGO! Hold your cards we have a BINGO. Someone just realized the fundamental rule of the universe; the very reason why writers need editors, programmers need code reviewers, and politicians need (well I don't know who they need but they need them ASAP). You can't realistically review or play test your own creation. You need a completely different set of eyes with a completely different viewpoint. Otherwise you will always not see the flaw you never saw before.

WOTC is not the first to try to go against this truism and fail and they won't be the last.

[Bigode]

So maybe the standard Tank contributes by restricting enemy actions and increasing the amount of blowback the party can sustain ; while the standard Crowd Controller contributes by being able to blast away mook monsters and nuke bosses for ridiculous DPS in uneven spurts.

(...)

Leader, Striker, Controller, and Defender are not real roles. They are all hodge-podges of things that characters do.

BTW, leader == buffing + healing, striker == ... ?

[Talisman]

Striking?

[Username17]

Every officially recognized role is made out of bits of the following things:

• Does single target damage.
• Clears mooks.
• Buffs allies.
• Curses opponents.
• Heals friends.
• Soaks damage.
• Denies enemy actions.

So the Fighter for example hands out little -2 to-hit curses on enemies like candy and can soak a fair amount of damage. Also he does some decent single target damage, but later on in life he makes mooks explode or stun enemies. The designers think that this all adds up to be a "Defender" - but seriously I could have called that a "controller" easily enough.

The "Striker" role is characterized by getting bigger single target damage handed to them. But the Warlock does a lot of curses even more than their damage is especially noticeable. And the Ranger gets a lot of mook cuisinarting. Honestly the classes don't look even remotely the same save that they both inflict relatively decent damage on single targets.

-Username17

[Voss]

If I recall, the earlier versions of the warlock they were reporting were focused even more on cursing than damage, but their 'playtests' somehow made them decide that more damage was the way to go. To the point that they originally described the warlock as a controller rather than a striker. But then they hit that particular piece of cognitive dissonance that said a controller = AoE damage, and the warlock got changed.

[Bigode]

To the point that they originally described the warlock as a controller rather than a striker. But then they hit that particular piece of cognitive dissonance that said a controller = AoE damage, and the warlock got changed.

In theory, it had the upside oh having "arcane" not be synonymous with "controller" - though the warlock ... looks more than a bit like one anyway IIRC.

[Caedrus]

Every officially recognized role is made out of bits of the following things:

• Does single target damage.
• Clears mooks.
• Buffs allies.
• Curses opponents.
• Heals friends.
• Soaks damage.
• Denies enemy actions.

So the Fighter for example hands out little -2 to-hit curses on enemies like candy and can soak a fair amount of damage. Also he does some decent single target damage, but later on in life he makes mooks explode or stun enemies. The designers think that this all adds up to be a "Defender" - but seriously I could have called that a "controller" easily enough.

The "Striker" role is characterized by getting bigger single target damage handed to them. But the Warlock does a lot of curses even more than their damage is especially noticeable. And the Ranger gets a lot of mook cuisinarting. Honestly the classes don't look even remotely the same save that they both inflict relatively decent damage on single targets.

-Username17

4e "role protection" makes me cry.

[Roy]

4e "role protection" makes me cry.

Plus Fucking One.

[Voss]

To the point that they originally described the warlock as a controller rather than a striker. But then they hit that particular piece of cognitive dissonance that said a controller = AoE damage, and the warlock got changed.

In theory, it had the upside oh having "arcane" not be synonymous with "controller" - though the warlock ... looks more than a bit like one anyway IIRC.

An unfortunate reason to fuck up a class. With an extra layer of funny for the simultaneously increasing the difficulty of differentiating paladins and clerics: Guy in armor who takes hits, heals and maybe shoots lasers.

[socrates999]

Cloud of Daggers, even with the least effective possible reading is still one of the most potent offensive weapons in the game as far as damage dealing goes.

Can you explain this? I don't see how:

At-Will ✦ Arcane, Force, Implement
Standard Action Area 1 square within 10 squares
Target: Each creature in square
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Intelligence modifier force damage.
Increase damage to 2d6 + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.
Effect: The power’s area is filled with sharp daggers of force.
Any creature that enters the area or starts its turn there
takes force damage equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum
1). The cloud remains in place until the end of your
next turn. You can dispel it earlier as a minor action.

is one of the most potent offensive weapons in the game, (unless you're just saying there aren't any potent offensive weapons in the game).

What am I missing?

[Koumei]

Your stats add more damage than the dice ever will. Wisdom is your second highest stat if you're a wizard (some argue equal-highest, some fanatics for Orbizards who spam Sleep say Wis is even more important than Int). So two high stats worth of damage make it really good for quite a few levels.

Also, it automatically kills mooks, even if you miss. Not that we care about minions, but "minions automatically die without a roll" is exactly what the game needs more of.

[RandomCasualty2]

Also, it automatically kills mooks, even if you miss. Not that we care about minions, but "minions automatically die without a roll" is exactly what the game needs more of.

Not really no. Because minions are still work 1/4 of the XP a real monster. So if you kill 4 minions, that's like killing one full monster. They're already painfully easy to take down as well. The game doesn't need more ways to kill them even faster. In fact, the game needs more ways of keeping minions alive longer in higher level games where you've got attacks like close burst 8 that can hit every mini on the board.

[koz]

Not really no. Because minions are still work 1/4 of the XP a real monster. So if you kill 4 minions, that's like killing one full monster. They're already painfully easy to take down as well. The game doesn't need more ways to kill them even faster. In fact, the game needs more ways of keeping minions alive longer in higher level games where you've got attacks like close burst 8 that can hit every mini on the board.

So you're part of the Japanese Apartment Edition interpretation of DnD combat? And you want to make high-level combat, already excruciatingly slow, even slower?

[Elennsar]

It'd be better if you really want that to just remove minions.

Seriously. Their only purpose is to pretend we have more guys on the table than those we actually care about.

So instead of representing "large numbers of guys which either are mowed down in large numbers or a threat because of large numbers", we get some half assed "mass combat? we don't need no stinkin' mass combat." so that you get frustated and confused, because how do you know if something is a minion before you use your limited per encounter (or day) "do lots of damage" on one?

You don't.

In brief, stupid minions. Stupid undersized maps.

Stupid anyone or anything preserving either.

[RandomCasualty2]

So you're part of the Japanese Apartment Edition interpretation of DnD combat? And you want to make high-level combat, already excruciatingly slow, even slower?

Parts of 4E combat need to be sped up. Killing minions is however, not one of those parts.

While normal 4E combat is excruciatingly slow. Minion combat is on the other hand, too fast. They're actually fine at low levels, when your abilities aren't going to take them all out at once. But at high levels, when you've got large scale AoEs that hit everyone and plenty of autodamage powers, taking out large groups of minions happens too quickly. The problem is that the more minions there are, the more you can take out with one attack. Which basically makes their numbers irrelevant.

[koz]

Parts of 4E combat need to be sped up. Killing minions is however, not one of those parts.

While normal 4E combat is excruciatingly slow. Minion combat is on the other hand, too fast. They're actually fine at low levels, when your abilities aren't going to take them all out at once. But at high levels, when you've got large scale AoEs that hit everyone and plenty of autodamage powers, taking out large groups of minions happens too quickly. The problem is that the more minions there are, the more you can take out with one attack. Which basically makes their numbers irrelevant.

Then alter the minions instead of nerfing perfectly decent powers. And I see you DO believe in the Japanese Apartment Edition.

[Elennsar]

Let me get this straight.

More minions = more area covered by minions, logically. But wait! Since we are playing in D&D: In a Japanese Apartment!...they take up the same amount of space.

Which means their numbers are irrelevant.

Wait, what? Stupid minion rules.

[Psychic Robot]

Let me get this straight.

More minions = more area covered by minions, logically. But wait! Since we are playing in D&D: In a Japanese Apartment!...they take up the same amount of space.

Which means their numbers are irrelevant.

Wait, what? Stupid minion rules.

ELABORATE ON THIS FAIL.