# Wizard Spells 10-16 Two Page Spread



## keterys (Mar 3, 2008)

Last day of the con had the juiciest PHB spread - wizard spells.

The spread begins with a partial of Level 10 Utility Spells and ends with a partial of Level 16 Utility spells, so there should be more of each of those. Everything else should, I guess, be complete for the levels listed. My picture was cropped in the lower left corner so I missed a single thing - the # of dice Mesmeric Hold does. I'm not uploading all the pictures at this time, just a couple to prevent any accusations.

Level 10 Utility Spells

Mirror Image		Wizard Utility 10
'Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions
perfectly and confusing your enemies.'
Daily * Arcane, Illusion
Minor Action		Personal
Effect: Three duplicate images of yourself appear in your
 space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. Each time
 an attack misses you, one of your duplicate images disap-
 pears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2.
 When the bonus reaches 0, all your images are gone and
 the power ends. Otherwise, the effect lasts for 1 hour.

Resistance		Wizard Utility 10
'You make yourself or another creature in range resistant to a
particular kind of damage.'
Daily * Arcane
Minor Action		Ranged 10
Target: You or one creature
Effect: Against a particular damage type chosen by you, the 
 target gains resistance equal to your level + your Intel-
 ligence modifier until the end of the encounter or for 5 
 minutes. Choose the damage type from the following list:
 acid, cold, fire, force, lightning, necrotic, poison, psychic,
 radiant, or thunder.


Level 13 Encounter Spells

Frostburn		Wizard Attack 13
'You whisper a word of elemental power and hurl a flaming ball
of ice. Waves of fire and ice explode outward from the point of
impact.'
Encounter * Arcane, Cold, Fire, Implement
Standard Action Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Fortitude
Hit: 3d6 + Intelligence modifier cold and fire damage.
Effect: This power's area is difficult terrain until the end of
 your next turn. Any creature that starts its turn in the area
 takes 5 cold and fire damage. You can dismiss the effect as
 a minor action.

Mesmeric Hold		Wizard Attack 13
'You immobilize your foes by commanding them to remain still.'
Encounter * Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Standard Action		Ranged 10
Targets: One, two, or three creatures
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will, one attack per target
Special: If you target only one creature with this power, you
 gain a +4 power bonus to the attack roll.
Hit: ?d6 + Intelligence modifier psychic damage, and the
 target is immobilized until the end of your next turn.

Prismatic Burst		Wizard Attack 13
'You lob a fist-sized orb of pulsating white light some distance
away, blasting creatures in the area with rays of multicolored
light.'
Encounter * Arcane, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Area burst 2 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Will
Hit: 3d6 + Intelligence modifier radiant damage, and the
 target is blinded until the end of your next turn.

Thunderlance		Wizard Attack 13
'A thunderous pulse of concussive energy rolls from your hand,
bowling over your enemies.'
Encounter * Arcane, Implement, Thunder
Standard Action		Close blast 5
Target: Each creature in blast
Attack: Wisdom vs. Reflex
Hit: 4d6 + Intelligence moidifer thunder damage, and you
 push the target 4 squares.


Level 15 Daily Spells

Bigby's Grasping Hands	Wizard Attack 15
'Two hands of glowing golden force materialize, grab a couple of
your foes, and slam them together.'
Daily * Arcane, Conjuration, Force, Implement
Standard Action		Ranged 10
Effect: You conjure two 5-foot tall hands of force, each one
 occupying 1 square within range. Each hand attacks one
 adjacent creature. A hand that is not grabbing a target can 
 be moved and made to attack a new target within range as a
 move action. The hands last until the end of your next turn.
Targets: One or two creatures
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d10 + Intelligence modifier force damage, and the
 hand grabs the target. If the target attempts to escape, the
 hand uses your Fortitude or Reflex defense.
Special: If the hands have each grabbed an enemy, you can
 slam the enemies into each other as a standard action
 dealing 2d10 + Intelligence modifier force damage to each
 grabbed target. After the attack, each hand returns to its
 original square with its grabbed target.
Sustain Minor: The hands persist.

Blast of Cold		Wizard Attack 15
'You create a tremendous blast of supernatural cold, freezing your
enemies.'
Daily * Arcane, Cold, Implement
Standard Action		Close blast 5
Target: Each enemy in blast
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 6d6 + Intelligence modifier cold damage, and tar-
 get is immobilized (save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target is slowed (save ends).

Otiluke's Resilient Sphere	Wizard Attack 15
'You trap your enemy in a transparent, immobile globe of impen-
etrable force.'
Daily * Arcane, Conjuration, Force, Implement
Standard Action		Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs Reflex
Hit: You conjure a sphere of force that fills the target's 
 entire space until the end of your next turn. The target
 is immobilized and can't attack anything outside its own
 space. Creatures outside the sphere can't attack the target,
 and the sphere blocks objects and creatures attempting to
 pass through it.
  The sphere, though impenetrable, is not impervious to 
 damage. Attacks against the sphere automatically hit, and
 it has 100 hit points.
 Sustain Minor: If your attack roll was successful, you can
 sustain the sphere.
Miss: The target is immobilized (save ends).
Special: Instead of attacking an enemy, you can put the
 sphere around yourself or a willing ally within range without
 making an attack roll.

Prismatic Beams		Wizard Attack 15
'Scintillating beams of rainbow-colored light spring from your
outstretched hand, affecting your foes in unpredictable ways.'
Daily * Arcane, Fire, Implement, Poison
Standard Action		Close burst 5
Target: Each enemy in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs Fortitude, Reflex, Will
Hit (Fortitude): If the attack hits the target's Fortitude de-
 fense, the target takes 2d6 + Intelligence modifier poison
 damage, and ongoing 5 poison damage (save ends).
Hit (Reflex): If the attack hits the target's Reflex defense, the
 target takes 2d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage, and
 ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).
Hit (Will): If the attack hits the target's Will defense, the
 target is dazed (save ends).
Special: You make only one attack per target, but compare 
 that attack result against all three defenses. A target might
 be subject to any, all, or none of the effects depending on
 how many of its defenses were hit. The target must make a
 saving throw against each ongoing effect separately.

Wall of Ice		Wizard Attack 15
'A wall of glittering, jagged ice appears at your command.'
Daily * Arcane, Cold, Conjuration, Implement
Standard Action		Area wall 12 within 10 squares
Effect: You conjure a solid wall of contiguous squares filled
 with arcane ice. The wall can be up to 12 squares long and 
 up to 6 squares high.
  Any creature that starts its turn adjacent to the wall
 takes 2d6 + Intelligence modifier cold damage. The wall
 blocks line of sight and prevents movement. No creature
 can enter a square containing the wall.
Special: As a standard action, a creature can attack one
 square of the wall. Each square has 50 hit points. Any
 creature that makes a melee attack against the wall takes
 2d6 cold damage. The wall has vulnerability 25 to fire. If the
 wall is not destroyed, it melts away after 1 hour.


Level 16 Utility Spells

Displacement		Wizard Utility 16
'The recipient of this spell appears to be standing slightly to the
left or right of his actual position, making it harder for enemies
to kill him.'
Encounter * Arcane, Illusion
Immediate Interrupt	Ranged 5
Trigger: A ranged or a melee attack hits you or one ally in range
Effect: The attacker must reroll the attack roll.

Fly			Wizard Utility 16
'You leap into the air and don't look back.'
Daily * Arcane
Standard Action		Personal
Effect: You gain a speed of fly 8 until the end of your next
 turn.
Sustain Minor: You can sustain this power until the end of
 the encounter or for 5 minutes. If you don't sustain it, you
 float to the ground without taking falling damage.

Greater Invisibility	Wizard Utility 16
'With a wave of your hand, you or another creature nearby fades
away, becoming invisible'
Daily * Arcane, Illusion
Standard Action		Ranged 20
Target: You or one creature
Effect: The target is invisible until the end of your next turn.
 If the target attacks, the target becomes visible.
Sustain Minor: If the target is within range, you can sustain
 the effect.


You can infer some pretty interesting things from this - namely progression of powers. Utility power at 10 and 16 that can be encounter or daily. Encounter power at 13. Daily power at 15. Also gives a good feel for how damage expands over time (not a ton) and a pseudo-glimpse of summoned monsters (bigby's).


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 3, 2008)

Awesome stuff, thanks.


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2008)

> Bigby's Grasping Hands Wizard Attack 15
> 'Two hands of glowing golden force materialize, grab a couple of
> your foes, and slam them together.'






1


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 3, 2008)

I love how energy damage has so many rider effects. And there is terrain damage!


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm a bit shocked by how many of them are daily powers.

Presumably, higher-level wizards will have many daily "slots", or else many of these spells will never get cast.

There's also a pretty serious typo in Displacement:



> Trigger: A ranged or a melee attack hits or one ally in range




Hopefully that's the OP's typo rather than the PHB text.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

Wow. Mirror Image, Fly and Invisibility got grand-slammed by the nerf bat. Greater Invisibility lasts for 1 turn and ends if you attack? I'd hate to see how bad regular Invisibility sucks.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Mar 3, 2008)

Assuming the spell level corresponds to the level it can be taken, that's pushed a lot of power pretty far back in the spell progression.  Fly at level 16?  The equivalent is 5th level in 3.5 today.

Either the wizard's been severely nerfed, or they really have spread out the power growth of all of the classes (not that fly isn't pretty powerful for a 3rd level spell today, even with the reduction in duration for 3.5).


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 3, 2008)

I am a little confused. Where are the majority of these 'scoops' coming from? Are they in violation of a playtester's NDA? 

I like seeing previews, but I am just wondering how certain we are in the info.

I'm also surprised that Mirror Image is a 10th level power. Hmmm.

C.I.D.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 3, 2008)

Invisibility has sustain minor


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 3, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Assuming the spell level corresponds to the level it can be taken, that's pushed a lot of power pretty far back in the spell progression.  Fly at level 16?  The equivalent is 5th level in 3.5 today.
> 
> Either the wizard's been severely nerfed, or they really have spread out the power growth of all of the classes (not that fly isn't pretty powerful for a 3rd level spell today, even with the reduction in duration for 3.5).




It's been suggested in some of the designers' comments (all the way back to last year's GenCon, IIRC) that spells that allow you to bypass "natural" challenges--such as being able to fly over pits, for instance--have largely and deliberately been pushed back to paragon tier, at least.


----------



## keterys (Mar 3, 2008)

Totally my fault on the 'typo', I'll fix that now - WotC had 2 page spreads for the Monster Manual and PHB each day of the con. I'm guessing a lot of people didn't realize they kept changing, so it seems like I 'scooped' several pages of stuff that way. Eh.


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's been suggested in some of the designers' comments (all the way back to last year's GenCon, IIRC) that spells that allow you to bypass "natural" challenges--such as being able to fly over pits, for instance--have largely and deliberately been pushed back to paragon tier, at least.



 I approve.

Although it will be interesting to see how much nerd rage greets the news that the nerd class got nerfed....


----------



## shadowguidex (Mar 3, 2008)

> Also gives a good feel for how damage expands over time (not a ton) and a pseudo-glimpse of summoned monsters (bigby's).




Damage scales up at half your level, but not as a bonus to your damage, you simply gain +1 to all your attribute modifiers every even level.  This means your Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, and Cha modifiers all increase as you level.

A level 16 Wizard will be doing a lot more damage with Magic Missiles than a level 1, just because the damage is 2d4+ Int Modifier.  A level one Wizard with a 20 Intelligence has Int Modifier of +5.  The same Wizard at level 16 still with an Intelligence of 20 has an Int Modifier of 13.  The Pit Fiend shows this very clearly:  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080125

Notice his attribute modifiers are his base attribute modifiers plus half his level (level 26).

Str 32 (+24) Dex 24 (+20) Wis 20 (+18)
Con 27 (+21) Int 22 (+19) Cha 28 (+22)

....

Oh, and incidentally...all your defenses and attack rolls scale up at the exact same rate (one every even level) since they are all based on your attribute modifiers.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 3, 2008)

And this seems to confirm that on odd levels you get attack powers and even ones utility powers (in line with the Rogue level exploit: Tumble)


----------



## keterys (Mar 3, 2008)

You know, I assumed it would work that way, but it clearly doesn't for monsters (just uses the base modifier) and we haven't seen any higher level characters to compare against.

It's possible there are other powers gained in the 10-16 range than these, but if there's no 'at-will' gained circa level 11, then your at-wills wouldn't be increasing at all in that range so I'd hope it got the half level added. Of course, you might have enough 'encounter' powers that you rarely need to use your at-wills.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Greater Invisibility lasts for 1 turn and ends if you attack ?




It lasts for one turn if a wizard does not take a minor action each turn to sustain the effect. It can be sustained indefinitely.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 3, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> I am a little confused. Where are the majority of these 'scoops' coming from? Are they in violation of a playtester's NDA?
> 
> I like seeing previews, but I am just wondering how certain we are in the info.
> 
> ...



These are pictures taken from pages on display at DDXP, in the open, In public view so no NDA. Doesn't mean they haven't been changed or will be changed before printing but they are pretty good indicators IMO


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

It seems to me that most of the emphasis is on combat, and that out-of-combat abilities are either non-existant or have been severely nerfed.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Although it will be interesting to see how much nerd rage greets the news that the nerd class got nerfed....




Oh, I am expecting a *lot* of howls of rage and protest in the coming days from primary spellcaster fans in the upcoming months.  Most of the other classes will have their scope broadened and have gotten a lot of cool new toys.  The wizard class, which was previously hogging damn near all the cool stuff, is going to be narrowed in scope and options and it will lead to psychic pain from some quarters that we won't hear the end of for decades.

I thoroughly approve of the design change, needless to say.


----------



## keterys (Mar 3, 2008)

FallingIcicle - out of combat stuff is covered by rituals. These are combat powers, yes.


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's been suggested in some of the designers' comments (all the way back to last year's GenCon, IIRC) that spells that allow you to bypass "natural" challenges--such as being able to fly over pits, for instance--have largely and deliberately been pushed back to paragon tier, at least.




Which is pretty dumb in my opinion. I have found that having the slightest clue about the capabilities of my players, having the slightest clue about what they like and dont like, is usually a better solution to limiting their abilities just to make my life easier.

Heck, I dont generally even use 'natural' challenges cause generally all they do is eat up playing time without advancing the plot, and finding playing time is the most difficult thing to do in my now 17th level 3.5 campaign.


----------



## Ravingdork (Mar 3, 2008)

I don't like that you can never fly for more than 5 minutes. Hopefully, they will have a more powerful one with a longer duration (like sustain minor with an indefinite duration for example).


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Wow. Mirror Image, Fly and Invisibility got grand-slammed by the nerf bat.




But Resistance is now colossally powerful against the right enemy. All the Pit Fiend does is fire damage! I can see why it's a daily.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 3, 2008)

shadowguidex said:
			
		

> Damage scales up at half your level, but not as a bonus to your damage, you simply gain +1 to all your attribute modifiers every even level.  This means your Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, and Cha modifiers all increase as you level.




What the hey?  Can anybody confirm if this is actually true, or just somebody guessing?

-Cross


----------



## DreamChaser (Mar 3, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Assuming the spell level corresponds to the level it can be taken, that's pushed a lot of power pretty far back in the spell progression.  Fly at level 16?  The equivalent is 5th level in 3.5 today.
> 
> Either the wizard's been severely nerfed, or they really have spread out the power growth of all of the classes (not that fly isn't pretty powerful for a 3rd level spell today, even with the reduction in duration for 3.5).




Keep in mind that with 1/3rd again more levels, 5th is equivalent to 7th / 8th. Still, many of these have been very much delayed.

I think it has more to do with the philosophy of evening out the plateau levels. One can be certain that no character will *need* to be able to fly in order for a combat to succeed so flying with be a potentially powerful tactical option that Paragon wizards can take.

DC


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 3, 2008)

Mirror Image surprised me a bit, since I figured that there wouldn't be any combat useful buffing spells with durations longer than five minutes or so.  It is only one hour and has a fairly straightforward effect, but I hope that there aren't too many of these.  I am so hoping to never, ever see a "Before Combat" list that is comprised of a dozen spells, three or four potions and a second stat block that explains what the opponent looks like once their buff pants are on.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2008)

(Crossposted from the News thread)

As I understand it, this means that Mirror Image is no longer any sort of defense against most targeted spells and many powers, right?

The Power Bonus to AC is effectively the same as a 3E Armor Bonus - that is, an Armor Bonus has no effect on touch attacks. So while the 3E Mirror Image can protect you from Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, or Charm Person, because they might target an image, 3E Mage Armor can't, because Magic Missile always hits, Scorching Ray ignores Armor Bonus, and Charm Person is a Will Save.

In 4E, Mirror Image increases your AC, so Magic Missile ignores it (since it opposes Reflex), and Charm Person ignores it (since it opposes Will)... but oddly, if the Magic Missile or Charm Person fails, it will still diminish your Mirror Image bonus (since they are attacks that missed).

Also, in 3E a Fireball would ignore the Mirror Image, but not diminish the protection; in 4E, a Fireball will likely ignore the Mirror Image (opposing Reflex instead of AC), but if the attack misses you, as well as taking half damage, you'll lose some of your Mirror Image.

I guess one balancing factor is that you'll be able to replenish the bonus back up to +6 any time you have a minor action available.

I notice that the Flying, Invisible, Blasting Wizard will be trickier to pull off - since both the Fly and Invisibility require a Sustain Minor, that leaves you with only a standard action, and if you blast you'll become visible...

Of the eight spells listed with an attack roll, seven use Intelligence - why does Thunderlance use Wisdom?

Always keep some kobold minions on hand for breaking through Walls of Ice. If you do it yourself, you take 2d6 damage for attacking, plus more for being close to the Wall. If your minion does it, he's effectively immune, since the damage he takes doesn't result from an attack roll (similar to how they're apparently immune to a Fighter's Cleave).

-Hyp.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Mar 3, 2008)

Wow.  I think what shocks me the most is how FEW spells there really seem to be.  I realize that there will be rituals added on to this (presumably gained at levels 11, 12 and/or 14), but the fact that it only takes 2 pages to show (most of?) the spells available from levels 10-16?

In 3.5, going from 11th to 16th level would expose you to spell levels 6-8.  6th level ALONE had 42 new spells to choose from (as per the SRD).  Many of these are certainly rituals (Planar Binding, Legend Lore, etc), and many will have been left out of 4e entirely (as per previous statements about enchantment/illusion, save or die, etc).  Nevertheless, that's still a crapload of choice that seems to have been removed here.

As the OP noted, there may be more 10th level spells on previous pages that we don't see, likewise for 16th level spells on following pages.  What we can see however is that there are only *4* 13th level spells to choose from.  That just seems... weak.

This is the first info seen about 4e that has actually dampened my enthusiasm somewhat.  Hmmph.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I notice that the Flying, Invisible, Blasting Wizard will be trickier to pull off - since both the Fly and Invisibility require a Sustain Minor, that leaves you with only a standard action, and if you blast you'll become visible...




If this is an indication of the general design principle for Buff spells, the self-buffer isn't going to be a hugely viable concept - you can't keep more than three buffs with a Sustain Minor going, you can't keep more than two going while doing anything else, and you can't keep more than one going while being at all useful on a mobile battlefield...

-Hyp.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Mar 3, 2008)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that with 1/3rd again more levels, 5th is equivalent to 7th / 8th. Still, many of these have been very much delayed.




Not really.  Previously, 1-20 were regular play and 21+ was epic and optional.  In 4e, 1-10 is Heroic, 11-20 Paragon, 21-30 Epic.  Nothing has really changed, except that a) Epic is core and b) there's an upper limit to your levels.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 3, 2008)

Keep in mind that spells scale like crazy now, so there isn't nearly as much of a need for replacement spells, and utility spells will probably be scalable as well, so they can be more safely brought in at lower levels.

Do we know how things like "hot and cold damage" and "5 Minutes or Encounter" work out yet?


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If your minion does it, he's effectively immune, since the damage he takes doesn't result from an attack roll (similar to how they're apparently immune to a Fighter's Cleave).




I am now killing crossposted Hypersmurf with my brane.


----------



## A'koss (Mar 3, 2008)

Crosswind said:
			
		

> What the hey?  Can anybody confirm if this is actually true, or just somebody guessing?
> 
> -Cross



No, that's incorrect, you don't gain 1/2 your level towards damage. If you did, you'd see it factored into things like the damage high level monsters inflicted and you don't.


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2008)

ZappoHisbane said:
			
		

> Not really.  Previously, 1-20 were regular play and 21+ was epic and optional.  In 4e, 1-10 is Heroic, 11-20 Paragon, 21-30 Epic.  Nothing has really changed, except that a) Epic is core and b) there's an upper limit to your levels.



 To a certain extent, the spell reshuffling is really going back to the 1E/2E philosophy (which was never explicit, but implied in how most games never really got that high in level) that 1-10 were regular play, while 11-20 was the realm of plot-device stuff and high wackiness.


----------



## Ravingdork (Mar 3, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> No, that's incorrect, you don't gain 1/2 your level towards damage. If you did, you'd see it factored into things like the damage high level monsters inflicted and you don't.




It is therized that monsters don't get the bonus, but heroic PCs do. They did it in Star Wars Saga so there is a precedent for it.

Personally, I hope this turns out to be the case.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Always keep some kobold minions on hand for breaking through Walls of Ice. If you do it yourself, you take 2d6 damage for attacking, plus more for being close to the Wall. If your minion does it, he's effectively immune, since the damage he takes doesn't result from an attack roll (similar to how they're apparently immune to a Fighter's Cleave).



I would recommend getting the rules text for minions before attempting this strategy.


----------



## Raith5 (Mar 3, 2008)

Crosswind said:
			
		

> What the hey?  Can anybody confirm if this is actually true, or just somebody guessing?
> 
> -Cross




I have seen this said/deduced in a lot of posts (especially related to the Pit Fiend). But I am confused as to how it works in practice.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In 4E, Mirror Image increases your AC, so Magic Missile ignores it (since it opposes Reflex), and Charm Person ignores it (since it opposes Will)... but oddly, if the Magic Missile or Charm Person fails, it will still diminish your Mirror Image bonus (since they are attacks that missed).
> 
> Also, in 3E a Fireball would ignore the Mirror Image, but not diminish the protection; in 4E, a Fireball will likely ignore the Mirror Image (opposing Reflex instead of AC), but if the attack misses you, as well as taking half damage, you'll lose some of your Mirror Image.




You never cease to amaze me, Hyp. The game isn't even out yet and you're already finding silly rules in need of errata.   



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Always keep some kobold minions on hand for breaking through Walls of Ice. If you do it yourself, you take 2d6 damage for attacking, plus more for being close to the Wall. If your minion does it, he's effectively immune, since the damage he takes doesn't result from an attack roll (similar to how they're apparently immune to a Fighter's Cleave).




Eh? Minions are immune to area effect attacks? Where did you get that from? That would be absurd.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> the nerd class got nerfed....



It's true. That's why the wizard has been so strong for so long and the fighter so weak. D&D players are nerds. They identify strongly with the wizard and despise the fighter, the jock class.


----------



## Primal (Mar 3, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> But Resistance is now colossally powerful against the right enemy. All the Pit Fiend does is fire damage! I can see why it's a daily.




Yep. Just cast Resistance on one of the Defenders and the Pit Fiend -- or even an *army* of Pit Fiends -- can't touch him!


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 3, 2008)

korjik said:
			
		

> Which is pretty dumb in my opinion. I have found that having the slightest clue about the capabilities of my players, having the slightest clue about what they like and dont like, is usually a better solution to limiting their abilities just to make my life easier.




I don't get what you mean here. Does it take some kind of deep psychological insight into your players to figure out that a level 5 wizard is gonna be able to fly over a cliff?

ALSO

I think it was mentioned in the podcast that at some levels, you upgrade existing powers rather than picking new ones. That would seem to be what's going on at level 11 here. (I'm guessing that all utility powers are at even levels and combat powers at odd levels, but clearly you don't get new utility stuff EVERY even level either.)

I'm wondering how convoluted the level-up chart is gonna look...

Level - Bonuses
1 - feat, class abilities, a bunch of powers
2 - utility power, feat
3 - new encounter combat power
4 - attribute bonus, feat
5 - ne wdaily combat power
6 - feat
7 - upgrade encounter combat power
etc.....


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yep. Just cast Resistance on one of the Defenders and the Pit Fiend -- or even an *army* of Pit Fiends -- can't touch him!




Pit Fiends can't do physical damage?


----------



## Simplicity (Mar 3, 2008)

Wizard changes are pretty darn weak.  There just aren't enough spells.  I've played a lot of wizards in my time...  And here's how I go about doing it...  I want to play a wizard.  What's my theme?  Maybe this wizard is a fire wizard?  Maybe earth?  Maybe he's an illusionist.  With this dearth of spells, a wizard is a wizard is a wizard.  Boring.

I'm sure there's going to be more wizard spells put out in supplements, and so I suppose it is better to start with fewer spells and add to them.  But it annoys me that supplements will be needed to support my play style.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 3, 2008)

Can I be the first to ask why the heck there's exactly ONE spell that makes use of Wisdom instead of Int in this list? If they're gonna try to make it an important wizard stat, I'm thinking they'll have to try a bit harder than that...


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 3, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Can I be the first to ask why the heck there's exactly ONE spell that makes use of Wisdom instead of Int in this list? If they're gonna try to make it an important wizard stat, I'm thinking they'll have to try a bit harder than that...




It's two pages.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm thinking this is only a small fraction of the spells available.  I think there will be plenty more to choose from as you go up in level, but you can only know a relatively small number of them. . . kinda like a sorcerer today.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Eh? Minions are immune to area effect attacks? Where did you get that from? That would be absurd.




No, not immune to area effect attacks.

The Kobold Minion has no hit points; rather, he dies if he is hit by an attack that deals damage.

Something like a fireball is an attack (likely Intelligence vs Reflex); if the attack roll beats the minion's Reflex Defence, he is hit and takes damage, thus he dies.

Something like the Wall of Ice is not an attack; rather, it deals damage when certain conditions are met.  There is no attack that hits the minion; instead, when the minion starts his turn close to the Wall, he takes X damage.  He has no hit points, so this is meaningless, and he was not hit by an attack, so he doesn't die.  

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Can I be the first to ask why the heck there's exactly ONE spell that makes use of Wisdom instead of Int in this list?




No.

-Hyp.


----------



## eleran (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> (Crossposted from the News thread)
> 
> As I understand it, this means that Mirror Image is no longer any sort of defense against most targeted spells and many powers, right?
> 
> ...




I am going to take my first shot at 4e rules adjudication....  I think since Mirror Image adds only to AC defense, it will only be diminished by attacks that miss when going against AC defense.  Therefore, I do not think Magic Missile or anything else that does not attack Ac will have an effect on Mirror Image function.

But that is pure conjecture.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> It's been suggested in some of the designers' comments (all the way back to last year's GenCon, IIRC) that spells that allow you to bypass "natural" challenges--such as being able to fly over pits, for instance--have largely and deliberately been pushed back to paragon tier, at least.




Yet there is an entire race which can bypass terrain at 1st level.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 3, 2008)

Many people have suggested with the Eladrin ability that since one is stepping into the Feywild to do so, it isn't true teleportation since they would still be encumbered by that obstacle in the Feywild.

So you could view the Fey Step in that way.


----------



## Henry (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Something like the Wall of Ice is not an attack; rather, it deals damage when certain conditions are met.  There is no attack that hits the minion; instead, when the minion starts his turn close to the Wall, he takes X damage.  He has no hit points, so this is meaningless, and he was not hit by an attack, so he doesn't die.
> 
> -Hyp.




Now, if there's no exception to this, it'd be a darned stupid rule; it would be like saying you are a normal person, except you take no injury if you are ever hit by an ice cream truck. Even if that Ice Cream Truck were barrelling at you at 90 kph, and had spikes and whirling saw blades on its grill, you'd be unscathed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 3, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Yet there is an entire race which can bypass terrain at 1st level.




And there's a pretty hefty difference, IMO, between a once per encounter teleport that only covers a few squares, and the ability to fly for upwards of several minutes, while potentially carrying allies with you.

The eladrin feystep is, indeed, an exception to the rule, but it's hardly theme-breaking.


----------



## Michele Carter (Mar 3, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Can I be the first to ask why the heck there's exactly ONE spell that makes use of Wisdom instead of Int in this list?...




*eyeroll* They HAD to show off the one page that we've already fixed.   It's an Int attack.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, not immune to area effect attacks.
> 
> The Kobold Minion has no hit points; rather, he dies if he is hit by an attack that deals damage.
> 
> ...




Wow. I don't like this AT ALL. I don't care what I have to do to house rule this, even if it's just giving minions 5 hit points, this absurdity isn't making its way into any game I DM.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 3, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Many people have suggested with the Eladrin ability that since one is stepping into the Feywild to do so, it isn't true teleportation since they would still be encumbered by that obstacle in the Feywild.
> 
> So you could view the Fey Step in that way.



I recall reading about Fey Step (or something like it) almost as soon as they started to have blogs released on 4e.  It seems to have been considered a pretty central element of one of the new major races.  I have a very, very, very hard time believing that the designers and all playtesters to date somehow managed to miss that giving an entire race the power to teleport at 1st level might cause a few problems in adventure design and world building.  

I'm assuming that they will indeed be going with: If there's an obstacle, barrier or any such that would keep you from walking to a space in the world, it is assumed that you would be blocked in the Feywild.  So no using Fey Step to escape from your cell or teleport past the locked castle gates.


----------



## eleran (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Wow. I don't like this AT ALL. I don't care what I have to do to house rule this, even if it's just giving minions 5 hit points, this absurdity isn't making its way into any game I DM.





Ummmmm....)dons flame retardant boxer shorts).... If you are Dm, how exactly does this monster ability present a problem that your players can exploit?

If they charm the kobold minions and have them whack at the wall of ice have the kobold minions die from the falling ice debris.  seems pretty self-evident.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm betting that the Teleportation keyword has its own definition and restrictions that apply to all powers that use it.


----------



## Michele Carter (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I'm betting that the Teleportation keyword has its own definition and restrictions that apply to all powers that use it.




This.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

eleran said:
			
		

> Ummmmm....)dons flame retardant boxer shorts).... If you are Dm, how exactly does this monster ability present a problem that your players can exploit?
> 
> If they charm the kobold minions and have them whack at the wall of ice have the kobold minions die from the falling ice debris.  seems pretty self-evident.




Or I could just say that they have like 5 hp, which virtually guarantess that they'll die from any attack, and treat them in all other ways as a normal character, removing any loophole that could be abused. Seems pretty simple to me. *shrug*

Or, I could just throw something hard and painful at any player that tries to abuse the rules in such an outrageous way.


----------



## Primal (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Pit Fiends can't do physical damage?




IIRC they do Fire damage with their physical attacks. I may be wrong, though. In any case, I'm sure there are monsters whose damage is solely based on one of the "elements". In such a case, all you need is one PC who is protected from that element and the monster can't touch him.


----------



## chaotix42 (Mar 3, 2008)

Hey, did anyone get a good pic of that grick?


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 3, 2008)

My interpretation of damage is anything causing harm to you is an attack of one form or another.  As a DM I would never take the text to literally mean only attack damage kills them instantly and it doesn't say anything to the contrary that other damage doesn't kill them either.  My view of minions is they are the weakest members sent in for the whole purpose of being canon fodder.  I can see them now if a party tries a stun like that with me.  "Your horde of minions rush into battle wearing their red shirts boldly going where no one has gone before."

I like how greater invisibility can last until you rest if not longer.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 3, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> These are pictures taken from pages on display at DDXP, in the open, In public view so no NDA. Doesn't mean they haven't been changed or will be changed before printing but they are pretty good indicators IMO




Thanks! Good stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, not immune to area effect attacks.
> 
> The Kobold Minion has no hit points; rather, he dies if he is hit by an attack that deals damage.
> 
> ...




I'm going to take a wildly absurd leap here and think that maybe, just maybe, the six hundred playtesters might have come up against this one and already dealt with it.  It's true, they might not have, but, y'know what?  I'm going to pretend they have.


----------



## keterys (Mar 3, 2008)

> Hey, did anyone get a good pic of that grick?




Ask and you  shall receive.


----------



## Lanu2000 (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I guess one balancing factor is that you'll be able to replenish the bonus back up to +6 any time you have a minor action available.



Unfortunately, this isn't true... this is a daily spell, so we won't have a refresh.


----------



## chaotix42 (Mar 3, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Ask and you  shall receive.





Woohoo, you rock! I'm addicted to these new monster stat-blocks. : )


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 3, 2008)

Somehow I suspect there might be a feat or ability or item that allows you to sustain multiple powers with a sustain action.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Or I could just say that they have like 5 hp, which virtually guarantess that they'll die from any attack, and treat them in all other ways as a normal character, removing any loophole that could be abused. Seems pretty simple to me. *shrug*



How do we know that it doesn't actually say that in the minion write-up?  Remember, those stat blocks were designed specifically for the convention games.  I think it's unwise to try to reverse engineer too much out of them without constantly paying attention to that fact.


----------



## Zelster (Mar 3, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's true. That's why the wizard has been so strong for so long and the fighter so weak. D&D players are nerds. They identify strongly with the wizard and despise the fighter, the jock class.




Yes!  This is absolutely 100% correct.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 3, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> How do we know that it doesn't actually say that in the minion write-up?  Remember, those stat blocks were designed specifically for the convention games.  I think it's unwise to try to reverse engineer too much out of them without constantly paying attention to that fact.




I'm just going off what Hypersmurf said. He's usually right.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 3, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm going to take a wildly absurd leap here and think that maybe, just maybe, the six hundred playtesters might have come up against this one and already dealt with it.  It's true, they might not have, but, y'know what?  I'm going to pretend they have.



This is usually my response to these sorts of things.  Why exactly do random internet messageboard people who find a problem in a couple of minutes of looking think that nobody noticed the problem before them, and certainly not the people testing the rules in which the problem inheres?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 3, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Why exactly do random internet messageboard people who find a problem in a couple of minutes of looking think that nobody noticed the problem before them, and certainly not the people testing the rules in which the problem inheres?



Ancient Chinese proverb - 

Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.


----------



## danskcarvalho (Mar 3, 2008)

*Where are the level 14 spells?*

Hi! This is my first post here!

Have anyone noticed that the book jumps from Level 13 to Level 15 Spells? It means that there won't be level 14 spells? 

And it seems that the wizard will have few at-will powers... It can be seen from these two page spreads. No spell is an at-will power...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2008)

Lanu2000 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this isn't true... this is a daily spell, so we won't have a refresh.




Oh, right - I saw the spells divided into Utility, Encounter, and Daily, and assumed that 'Utility' meant 'At-Will' in 4E Wizard Spell Jargon.

It seems that 'Encounter' means 'Attack Encounter', Daily means 'Attack Daily', and Utility means 'Utility Encounter or Utility Daily'.

In which case... huh.  Mirror Image, as a level 10 Daily 4E spell, seems to kinda suck compared to Mage Armor, a level 1 3E spell.  I wonder if Mage Armor made it into 4E...?

-Hyp.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If this is an indication of the general design principle for Buff spells, the self-buffer isn't going to be a hugely viable concept - you can't keep more than three buffs with a Sustain Minor going, you can't keep more than two going while doing anything else, and you can't keep more than one going while being at all useful on a mobile battlefield...
> 
> -Hyp.



The 3.x spellcasters ability to have a huge list of buffs up was a bug, not a feature, imo.

Admittedly, all of those with "sustain, minor" on this page are daily, so I don't expect you to have too many of the up at the same time.

Is it just me, or is this list kinda small for what is apparently "spell levels 6 to 8". I mean, the spells are interesting and evocative, but that aren't that many. On the other hand, I guess there are no "at will" powers here.

I'm also beginning to become impressed with the small size of everything, every thing's getting quite compact.

(and I like the picture, Esp with the Armour)


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 3, 2008)

Mages can wear actual armor, including cloth armor, so I don't think they're going to really NEED Mage Armor.

That said, it might stack.


----------



## keterys (Mar 3, 2008)

> I wonder if Mage Armor made it into 4E...?




Wizards wear cloth armor - ie, stuff like +2 Robes of the War Mage, or whatever.

So I'd guess no, myself. It's definitely a whole new game. I'd really love to see a progression of what you get at what levels, though.


----------



## hong (Mar 3, 2008)

Actually, do we know how armour proficiencies work yet? Is there anything stopping the wiz stepping into a suit of fullplate if he feels like it?


----------



## Kenku17 (Mar 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Actually, do we know how armour proficiencies work yet? Is there anything stopping the wiz stepping into a suit of fullplate if he feels like it?




One of the 2 sided displays they  had was the more desciptive armor page, and someone had copied it. In there is a mention that donning armor you are not proficient in gives a -2 to reflex(and something else I can't remeber.

Its also good to mention that Heavy Armors give Zero Reflex Bonus to AC.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 3, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This is usually my response to these sorts of things.  Why exactly do random internet messageboard people who find a problem in a couple of minutes of looking think that nobody noticed the problem before them, and certainly not the people testing the rules in which the problem inheres?



More eyes with different perspectives, looking at a complex system with a near-infinite number of permutations.  The testers can't actually look at every possible combination of powers, classes, races, foes, and environment.  And it's entirely possible that they look at a particular combo and miss a potential exploit.   It took all of one game? for people who had never played 4e before to stumble upon the "cheaty" fighter-paladin combo (one of the attendees' reports of the 1st day of DDXP on gleemax mentioned using that tactic specifically), which had only recently been fixed in the rules.

Then there's limited designer time to fix uncovered problems.  And the fact that a fix for a problem may open up new permutations.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> In which case... huh.  Mirror Image, as a level 10 Daily 4E spell, seems to kinda suck compared to Mage Armor, a level 1 3E spell.  I wonder if Mage Armor made it into 4E...?
> 
> -Hyp.



I expect to see it in the Sword Mage class if nothing else.


----------



## fuindordm (Mar 3, 2008)

Definitely a mixed bag.

We see an iconic and super-flavorful spell--Prismatic Spray--reduced to a one-paragraph description.  The seven colors have dropped to three, and most of the randomness has gone away.

The new version of Mirror Image is a yawner compared to any previous version, and as others have pointed out its got some oddness in the new rule set.

The Bigby spell, however, is pretty neat. That may well be the first Bigby spell I ever consider taking as a PC.

Since everyone is getting "powers" now, I suppose it makes sense that they have less space for spells. I'm just not thrilled with the apparent trend towards stripping down and simplifying all spells with moderately complex effects, until they can be explained in 2 lines of description. I didn't like it much in 3.5, either. (Where, for example, Emotion was broken up into a few simple buffs and anti-buffs.)


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 3, 2008)

I think these spells are making all those who were crying, "Wizardz r beng redooced 2 boomstix in 4e11!!11!" eat crow.

The only one I'm not too sure of is Mirror Image. I'd make it so that if the enemy's attack roll misses by more than 6 (or 4, or 2, depending on how many images you have left), an image does not disappear.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 3, 2008)

Zelster said:
			
		

> Yes!  This is absolutely 100% correct.



I'm a nerd and I dig the new wizard.

He's just not about damage, he's all about putting your enemies into a world of pain, by blinding them, immobilizing them, Bigbying them, walling them in, and so on. So that the strikers can deal with them.

Just the _mirror image_ seems to be... disappointing. Basically, because they already fade from stuff that wouldn't hit you in the first place. An extra sentences like "...unless they wouldn't have hit your original AC" would make it much nicer, flavour-wise.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## IceFractal (Mar 3, 2008)

It's not so much that I mind Flight being higher level - it's that I mind _crappy_ flight being higher level.  Flight speed 40' for 5 minutes that takes your minor actions to sustain (thus preventing any other buffs and some spells)?  That's not Flight, that's "Flight Jr., with Training Wheels".  And 16th is hardly the start of Paragon tier - shouldn't this kind of rudimentary flight be back at level 11 or so?

And this is especially insulting in light of the fact that Hippogryph mounts have been mentioned as available equipment, for 1000g, IIRC.  Now I don't know exactly how prices compare, but I'll bet that's available a hell of lot sooner than level 16.

So ... unlimited flight at a good speed - or slow flight for five minutes from a daily power?  This is the equivalent of a 3E Wizard having a 5th level spell that granted them the Toughness feat.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 3, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> So ... unlimited flight at a good speed - or slow flight for five minutes from a daily power?  This is the equivalent of a 3E Wizard having a 5th level spell that granted them the Toughness feat.



Slow flight from a daily power ... or unlimited fast flight that is unfeasible in many dungeon situations (the exact same reason the 3.5 Paladin's special mount was such a crappy class feature)?


----------



## IceFractal (Mar 3, 2008)

And the other thing that bothers me - if it takes 16th level to get five minutes of flight, what level do you have to be to actually get overland travelling flight?  30th?

I can see people wanting to delay flight a bit from 3E standards, but come on - if you're a Paragon-tier character, fighting literally armies of evil, and by 16th level, heading toward Epic - you should be able to fly over a damn swamp.  You should be able to fly over as many swamps as you like.  Save trekking through the mud for the Heroic tier characters.

Because reaching those high levels has no point if nothing changes except your stat bonuses and damage numbers.  If you can never grow and be able to easily bypass what used to be insurmountable challenges - not just monsters - then why bother?




> Slow flight from a daily power ... or unlimited fast flight that is unfeasible in many dungeon situations



Well, the spell isn't all that great in a dungeon either.  Unless the rooms are quite large (with high ceilings), you won't get that much more manueverability out of it, and it doesn't last long enough to fly around avoiding floor traps.  And in combat, the minor action necessary to sustain it is a significant hinderance, preventing you from sustaining any other spells.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 3, 2008)

Overland travel flight really should be obtained by something that can be removed from the player, at least until epic level, whether we're talking Hippogriffs or Flying Carpets.

Flight is -extremely- powerful and completely changes the game if you make it reliable.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 3, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> ...it doesn't last long enough to fly around avoiding floor traps.  And in combat, the minor action necessary to sustain it is a significant hinderance, preventing you from sustaining any other spells.



You're saying this like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Darth Cyric (Mar 3, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Overland travel flight really should be obtained by something that can be removed from the player, at least until epic level, whether we're talking Hippogriffs or Flying Carpets.
> 
> Flight is -extremely- powerful and completely changes the game if you make it reliable.



This.

3.0 Fly, in particular, was flat out ludicrous.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 3, 2008)

Perhaps there is a ritual that allows flight for travel purposes. This is a battle spell...it is tactical short-term flight, not a replacement mode of transportation.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 3, 2008)

Kenku17 said:
			
		

> One of the 2 sided displays they  had was the more desciptive armor page, and someone had copied it. In there is a mention that donning armor you are not proficient in gives a -2 to reflex(and something else I can't remeber.
> 
> Its also good to mention that Heavy Armors give Zero Reflex Bonus to AC.




Also worth noting is that you get to add Dex OR Int modifier to AC if you're wearing light (or no) armor, so the wizard has pretty good AC even naked. (And it looks like if he can get leather armor proficiency for one feat, with 20 Int he can have 18 AC at first level - more than a fighter in scale mail with no shield.)


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 3, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> Perhaps there is a ritual that allows flight for travel purposes. This is a battle spell...it is tactical short-term flight, not a replacement mode of transportation.




A very good point.

If nothing else, summoning flying steeds is certainly within reason.


----------



## Engilbrand (Mar 3, 2008)

I don't really remember seeing this mentioned.
Did they say that these couple of pages were literally directly from the book? Or were these just parts of pages. Maybe they just took a few spells from the book and made them look impressive. They do that sort of thing all of the time with adventures on the site.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Always keep some kobold minions on hand for breaking through Walls of Ice. If you do it yourself, you take 2d6 damage for attacking, plus more for being close to the Wall. If your minion does it, he's effectively immune, since the damage he takes doesn't result from an attack roll (similar to how they're apparently immune to a Fighter's Cleave).




Blatant misreading of the intent to create nonsensical results if you ask me!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 3, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yep. Just cast Resistance on one of the Defenders and the Pit Fiend -- or even an *army* of Pit Fiends -- can't touch him!




Not correct, since it appears that the Pit Fiends damage is Weapon AND fire. You'll be immune to the fire aura (which is a big thing) but still subject to his attacks.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 3, 2008)

I especially like the displacement spell. I hope there is some energy immunity spell which are also immediate reactions. ANd if you ask me, that is one of the things i like most in that edition. I hope we see some feats/powers for reach weapons and spears which make use of that mechanic.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 3, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Is there anything stopping the wiz stepping into a suit of fullplate if he feels like it?



Nothing but his sense of style, I think.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 3, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Blatant misreading of the intent to create nonsensical results if you ask me!



Yes. But it's RAW! It must be obeyed!

Or rather, it has been conjectured to be RAW by someone who has not read the RAW.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 3, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Or I could just say that they have like 5 hp, which virtually guarantess that they'll die from any attack, and treat them in all other ways as a normal character, removing any loophole that could be abused. Seems pretty simple to me. *shrug*
> 
> Or, I could just throw something hard and painful at any player that tries to abuse the rules in such an outrageous way.




Why five? Give it 1! The Vampire Spawn Minion (level 6) has only 10.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And there's a pretty hefty difference, IMO, between a once per encounter teleport that only covers a few squares, and the ability to fly for upwards of several minutes, while potentially carrying allies with you.
> 
> The eladrin feystep is, indeed, an exception to the rule, but it's hardly theme-breaking.




No but it certainly circumvents a lot of obstacles that you could have in a dungeon for instance.  My problem is that flying or transforming into something that can fly is a trope that has been present in a ton of fantasy literature.

Then don't get me started on the definition of encounter.  Although mostly intuitive, I think it will be harder to define when not in combat.  I can already see an eladrin character bamfing all over the place say walking through town ala Nightcrawler.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 3, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> No, that's incorrect, you don't gain 1/2 your level towards damage. If you did, you'd see it factored into things like the damage high level monsters inflicted and you don't.



not directly, but every attack I'ver seen use a stat modifier and stat modifiers increase with level, so damage increase with level


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 3, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> Oh, I am expecting a *lot* of howls of rage and protest in the coming days from primary spellcaster fans in the upcoming months.  Most of the other classes will have their scope broadened and have gotten a lot of cool new toys.  The wizard class, which was previously hogging damn near all the cool stuff, is going to be narrowed in scope and options and it will lead to psychic pain from some quarters that we won't hear the end of for decades.
> 
> I thoroughly approve of the design change, needless to say.




Speaking as a hardcore primary spellcaster fan--wizards specifically--I _love_ the new wizard class.  _Light_, _mage hand_, and _ghost sound_ at will?  Maintainable durations instead of fixed ones?  Vancian spellcasting largely eviscerated?  Combat spells no longer sharing space with utility magic?  Sign me up!  Yeah, wizards got nerfed power-wise, but that's fine, they've had it coming for three editions now.

4E wizards are less crazy-omnipotent but more _fun_, and I'll take that kind of nerfing any day of the week.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 3, 2008)

Well it was suggested long ago that Phantom Steed would be a ritual.

And I remember at higher levels the Phantom Steed could fly.  Though the lower level ground-based phantom steed and the higher level one that could fly, they might be 2 different rituals.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 3, 2008)

I absolutely love the new spells in terms of intended effect, but the sparse descriptions are so vague that it's going to drive people like me batty.

Does Frostburn deal 3d6+int damage that counts as both fire and cold, or does it deal both 3d6+int fire and 3d6+int cold damage.

Does any attack that hits you while you have mirror image up cause you to lose an image, or do only missed AC attacks trigger the loss.

If an encounter lasts for more than five minutes, does resistance expire during the encounter?

Admittedly, the second question has a fairly solid (if merely implied) answer, but the first question is definitely vague as hell given the current wording.

The two lengths for resistance may have been necessary, but they throw in a tiny bit of non-verisimilitude.  A ridiculous 120 round encounter with a fire dragon allows resistance to go 12 minutes, whereas a one minute encounter with fire mephits followed by a five minute rest spell the end of the effect.  I'm aware that this is a niggling quibble, but I'm really looking forward to 4e, so I'm trying to be as quibbling as possible to keep my expectations realistic.  A more consistent mechanic would've been superior.


----------



## Alraiis (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, not immune to area effect attacks.
> 
> The Kobold Minion has no hit points; rather, he dies if he is hit by an attack that deals damage.
> 
> ...




I think 4th Edition keywords are making fuzzy distinctions like this clearer.  In this case, an "attack" is not anything that requires an attack roll, but any power with the "attack" keyword (and basic and opportunity attacks).  Hence: "Wall of Ice - Wizard Attack 15"


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 3, 2008)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Then don't get me started on the definition of encounter.  Although mostly intuitive, I think it will be harder to define when not in combat.  I can already see an eladrin character bamfing all over the place say walking through town ala Nightcrawler.




Except that "per encounter" is, as his been revealed at D&DExp, shorthand for "you can do this once and then must take a 5-minute rest before doing it again." So the definition's already hardwired into the rules, whether in combat or not.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 3, 2008)

korjik said:
			
		

> Which is pretty dumb in my opinion. I have found that having the slightest clue about the capabilities of my players, having the slightest clue about what they like and dont like, is usually a better solution to limiting their abilities just to make my life easier.
> 
> Heck, I dont generally even use 'natural' challenges cause generally all they do is eat up playing time without advancing the plot, and finding playing time is the most difficult thing to do in my now 17th level 3.5 campaign.




The reason you find natural challenges to be a waste of time is specifically because of having spells such as Fly show up comparatively early in the game.  You stop using them specifically because they are completely ineffective.

3rd edition, and previous edition, did a crappy job of balancing non combat spells against combat spells.  With Silence, Invisibility, and Knock being 2nd level spells, and Spider climb showing up at 1st level, what exactly do you need a traditional thief / rogue for?  You may not like the idea of nerfing the spell casting classes, but I would rather see them beaten into submission with a nerf bat than have them overshadow every class that does not use spells.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 3, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> If an encounter lasts for more than five minutes, does resistance expire during the encounter?




All encounters are now five minutes long.

I, for one, welcome our new abstract measurement overlords.


----------



## Corinth (Mar 3, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> All encounters are now five minutes long.
> 
> I, for one, welcome our new abstract measurement overlords.



Indeed.  This is just the cooldown mechanic by another name now.


----------



## SoulStorm (Mar 3, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> It's not so much that I mind Flight being higher level - it's that I mind _crappy_ flight being higher level.  Flight speed 40' for 5 minutes that takes your minor actions to sustain (thus preventing any other buffs and some spells)?  That's not Flight, that's "Flight Jr., with Training Wheels".  And 16th is hardly the start of Paragon tier - shouldn't this kind of rudimentary flight be back at level 11 or so?
> 
> And this is especially insulting in light of the fact that Hippogryph mounts have been mentioned as available equipment, for 1000g, IIRC.  Now I don't know exactly how prices compare, but I'll bet that's available a hell of lot sooner than level 16.
> 
> So ... unlimited flight at a good speed - or slow flight for five minutes from a daily power?  This is the equivalent of a 3E Wizard having a 5th level spell that granted them the Toughness feat.




I agree, defying the conventions of physical reality is the most enjoyable part of playing a magic using character.  This fly spell is weak sauce indeed.  Perhaps there are feats, or paragon paths that can grant the equivalent of 3.5's overland flight.  If so, ok, if not, I'll be skipping 4th edition.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 3, 2008)

Crosswind said:
			
		

> What the hey?  Can anybody confirm if this is actually true, or just somebody guessing? (Re: damage + 1/2 level)
> 
> -Cross




It's been pretty much debunked, but not everyone got the memo.

Fitz


----------



## Kishin (Mar 3, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> All encounters are now five minutes long.
> 
> I, for one, welcome our new abstract measurement overlords.




QFT.

20 second battles were always a hard sell for me.

Abstraction of largely irrelevant details are nice.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 3, 2008)

Precise time is videogame-y.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Except that "per encounter" is, as his been revealed at D&DExp, shorthand for "you can do this once and then must take a 5-minute rest before doing it again." So the definition's already hardwired into the rules, whether in combat or not.



Which make them technically 1/5 min and effectivelly 1/encounter. It's good game design IMO. Elegant, simple and almost bulletproof.
I can't stand WoD powers that can be used once per "scene" or  "session". It would be a kick in the nuts if WotC went that way.
It'd be worse if they decided that encounter powers could only be used in combat, as someone here suggested IIRC.

There was a lot of discussion about the definition of an encounter, since we thought we would need it most of the time to adjudicate powers and durations, but I think we won't.

I asked multiple times in this forum how many times a character could use an encounter power outside combat. I think I finally got the answer: He can use it every 5 minutes. 
Also, in R&C they said most buffs would last until the end of the encounter, and much discussion came out of that statement. But as we can see, those spells that last until the end of the encounter also have an alternative duration: 5 minutes.

So, for all those who consider themselves "simulationists" and were worrying about all that, I think they'll be satisfied. I am 

"My turst for 4E desiners no no limits!"

Thumbs up!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 3, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> I agree, defying the conventions of physical reality is the most enjoyable part of playing a magic using character.  This fly spell is weak sauce indeed.  Perhaps there are feats, or paragon paths that can grant the equivalent of 3.5's overland flight.  If so, ok, if not, I'll be skipping 4th edition.




Meh, too me the most enjoyable magical characters I have played are those that enhance and make more potent ones own abilities. Thus why I loved the Beguiler, its natural abilities were simply enhanced by its magical abilities.


----------



## Zelster (Mar 3, 2008)

I couldn't be happier that the overpowered utility spells like Fly and Greater Invis Sphere have been nerfed.  Those wizard spells that allow bypassing of encounters and plot points need to get out of D&D and back into the 1980s where they belong.

New game, new edition, new audience, new balance.  Nothing is stopping you from playing 3.0E and casting haste, fly, and nerdrage on yourself.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 3, 2008)

Darth Cyric said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> 3.0 Fly, in particular, was flat out ludicrous.



Isn't that actually the point about 4e?

You are heroes from the start, you do the ludicrous from first level. So 3.0e flight would fit as a paragon ability. We're paragons, walking is beneath us. And epic heroes ,which are said to be able to challenge deities, should meassure distances in worlds, not mere miles.


----------



## Grog (Mar 3, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Yep. Just cast Resistance on one of the Defenders and the Pit Fiend -- or even an *army* of Pit Fiends -- can't touch him!



That's assuming that elemental resistance works the same way that it did in 3E.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 3, 2008)

Zelster said:
			
		

> I couldn't be happier that the overpowered utility spells like Fly and Greater Invis Sphere have been nerfed.  Those wizard spells that allow bypassing of encounters and plot points need to get out of D&D and back into the 1980s where they belong.




This.

Wizards have plenty of ways to bypass the normal rules of physical reality--see _mage hand_, available at 1st level.  That doesn't mean they can bypass the rules of reality any way they like.  Since flying and teleportation happen to be colossal headaches for a DM (I concluded a while ago that _greater teleport_ was the single most abusive spell in D&D), those capabilities get a heavy whacking with the nerf bat.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Mar 3, 2008)

Resiliant Sphere (and thus, likely many entrapping force effects) has hit points.

Now, if some spell-slinger captures me in some kind of mystic prison I can --in a manly way-- bust myself out without the need for teleporting mojo.

The wizard in me cries a bit at this knowledge, but every other class in me is giving each other high fives and blowing the wizard the raspberry.

I approve.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 3, 2008)

Alraiis said:
			
		

> I think 4th Edition keywords are making fuzzy distinctions like this clearer.  In this case, an "attack" is not anything that requires an attack roll, but any power with the "attack" keyword (and basic and opportunity attacks).  Hence: "Wall of Ice - Wizard Attack 15"




But "hit" and "miss" are also 4th Edition keywords, and Wall of Ice doesn't use the hit/miss mechanic.  So the minion can't be hit by the Wall of Ice effect, because the Wall of Ice neither hits nor misses, it merely deals damage.

-Hyp.


----------



## Alraiis (Mar 3, 2008)

I'd assume attacks that don't use the hit/miss mechanic but still do damage are "hitting" for that much damage, even though it comes under an "Effect:" entry instead of a "Hit:" entry (if the spell did use a "Hit:" entry, users would start wondering about misses).  Without a 4th Edition PHB in front of me, I can only speculate as to whether or not they put a rule in for this, or if we're just supposed to use our judgment.  I concede the point that the entry itself doesn't suggest that Wall of Ice "hits" when it deals damage; however, if a rule somewhere else doesn't cover it, individual interpretations, house rules, or common sense can always fill in the blank.  I certainly don't expect 4th to be flawless in this regard.


----------



## Just Another User (Mar 3, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> All encounters are now five minutes long.
> 
> I, for one, welcome our new abstract measurement overlords.




"In 15 minutes the ritual to summon the Great Devourer will be complete, to reach me you must pass 4 rooms guarded each by a single kobold. you will never be able to defeat all in time to stop me. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!"


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 3, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> "In 15 minutes the ritual to summon the Great Devourer will be complete, to reach me you must pass 4 rooms guarded each by a single kobold. you will never be able to defeat all in time to stop me. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!"



The only thing worse than players who abuse the system, is DMs who abuse the system.

One of Wilde's.


----------



## Ravingdork (Mar 3, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But "hit" and "miss" are also 4th Edition keywords, and Wall of Ice doesn't use the hit/miss mechanic.  So the minion can't be hit by the Wall of Ice effect, because the Wall of Ice neither hits nor misses, it merely deals damage.
> 
> -Hyp.




Things would have been so much better if they just gave those damnable kobold minions 1 hp.


----------



## Voss (Mar 3, 2008)

Personally, I wouldn't have objected to nerfing fly and greater invis, or pushing them back in the spell list.  But they pushed them back in the spell list, nerfed them *and* made them daily spells.  I'll take the per encounter displacement spell for the win, Alex.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Mar 4, 2008)

I like the "minor action to sustain"
It really cuts down on the amount of spells active at one time.  Fitting my picture of a spellcaster better.

I don't like the number of powers avalible to choose from, but I guess that can be fixed in splatbooks.  The small number of spells makes them seem more like superpowers and less like magic.  Oddly I don't mind the change for clerics, or warlocks, but wizardry is rubbing me the wrong way.

Perhaps this is balanced by rituals - How many more months before I can give 4e a fair evaluation?


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But "hit" and "miss" are also 4th Edition keywords, and Wall of Ice doesn't use the hit/miss mechanic.  So the minion can't be hit by the Wall of Ice effect, because the Wall of Ice neither hits nor misses, it merely deals damage.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Perhaps one side-effect of reversing the "take the DM out of the equation" philosophy will be to eliminate the legalistic argumentation on irrelevant points of detail that consumes so many of our best minds today.

Or maybe not.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 4, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> I agree, defying the conventions of physical reality is the most enjoyable part of playing a magic using character.  This fly spell is weak sauce indeed.  Perhaps there are feats, or paragon paths that can grant the equivalent of 3.5's overland flight.  If so, ok, if not, I'll be skipping 4th edition.



Man, you are going to miss the entire 4E thing if it doesn't have overland flight? Well that is some serious love for one spell!
My money is on it being a paragon ritual and an epic power, once you are epic youwill be whipping around the world and planes at ease...


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 4, 2008)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> The reason you find natural challenges to be a waste of time is specifically because of having spells such as Fly show up comparatively early in the game.  You stop using them specifically because they are completely ineffective.
> 
> 3rd edition, and previous edition, did a crappy job of balancing non combat spells against combat spells.  With Silence, Invisibility, and Knock being 2nd level spells, and Spider climb showing up at 1st level, what exactly do you need a traditional thief / rogue for?  You may not like the idea of nerfing the spell casting classes, but I would rather see them beaten into submission with a nerf bat than have them overshadow every class that does not use spells.
> 
> END COMMUNICATION




Thanks for telling people why they think a certain way.

I don't know why he thought natural challenges to be a waste of time but i know why I do.  Unless the natural challenge is in the absurd, I can probably deal with it.  So whopedy freakin do, my bad ass adventurer knows how to camp when its stormy, he can climb things, and look he doesn't drown easy.  Great, I'll start waking up when we get to real heroic challenges, not lame ass TV drama "susie got caught in the storm, lassie" stuff.  

And hey maybe the wizard never overshadowed people in his games because the DM knew how to deal with things.

I want the wizard to have solutions to the pit, the storm, the cliff, the bad guys, the sneaking, the froilaven, I want all the classes too.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Thanks for telling people why they think a certain way.
> 
> I don't know why he thought natural challenges to be a waste of time but i know why I do.  Unless the natural challenge is in the absurd, I can probably deal with it.  So whopedy freakin do, my bad ass adventurer knows how to camp when its stormy, he can climb things, and look he doesn't drown easy.  Great, I'll start waking up when we get to real heroic challenges, not lame ass TV drama "susie got caught in the storm, lassie" stuff.











> And hey maybe the wizard never overshadowed people in his games because the DM knew how to deal with things.




This is technically known as "putting the cart before the horse".



> I want the wizard to have solutions to the pit, the storm, the cliff, the bad guys, the sneaking, the froilaven, I want all the classes too.




The wizard does have solutions. He can climb, jump, swim, stealth, perceive, survive (well, maybe not) like everyone else.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The wizard does have solutions. He can climb, jump, swim, stealth, perceive, survive (well, maybe not) like everyone else.




And the great thing is, he'll actually be somewhat competant at these!!


----------



## SoulStorm (Mar 4, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Man, you are going to miss the entire 4E thing if it doesn't have overland flight? Well that is some serious love for one spell!
> My money is on it being a paragon ritual and an epic power, once you are epic youwill be whipping around the world and planes at ease...




Well, considering the fact that I've only ever played one game to epic level that doesn't exactly make me feel very secure.

But yes, I like overland flight that much.     I don't even care if a character has to hyper-specialize to get it.  In fact, I would actually consider that better.  It would make flight much more rare and special.  Maybe you have to be an air elemental savant to get persistent flight, or you need a feat chain to improve the flight spell to make it persistent.  If such options exist, I'm good to go.  Otherwise...not so much.  I don't play fantasy games to be constrained by the same rules as conventional reality.  I play fantasy games to take a vacation from reality.  Otherwise, what's the point? I may as well play monopoly.

And overland flight is just one example.  What about water breathing, or shape-shifting?  Abilities that allow characters to explore their environment or form in ways that we can't are what fantasy is all about.  Sure, combat can be fun, but I'd much rather role-play the weather mage who loves flying through storms, or the druid who loves turning into a shark in order to explore the ocean depths.  If 4th edition can't simulate those character concepts, I'm not interested.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> But yes, I like overland flight that much.     I don't even care if a character has to hyper-specialize to get it.  In fact, I would actually consider that better.  It would make flight much more rare and special.  Maybe you have to be an air elemental savant to get persistent flight, or you need a feat chain to improve the flight spell to make it persistent.  If such options exist, I'm good to go.  Otherwise...not so much.  I don't play fantasy games to be constrained by the same rules as conventional reality.  I play fantasy games to take a vacation from reality.  Otherwise, what's the point? I may as well play monopoly.




Did you just call 4E too mundane? 



> And overland flight is just one example.  What about water breathing, or shape-shifting?  Abilities that allow characters to explore their environment or form in ways that we can't are what fantasy is all about.  Sure, combat can be fun, but I'd much rather role-play the weather mage who loves flying through storms, or the druid who loves turning into a shark in order to explore the ocean depths.  If 4th edition can't simulate those character concepts, I'm not interested.




One of the core precepts of 4E is to remove/reduce instances where only one character can do stuff, sidelining the other characters. So, unless your weather mage and sharky druid obtain their weathery and sharky powers in a manner available to everyone, that's right out.

Mang, specialist players got teh shaft in 4E.


----------



## sukael (Mar 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> One of the core precepts of 4E is to remove/reduce instances where only one character can do stuff, sidelining the other characters. So, unless your weather mage and sharky druid obtain their weathery and sharky powers in a manner available to everyone, that's right out.




Given a mention of flying carpets being a 17th-level item (or somewhere around there), and _fly_ being a 16th-level power, I'm wondering if they're pushing back new-movement-mode spells to the point where other party members might feasibly be able to keep up with magic items.


----------



## hong (Mar 4, 2008)

sukael said:
			
		

> Given a mention of flying carpets being a 17th-level item (or somewhere around there), and _fly_ being a 16th-level power, I'm wondering if they're pushing back new-movement-mode spells to the point where other party members might feasibly be able to keep up with magic items.



 Well, that was basically the reason for the Christmas tree in 3.5: so that mundane classes could keep up with spellcasters and their plot-device magic. The plot-device magic isn't really going away, it's just been kicked upstairs (and nerfed). Thus you'll no doubt still have winged boots, helms of teleport and the like, but they won't show up until the later tiers.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 4, 2008)

I _really_ like the idea that flying mounts are better for combat flight than simple spells, at least for many characters. In previous editions, flying mounts were essentially pointless, even though they are one of the more interesting ways of having flying characters. If it takes a severe nerf of spell-based flight for that to be achieved, then I am very happy to see the Fly spell nerfed.

Having a flying mount is (or at least should be) a significant investment of a character concept. While a Wizard will probably never be remembered or identified as being "the guy who uses the fly spell", it is very easy to imagine a fighter being known as "the Griffin Knight" because he rides a griffin into battle. I think it is a good thing to reward the kinds if things that lead to that kind of unique character identity.

Besides, in pretty much every one of my favorite videogames I use as D&D inspiration (Fire Emblem, Suikoden, etc), the only people who can fly are the people who either are born with wings, ride a winged creature, or have a character-defining specialization in transforming into a flying creature. Flight is a powerful, character defining ability that, in other games, is never handed out as lightly as it is in D&D.


----------



## SoulStorm (Mar 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Did you just call 4E too mundane?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow!  If you're right I've gone from eagerly anticipating 4th edition to being not in the least bit interested.

Yes, it would be horrible if one character could do something every other character couldn't do.  That would be like having a rocket scientist who didn't know how to perform open-heart surgery.  I mean, how crazy would that be?


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 4, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> ...
> Sure, combat can be fun, but I'd much rather role-play the weather mage who loves flying through storms, or the druid who loves turning into a shark in order to explore the ocean depths.  If 4th edition can't simulate those character concepts, I'm not interested.




Yeah, and expect the fun of the other players on the ground, while you solo role-play flying to storms and exploring the sea.   



			
				SoulStorm said:
			
		

> Wow!  If you're right I've gone from eagerly anticipating 4th edition to being not in the least bit interested.
> 
> Yes, it would be horrible if one character could do something every other character couldn't do.  That would be like having a rocket scientist who didn't know how to perform open-heart surgery.  I mean, how crazy would that be?




Yeah, in a hospital based game around heart surgery I would feel bad. Good the game is not about one character with the approciated powers and his group of cheer leaders...


----------



## Ulthwithian (Mar 4, 2008)

Well, regarding the small number of powers shown, I believe someone speculated in another thread that at the Paragon level, characters would be able to move Heroic Tier Encounter Powers to At-Will Powers, and Heroic Tier Daily Powers to Encounter Powers.  If this is true, then there would be little-to-no need to print Paragon At-Will Powers, which would result in the two-page spread that we have.

Personally, I would not be surprised in the least if Teleport (or even Teleport Circle) would be a Paragon-tier ritual.  This solves the problem of getting people from place to place while not kludging the tactical options available.  IOW, this would be the 4E analog to 3.5 Fly/Overland Flight.

If anything, I would expect Overland Flight (as a ritual) to be of a lower-level than Flight, since this would fit with the 4E paradigm.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 4, 2008)

I have to say it looks as if the Wizard got hit with a giant dinosaur-killing Nerf Asteroid.  And I'm not impressed, the utility powers I see are singularly uninspiring.  If anything the way they've smacked down spellcasters (my usual characters when I get to play) I wouldn't touch the edition with a pole.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 4, 2008)

Have you ever played Ars Magica?


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Mar 4, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Besides, in pretty much every one of my favorite videogames I use as D&D inspiration (Fire Emblem, Suikoden, etc), the only people who can fly are the people who either are born with wings, ride a winged creature, or have a character-defining specialization in transforming into a flying creature. Flight is a powerful, character defining ability that, in other games, is never handed out as lightly as it is in D&D.




This.

Seriously, let's look at this beyond videogames.  The ability to fly (especially allowing an entire party to fly) has always been portrayed as a powerful ability in fiction.  It's about time that D&D treated it the same.


----------



## wedgeski (Mar 4, 2008)

This looks good to me. Very very good. I had a pang that Prismatic Spray (which I have always thought was the coolest sounding spell in the game) had been changed to the relatively flabby 'Prismatic Beams', but that's a tiny house rule away from being rectified. I love the de-emphasised game breakers, and I could have babies with the 'Sustain Minor' approach to spell concentration.

<-- Happy chap.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 4, 2008)

Is it just me, or do the spell descriptions look incredibly *short*?  I can't decide if that's good or bad.  

The Good: to the point, concise, easy to remember.  

The Bad:  If loopholes aren't spelled out, or options made clear, confusion ensues.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 4, 2008)

Aside from mirror image, the spread is reassuring.  Happy as a clam now that a wizard can toss up resistance to shut down radiant paladin marking.


----------



## SoulStorm (Mar 4, 2008)

Walking Dad said:
			
		

> Yeah, and expect the fun of the other players on the ground, while you solo role-play flying to storms and exploring the sea.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, in a hospital based game around heart surgery I would feel bad. Good the game is not about one character with the approciated powers and his group of cheer leaders...





Don't your characters ever do anything besides run through DM prepared adventures?  It doesn't take that long for characters to describe what they do in their downtime between adventures but it gives them a lot more depth.  It not like an in-depth narrative is required.  Two or three sentences usually do the trick.  Then if you have a good DM, subplots can develop around each character's narratives that the entire party can participate in.  In fact, our DM required us to periodically write narratives about what we did in our downtime in order to develop character centric plots.  Often the narratives of multiple characters would dovetail.  Are the games you've played in really so different?


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 4, 2008)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> Resiliant Sphere (and thus, likely many entrapping force effects) has hit points.
> 
> Now, if some spell-slinger captures me in some kind of mystic prison I can --in a manly way-- bust myself out without the need for teleporting mojo.
> 
> ...



Let us know how it goes when the paladin issues you a _Divine Challenge_ right before the wizard traps you in the sphere.


----------



## glass (Mar 4, 2008)

danskcarvalho said:
			
		

> Hi! This is my first post here!



Welcome!



			
				danskcarvalho said:
			
		

> Have anyone noticed that the book jumps from Level 13 to Level 15 Spells? It means that there won't be level 14 spells?



It was suggested on another thread (and seems likely) that those levels are where you get abilities from your Paragon Path.


glass.


----------



## glass (Mar 4, 2008)

Just Another User said:
			
		

> "In 15 minutes the ritual to summon the Great Devourer will be complete, to reach me you must pass 4 rooms guarded each by a single kobold. you will never be able to defeat all in time to stop me. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!"



Er, why would it take you over 15 minutes to defeat four kobolds? Its not like you are going to need your per encounter powers  back!


glass.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 4, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> Don't your characters ever do anything besides run through DM prepared adventures?  It doesn't take that long for characters to describe what they do in their downtime between adventures but it gives them a lot more depth. * It not like an in-depth narrative is required.  Two or three sentences usually do the trick.*  Then if you have a good DM, subplots can develop around each character's narratives that the entire party can participate in.  In fact, our DM required us to periodically write narratives about what we did in our downtime in order to develop character centric plots.  Often the narratives of multiple characters would dovetail.  Are the games you've played in really so different?




Bolded for emphasis. This is okay. Ijust hate it if some player trys to solo-play and the other players are left behind. Or mechanics who support this.
Played shadowrun with a hacker character


----------



## SoulStorm (Mar 4, 2008)

Walking Dad said:
			
		

> Bolded for emphasis. This is okay. Ijust hate it if some player trys to solo-play and the other players are left behind. Or mechanics who support this.
> Played shadowrun with a hacker character




No, I'm not so fond of solo-play myself, but there's nothing wrong with characters having abilities that make them unique.  Characters should be balanced, but I don't think that means that every character has to have the same range of abilities as every other character.  I think the more character concepts a game system can successfully accomodate without sacrificing game balance and individual contribution, the wider the audience the game will have.  

Having 15 different ways of blasting my enemies to bits is meaningless to me.  I'd rather have a character that can cast magnificent mansion to evacuate the townspeople who are under attack by rampaging undead than to have 20 ways of blowing said undead to bits.  I want a fantasy world that lets my character do fantastic things that have nothing to do with blowing things up.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Mar 4, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Let us know how it goes when the paladin issues you a _Divine Challenge_ right before the wizard traps you in the sphere.




Oh snap!


----------



## adamda (Mar 4, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> Er, why would it take you over 15 minutes to defeat four kobolds? Its not like you are going to need your per encounter powers back!




It was a joke, based on something Nytmare said:



			
				Nytmare said:
			
		

> All encounters are now five minutes long.
> 
> I, for one, welcome our new abstract measurement overlords.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 5, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Let us know how it goes when the paladin issues you a _Divine Challenge_ right before the wizard traps you in the sphere.




What's the problem? You don't take damage from not attacking the paladin. You take damage if you make an attack that doesn't include the paladin.

Not attacking is a fine option!


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 5, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> What's the problem? You don't take damage from not attacking the paladin. You take damage if you make an attack that doesn't include the paladin.
> 
> Not attacking is a fine option!



Provided you're willing to wait, potentially a very long time.  It presents the trapped creature with different considerations: bust out and take a lot of damage while doing so, or wait until either the wizard drops concentration or allies come to the trapped entity's aid.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Mar 5, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> One of the core precepts of 4E is to remove/reduce instances where only one character can do stuff, sidelining the other characters. So, unless your weather mage and sharky druid obtain their weathery and sharky powers in a manner available to everyone, that's right out.



Eladrin. 1st level. Fey step. Chasm.  Honestly, I love the idea of nerfing plot-breaking travel and divination spells and cannot understand how having a particular race able to bypass natural challenges with Fey Step is consistent with the new philosophy.  For NPC sidhe-type entities, cool, but I don't feel good about a subset of 1st level PCs (ok, to be frank, _any _1st level PCs) having that ability, so far as I understand it at this point.


----------



## Raduin711 (Mar 5, 2008)

DM: The door is locked.
Rogue: Ok, I use open-
Wizard: I cast knock.
DM: With an arcane word and a gentle rap, the door comes open.
Rogue: What?  You can do that?
Wizard: Yep.
Rogue: We're like... 4th level.  Why did I bother putting ranks in Open Lock?
Wizard: Why, in case I ever run out of knock spells, silly.
Rogue: How many can you cast?
Wizard: I have a wand of fifty- make that forty-nine- charges.
Rogue: I call shenanigans on the game designers.


----------



## (contact) (Mar 5, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Now, if there's no exception to this, it'd be a darned stupid rule; it would be like saying you are a normal person, except you take no injury if you are ever hit by an ice cream truck. Even if that Ice Cream Truck were barrelling at you at 90 kph, and had spikes and whirling saw blades on its grill, you'd be unscathed.




That totally happened to me.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Mar 5, 2008)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> Eladrin. 1st level. Fey step. Chasm.



Seriously, how often does it break the game that one character can teleport across a 10' wide chasm?  IIRC, they can only pop 3 squares at a time, and have to recharge five minutes between.  That means they can cross 10' gaps.  Whoop-de-doo.  So can a DC 15 jump check, if you get a running start.  How many of your adventures rely on the PCs being, to a man, unable to make DC 15 jump checks?


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 5, 2008)

Not that I feel it's a problem, but they can jump 5 squares, so 25 feet, more on a diagonal.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 5, 2008)

I don't see the Eladrin power as a problem, either. The range is too limited for it to be much of a concern, and we still don't know if it can take the character to places that he can't see.


----------



## sukael (Mar 5, 2008)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> Eladrin. 1st level. Fey step. Chasm.  Honestly, I love the idea of nerfing plot-breaking travel and divination spells and cannot understand how having a particular race able to bypass natural challenges with Fey Step is consistent with the new philosophy.  For NPC sidhe-type entities, cool, but I don't feel good about a subset of 1st level PCs (ok, to be frank, _any _1st level PCs) having that ability, so far as I understand it at this point.




Hopefully nobody ever has a 30-foot rope and a grappling hook, then... ;D

Fey Step at most makes a little easier to get by obstacles that any right-thinking PCs can manage to circumvent anyway, and it won't help anyone except the eladrin.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 5, 2008)

Also if you really wanted to, Fey Step is the easiest ability to nerf and still keep it thematic. 

Simply state that since Fey Step is the Eladrin stepping through into the Feywild and coming out of the Feywild in another location.

That you still have to travel to that location in the Feywild, it simply happens spontaneously in the World. By this token you can state that since the Feywild is a mirror of our World that chasm or river exists in the Feywild as well. 

Now if you wanted to then, you could have the character try to cross this the normal way, but that would just be doing the same as the others in the World. Could be good strategy for getting the slip on someone.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 5, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Provided you're willing to wait, potentially a very long time.  It presents the trapped creature with different considerations: bust out and take a lot of damage while doing so, or wait until either the wizard drops concentration or allies come to the trapped entity's aid.




Do you think attacking an inanimate object triggers the divine challenge damage? I don't think the sphere counts as a paladin's ally...I certainly wouldn't assign damage to a player trying to break free.


----------



## White-Wolf (Mar 5, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> 20 second battles were always a hard sell for me.
> 
> Abstraction of largely irrelevant details are nice.




naw just about every German broadsword fight is over in about 2 seconds.   

very quick and to the point (if you catch my drift)


----------



## White-Wolf (Mar 5, 2008)

double post


----------



## Victim (Mar 5, 2008)

sukael said:
			
		

> Hopefully nobody ever has a 30-foot rope and a grappling hook, then... ;D
> 
> Fey Step at most makes a little easier to get by obstacles that any right-thinking PCs can manage to circumvent anyway, and it won't help anyone except the eladrin.




Having one person teleport and then set the rope is often going to be much easier than using a grappling hook to get the rope in place.  My swordsage does that all the time.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2008)

This also gives you great cinematic moments like having the eladrin leap over a 50' gulf, teleporting the second half to just barely get to the other side.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Mar 5, 2008)

Re: Fey Step.  Definitely could be restrictions we're not aware of, so I'm not in a peeve about it yet .  Many possible ways to house rule restrictions that should not cause too many downstream probs, I'm with you there, again not in a fit about it.  But honestly it does seem inconsistent with the idea behind nerfing Fly and Teleport to me.  5 squares (25') is a nice long distance and for some things the absolute distance isn't the point.  It's stuff like being to bypass a solid wall or a cloud of deadly gas.  I'm thinking of stuff that you couldn't just bypass with a grappling hook or a good jump check, stuff where the benefit is that you do not need to deal with anything in the intervening space.  Just an opinion based on what we know so far.  I'll be curious to see the whole picture.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2008)

Fey Step is one-shot and does not negate gravity, and doesn't let you completely bypass an entire location.

That is an obscenely important distinction.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 5, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> Do you think attacking an inanimate object triggers the divine challenge damage? I don't think the sphere counts as a paladin's ally...I certainly wouldn't assign damage to a player trying to break free.



From the Paladin sheet.
"If the target [of this ability] makes an attack that does not include you as a target..."

Looks like it works to me, although it has been changed since.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 5, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> What's the problem? You don't take damage from not attacking the paladin. You take damage if you make an attack that doesn't include the paladin.
> 
> Not attacking is a fine option!




No, sitting in a magic bubble while your allies die is not a fine option. You can sit there without taking damage, sure, but if you try and break out of the bubble you will suffer the holy damage from attacking it and not the paladin. In situations like this where the target is simply unable to attack the paladin, he should be exempt from the effects of the challenge, IMO.


----------



## FourthBear (Mar 5, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> No, sitting in a magic bubble while your allies die is not a fine option. You can sit there without taking damage, sure, but if you try and break out of the bubble you will suffer the holy damage from attacking it and not the paladin. In situations like this where the target is simply unable to attack the paladin, he should be exempt from the effects of the challenge, IMO.



I agree.  I hope the core rules are written in a way that make it clear that DMs are encouraged to use common sense to rule against this kind of abuse.  While rules should be written to cover as many situations as reasonably possible, there's no substitute for DM judgment when cases where the spirit of the rules is being violated.  Otherwise, we must surrender ourselves to all powers being written in increasingly legalistic jargon with small print to avoid silly things like this.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2008)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> It's stuff like being to bypass a solid wall or a cloud of deadly gas.  I'm thinking of stuff that you couldn't just bypass with a grappling hook or a good jump check, stuff where the benefit is that you do not need to deal with anything in the intervening space.  Just an opinion based on what we know so far.  I'll be curious to see the whole picture.




This.

Teleporting 25 feet across chasms, out of grapples, and so forth is fine.  Teleporting through walls is a bit much.  If the rules don't already say so, I will probably house-rule this to require line of sight.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 5, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> It doesn't take that long for characters to describe what they do in their downtime between adventures but it gives them a lot more depth.  It not like an in-depth narrative is required.  Two or three sentences usually do the trick.



Well, if that's all you want such abilities for, then I'd just handwave it. You perform your thingamajick ritual and off you go flying or diving wherever you want.

We still don't know what you'll be able to do with rituals according to the 4E rules. I'm still wondering if they're just plot devices or if it's precisely defined what you can or cannot do.


----------



## Midknightsun (Mar 5, 2008)

Fly getting nerfed doesn't bother me in the least, and I've played enough psions/wizards/warlocks in 3.5 to know its a HUGE tactical advantage on many levels.  As a DM its also a PITA to constantly HAVE to put in flyers or archer types to deal with the floating spellcaster (Who then goes invisible, puts up protection from arrows, goes up to his furthest effective range, and proceeds with the pain bringing).  Yeah, its fun for a while as a player, but its a little too effective for a 3rd level spell.  Now the Eladrin ability, if its line of sight and effect, won't tweak me nearly as much.  Sure, its useful, but hardly a tactical "I win" in and of its own from what I've seen so far.  If its not line of sight . . . then yeah, I have some problems.  Not as much as with a full out teleport or dimension door, but still.  I am hopeful, though, that this is not the case.


----------



## Tuft (Mar 5, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> Teleporting 25 feet across chasms, out of grapples, and so forth is fine.  Teleporting through walls is a bit much.  If the rules don't already say so, I will probably house-rule this to require line of sight.




Barred windows, glass windows, keyholes, arrowslits, metal grates, drilled holes... all provide line of sight.

Most above-ground houses have some kind of way of getting sunlight inside, for example. That usually means you have at least limited line-of-sight to the inside. 

There is more to the world than dungeon corridors and dungeon walls...


----------



## Chimera (Mar 5, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> Rogue: We're like... 4th level.  Why did I bother putting ranks in Open Lock?
> Wizard: Why, in case I ever run out of knock spells, silly.
> Rogue: How many can you cast?
> Wizard: I have a wand of fifty- make that forty-nine- charges.
> Rogue: I call shenanigans on the game designers.




Chimera's PC to Wizard PC:  Idiot!  You just spent 90 gold to open a freaking door when this guy could have done it for free.  Save the wand for harder things.

Not shenanigans when you contemplate the costs.  I know that at higher levels people tend to look at it like 1gp=$1, but even then, why would you spend $90 to open a door when the guy next to you can go it for free?


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 5, 2008)

AT 4th level, the DMG suggests that the players get 1,200 gp _per encounter_

90gp per door isn't that much.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Mar 5, 2008)

Look at it this way: The Rogue could put those same skill points into UMD instead and still be able to open locks, too.  She would also be able to heal, climb, become invisible. . .  Well worth the 90 gp/lock


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 5, 2008)

Tuft said:
			
		

> Barred windows, glass windows, keyholes, arrowslits, metal grates, drilled holes... all provide line of sight.
> 
> Most above-ground houses have some kind of way of getting sunlight inside, for example. That usually means you have at least limited line-of-sight to the inside.
> 
> There is more to the world than dungeon corridors and dungeon walls...




Sure, but I can live with the eladrin being able to teleport through the occasional barred window or arrowslit.  As long as I can block a 1st-level eladrin from getting into a "secure area," without having to go to extravagant lengths like putting up teleportation wards, it's cool.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 5, 2008)

It'll just make closing the shutters on windows extremely popular in the game world.

"Now Billie, we don't leave the shutters open at night.  If you leave them open an Eladrin will get in and steal the milk, and you'll be eating your porridge with water in the morning."


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 5, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Wow. Mirror Image, Fly and Invisibility got grand-slammed by the nerf bat. Greater Invisibility lasts for 1 turn and ends if you attack? I'd hate to see how bad regular Invisibility sucks.




All three are rather vital powers that prevent a wizard from becoming fishbait in the first round or two of combat.

Hopefully things are balanced some other way.....I know that the paradigm is different, so I can accept that it might not work the same as 3E.  But in the 3E paradigm, a lvl 8 wizard (for example) with an average of about 21 hp could easily be killed in one round by a fighter.....he can't easily get out of range, he can't get above him, he can't divert attacks, and he can't hide nearly as well.

Maybe there are other powers that we're not seeing, or fighters etc. aren't nearly as dominant as they were in 3E.

Guess we'll see...

I'm interested to see what these rituals are like.  All the spells seem like strictly combat abilities....but as someone who liked spellcasters, I always liked the utility powers at least as much.

Banshee


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 5, 2008)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I'm interested to see what these rituals are like.  All the spells seem like strictly combat abilities....but as someone who liked spellcasters, I always liked the utility powers at least as much.




Invisibility with an indefinite duration strikes me as having a lot of non-combat applications.  Likewise, 5 minutes of flight is long enough for some useful tricks.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Mar 6, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Fey Step is one-shot and does not negate gravity, and doesn't let you completely bypass an entire location.
> 
> That is an obscenely important distinction.



I don't think anyone fails to see the distinction between Fly, Teleport, and Fey Step, and I don't think concerns with Fey Step simply reflect ignorance of that distinction (I know in my case they don't).  Is that what you think?

Remember, also, that Fey Step is actually once-per-5-minutes-shot.  In some situations, 25' of teleportation every 5 minutes is more valuable than, say, unlimited distance Teleport once per day.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 6, 2008)

Certainly.  It's just that those situations are fairly few and unlikely to cause any real balance issues.

Okay, so you can climb a very tall tree without making any climb checks, very very slowly.  Or you can cross back and forth between two sides of a gorge.  Awesome.  You will be everyone's favorite "lower the drawbridge" guy.

Chances are someone else in the party had a way to do the exact same thing though, with a different power.  It just means gaps aren't a barrier that require dice rolls.

The biggest abuse I can see is how big a gap you can slip through with it, and whether line of sight works through intangible barriers like Walls of Fire


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Mar 6, 2008)

Maybe it's more of a campaign flavor issue, since I'm not keen on the drawbridge trick at 1st level for any and all members of a race.  But so much depends on the circumstances under which you can use it that I think I'm ruffled-out at this point until we know what restrictions there are.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 6, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> ... and whether line of sight works through intangible barriers like Walls of Fire




Lin e of Sight certainly doesn't work through a Wall of Fire in 3.5:

_Effect: *Opaque* sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level..._

-Hyp.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 6, 2008)

White-Wolf said:
			
		

> naw just about every German broadsword fight is over in about 2 seconds.
> 
> very quick and to the point (if you catch my drift)




Oh, I know realistically speaking, your average sword fight is very, very short.

But this is D&D. I like my battles epic.


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

I agree actually I alot with this.


			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> Speaking as a hardcore primary spellcaster fan--wizards specifically--I _love_ the new wizard class.  _Light_, _mage hand_, and _ghost sound_ at will?  Maintainable durations instead of fixed ones?




Before, cantrips sucked. Mage hand could move 10 pounds, unless something was magic, but most of the time something you'd want to move, a level, an item, whatever was magical.

A cunning wizard wants to slide the idol off the x?
Sorry, it's magical.

Want to pull the disarmed guy's sword out of range?
Sorry, it's magical.

It's a useful power now, it's magical, it's not massively broken. You don't need to keep track of whether you used it last session (which is still the same day).

Good stuff.


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

SoulStorm said:
			
		

> But yes, I like overland flight that much.     I don't even care if a character has to hyper-specialize to get it.  In fact, I would actually consider that better.  It would make flight much more rare and special.  Maybe you have to be an air elemental savant to get persistent flight, or you need a feat chain to improve the flight spell to make it persistent.  If such options exist, I'm good to go.  Otherwise...not so much.  I don't play fantasy games to be constrained by the same rules as conventional reality.  I play fantasy games to take a vacation from reality.  Otherwise, what's the point? I may as well play monopoly.
> 
> And overland flight is just one example.  What about water breathing, or shape-shifting?  Abilities that allow characters to explore their environment or form in ways that we can't are what fantasy is all about.  Sure, combat can be fun, but I'd much rather role-play the weather mage who loves flying through storms, or the druid who loves turning into a shark in order to explore the ocean depths.  If 4th edition can't simulate those character concepts, I'm not interested.



Rituals?

I don't think any of this will be missing from the game. It'll just not be stored in the "combat powers" section of the rulebook.

So you want to down under the ocean at second level? You learn a ritual to do that.
Maybe the ritual requires you to be 10th level? You get a blessed sea shell from the mermaid king that allows you to cast it at 2nd level, provided you're standing in salt water of an area he rules.

Making that sort of thing rituals/story-related adds a lot of magical flavor.

You -won't- be able to cast water breathing if some monster grapples you and pulls you into a pool. But that's not what you're looking for, right?

(I don't know how rituals are going to work, of course, but my impression is that it'll be in this fashion).


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

I loved this power. I read through and this and the Bibgy's Hand power, both really struck me as being great!



> Mirror Image Wizard Utility 10
> 'Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions
> perfectly and confusing your enemies.'
> Daily * Arcane, Illusion
> ...



For the first time it's a simple ability AND The number of the bonus corresponds easily to the effect of the spell.
There's not "does he know which image is real, blah blah blah". 

Why the hate?


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

Victim said:
			
		

> Having one person teleport and then set the rope is often going to be much easier than using a grappling hook to get the rope in place.  My swordsage does that all the time.




So long as there's nobody on the other side...
Cause you can only teleport once, then you stuck 

I think people are a bit confused about the "awesomeness" of one shot personal teleporting.
Eberron's had the mark of movement for a while. At first level it's personal teleport. People always take it.
It's a great, cool power.

It's not the bomb. It's not close to being the bomb.

It -does- allow them to move around or over one trap/obstical.
It -does- allow for some cool effects.

But you can't just leap around the battlefield. You -can- teleport into some room through an arrow slit. But you're stuck on the far side of that wall, in that part of the dungeon, until you get a 5 minute break.

That could really be pure suck.

So the player is taking a big risk, using a one shot power, to try to get advantage. If they've read the situation correctly they'll possibly enable the party to skip a trap, if they haven't they could really wind up very very dead.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> I loved this power. I read through and this and the Bibgy's Hand power, both really struck me as being great!
> 
> 
> For the first time it's a simple ability AND The number of the bonus corresponds easily to the effect of the spell.
> ...



It needs work.  Currently a psychic attack would pop an image even though the image doesn't serve as an impediment.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> Why the hate?




Personally, my problem with it is that it affects AC, but not Reflex. It makes much more sense for it to augment Reflex (which then augments AC, as well), since it would stymie a caster's attempt to target you with a spell (Reflex) as much as a fighter's attempt to stab you (AC).


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Personally, my problem with it is that it affects AC, but not Reflex. It makes much more sense for it to augment Reflex (which then augments AC, as well), since it would stymie a caster's attempt to target you with a spell (Reflex) as much as a fighter's attempt to stab you (AC).



 My impression was that Reflex was like _fireball_ or _burning hands_.
Historically _mirror image_ never affected those spells.

You just target an area (a square or set of squares) and whether the person is affected ('hit') depends on how agile they are.

The mage isn't targeting you, he's waving his (or her) hand in a direction and flame billows forth.

It's just rolled as an attack roll to keep the system consistent.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Personally, my problem with it is that it affects AC, but not Reflex. It makes much more sense for it to augment Reflex (which then augments AC, as well), since it would stymie a caster's attempt to target you with a spell (Reflex) as much as a fighter's attempt to stab you (AC).



It's a maintained effect that doesn't end with a saving throw or the moment it was cast.  Therefore with the potential to do more damage than some spells, it's going to be harder to hit with.


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> It needs work.  Currently a psychic attack would pop an image even though the image doesn't serve as an impediment.



 If the psionic attack is vs AC (i.e. a psionic blade that swings through the air) why would that not be affected? Mirror Image doesn't imped things. It tricks you into attacking empty space.

If your psionic attack is a reflex attack (i.e. affect an area) then Mirror Image won't affect it. But it it tries to "stab" somebody then it's affected, just like a weapon strike.

That makes sense to me. I guess, and is basically just like a (clearly worded) version of the spell in earlier editions.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> My impression was that Reflex was like _fireball_ or _burning hands_.
> Historically _mirror image_ never affected those spells.




Historically, the wizard wasn't making an attack roll, he was assumed auto-success and his target was given the task of determining whether he reduced the effect or not.

Now, the wizard is making an attack roll, so he is aiming and targeting with his spells. Magic Missile, for example, is a single-target Reflex attacking at-will spell. There's no reason it shouldn't be affected by Mirror Image (since you might have aimed it at one of the images).



> The mage isn't targeting you, he's waving his (or her) hand in a direction and flame billows forth.




Except with things like Sonic Orb and Acid Arrow being single-target attacks that produce an AoE on a successful attack as a secondary effect. They still require to you aim and hit your target.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

I was trying to provide the most absurd case I could imagine, an attack vs will.  
Yet text indicates,







> Each time an attack misses you, one of your duplicate images disappears



that an image would wink out.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> It's a maintained effect that doesn't end with a saving throw or the moment it was cast.  Therefore with the potential to do more damage than some spells, it's going to be harder to hit with.




In the words of hong: "Lolwut?"

I seriously don't know what you're referring to here. I was talking about how Mirror Image boosts AC (attacks that are attempting to penetrate your armor in addition to your ability to dodge) when I think it should, logically, target Reflex (attacks that attempt to penetrate your ability to dodge, which is made more effective by the fact that there are now 4 of you instead of 1, making target selection more difficult).


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> My impression was that Reflex was like _fireball_ or _burning hands_.
> Historically _mirror image_ never affected those spells.
> 
> You just target an area (a square or set of squares) and whether the person is affected ('hit') depends on how agile they are.
> ...



 However, Reflex defense can also be targeted by rays, orbs, and other touch attacks.  Take, for example, the tiefling wizard's _Magic Missile_ and _Force Orb_ powers, or the rogue's _Piercing Strike_. So I can see why having the +6 power bonus apply to Reflex defense would be appropriate -- in some cases.  It would be pretty easy to say "adds a +6 power bonus to AC and Reflex defense.  Whenever an attack against AC or Reflex defense misses, this bonus decreases by 2."


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> Whenever an attack against AC or Reflex defense misses, this bonus decreases by 2."



Unfortunately the rolling boulder trap attacks reflex.  Doesn't make a lot of sense that Mirror Image would work in such a scenario.  They should probably scrap it and try again.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> So I can see why having the +6 power bonus apply to Reflex defense would be appropriate -- in some cases.  It would be pretty easy to say "adds a +6 power bonus to AC and Reflex defense.  Whenever an attack against AC or Reflex defense misses, this bonus decreases by 2."




I agreed with you completely until I got to this point in my post, and realized something... since poison attacks are usually against Fortitude, this wouldn't defend from poison stinger attacks and stuff like that. The power probably needs a bit more tweaking.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the rolling boulder trap attacks reflex.  Doesn't make a lot of sense that Mirror Image would work in such a scenario.  They should probably scrap it and try again.




"Traps are immune to Illusions."

Problem solved in five words.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> In the words of hong: "Lolwut?"



Oops, wrongs spell: that was Bigby's Grasping Hand.

Anyways I think the lack of Reflex going up in Mirror Image, is due to the fact that it never defended much against fireballs in the past.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the rolling boulder trap attacks reflex.  Doesn't make a lot of sense that Mirror Image would work in such a scenario.  They should probably scrap it and try again.




Agreed.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> "Traps are immune to Illusions."
> 
> Problem solved in five words.



It solves that problem.  How many more don't we know about?  Trampling monsters, swallow effects.  If you try to nail down everything you end up with a mess.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Oops, wrongs spell: that was Bigby's Grasping Hand.
> 
> Anyways I think the lack of Reflex going up in Mirror Image, is due to the fact that it never defended much against fireballs in the past.




And it doesn't defend against a rogue's ability to bypass armor, which is totally odd. Why wouldn't the rogue be fooled into attacking one of the images, simply because he's using a power that ignores armor?

And the "it didn't defend against fireballs" argument ignores the fact that 4e has changed it so the wizard has to aim with his spell. Just because a fireball is Reflex doesn't mean that Mirror Image should fail to work against Magic Missile, Sonic Orb, or Acid Arrow, all spells that require you to aim and attack a single target.

If my ranger can be duped into shooting an arrow through an image, then why can't the rogue be duped into missing with his dagger, or the wizard be duped into missing with his magic missile? Why does it help ARMOR (prevents successful attacks by being in the way of that dagger or arrow) and not REFLEX (prevents successful attacks by getting you out of the way of that dagger, arrow, or magic missile)?


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> How many more don't we know about?




I don't see the point of this question, aside from the desire to discussion entirely fictional problems that might not actually exist in the game. There's no point in discussing "what could be," when it has no real bearing upon "what is."


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 7, 2008)

My concern isn't merely idle speculation.  They've stuffed the nearly the entirety of contest resolution into the 4 defensive stats.  The benefit is that they're streamlined.  The problem is that they're big buckets and can end up with some really nonsensical results.  The boulder trap is like finding a roach in your kitchen.  Sure you can kill it, but what does it portend?


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> I was trying to provide the most absurd case I could imagine, an attack vs will.
> Yet text indicates,
> that an image would wink out.



OK. I'm tracking now.
Honestly I just assumed that 'attack' in the spell meant 'attack roll vs AC'.
If you're right (and you probably are) then the wording needs to be changed.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Historically, the wizard wasn't making an attack roll, he was assumed auto-success and his target was given the task of determining whether he reduced the effect or not.



I think auto success is very loaded here. 
Auto success with resist vs roll to hit for success is semantic.

I agree that the attacker is rolling now. But there is still a single target by target roll.
Who rolls?
Honestly I don't think it matters.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Now, the wizard is making an attack roll, so he is aiming and targeting with his spells. Magic Missile, for example, is a single-target Reflex attacking at-will spell. There's no reason it shouldn't be affected by Mirror Image (since you might have aimed it at one of the images).



MM was also never affected by Mirror Image.
If the magical blast swirls around the square for a second until it hits something solid then it would very much be like a fireball, where the nimbleness of the target in avoiding the moving ball of light is key.
Without seeing MM it's hard to argue that it "has to be affected by MI".



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Except with things like Sonic Orb and Acid Arrow being single-target attacks that produce an AoE on a successful attack as a secondary effect. They still require to you aim and hit your target.



Do they? 
Or are they like grenades, you throw it into a square, it'll probably hit someone and blow up, but it could miss.



			
				Mentat55 said:
			
		

> ... rogue's _Piercing Strike_.



This is a much better argument. 
I have no defense against it.



			
				Mentat55 said:
			
		

> -- in some cases.



This is the road to that-place-you-don't-want-to-go-right?

Otherwise the game gets infinitely complex (i.e. +3 to AC and +3 to Reflex against humanoids depending on sight for their weapon attacks).

I assume that they're just sticking everything into AC/Ref/Fort/Will to keep the game from bogging down.



			
				Mentat55 said:
			
		

> It would be pretty easy to say "adds a +6 power bonus to AC and Reflex defense.  Whenever an attack against AC or Reflex defense misses, this bonus decreases by 2."



It would.
I'm assuming the bonuses have been play tested and +6 to AC is as high as they want to go.
Generically speaking I'd assume that you'd have +3/2/1 if it was vs both Ref and AC.

Which is less dramatic/more fiddly. +6 is a big deal, even +4 is. 
+3? not so much.

There is probably some other power that adds to both reflex and AC like _blur_, no?

At any rate I have a much better idea about why people dislike the spell.
I was thinking the complaints were broader; how it was explained or what have you (as opposed to just wanting it to be more powerful/versatile).


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And it doesn't defend against a rogue's ability to bypass armor, which is totally odd.



I agree completely. It makes little story sense. You'd have to hand wave it with something about the rogues "uncanny shooting ability"

Still, it makes the rogue stand out.
In 3.0 the fighter with their iterative attacks was the best choice when you had some wizard with 9 mirror images wandering around.

Now the rogue's go to boy for that.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> And the "it didn't defend against fireballs" argument ignores the fact that 4e has changed it so the wizard has to aim with his spell.



I think you're over emphasizing what the roll means.
Just because the wizard is rolling doesn't mean they're aiming.

They fireball 20 goblins. Do you really think they're supposed to be targeting every lick of flame in each square, all at once?
It's an abstraction.
It keeps the players rolling the dice and cuts down on the DM's workload.

With the bolder for instance, the boulder isn't "aiming" for the player.
It's just rolling along.
The "reflex attack roll" totally represents someone diving out of the way.

It's just a reflex attack instead of a saving throw because the system as a whole is set up to be streamlined that way.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> My concern isn't merely idle speculation.




I understand that. But discussing a problem that might not even exist doesn't really serve any purpose, and merely gets some people worked up over problems that may not even be there. We've got enough people jumping to false conclusions based on outdated/debunked information as it is... launching into long discussions about theoretical problems will just acerbate the problem.



> They've stuffed the nearly the entirety of contest resolution into the 4 defensive stats.  The benefit is that they're streamlined.  The problem is that they're big buckets and can end up with some really nonsensical results.




It's no different than 3e, with one difference: consistency. The same boulder trap would be causing you to make a Reflex save in 3e, which is a different way of saying the same thing. Any bonus to Reflex saves (whether they made sense against a boulder or not) helped you.



> The boulder trap is like finding a roach in your kitchen.  Sure you can kill it, but what does it portend?




To me, it's more of stepping on something in your kitchen and assuming it's a roach, because it's too dark to actually see what it is. You might have stepped on a peanut shell and assumed you had an infestation when you didn't. Let's get the lights on before we call the exterminator, I say.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> MM was also never affected by Mirror Image.




Because it was an auto-success. No saving throw. No attack roll. Just "I use it, it hits, game over."

And you have to realize that it is not like that anymore. It's a blast of magical energy that you have to direct and aim, instead of relying on Gygaxian Spell Theory to get the job done for you.

"You launch a silvery bolt of force at an enemy."
"You hurl an orb of magical force at an enemy."
"A shimmering arrow of green, glowing liquid streaks towards your target and bursts in a spray of sizzling acid."

It's pretty clear you're aiming at a particular target with these spells.



> Without seeing MM it's hard to argue that it "has to be affected by MI".




...except that we HAVE seen it. I gave the flavor description above. It's an Intelligence attack versus Reflex that does [2d4+Int modifier] force damage, and counts as a basic ranged attack.



> Do they?




Some, yes.

Sonic Orb does nothing on a miss, but produces an AoE on a hit.
Acid Arrow does minor damage on a miss, but produces an AoE on a hit.

Magic Missile is a single-target attack only. It's a basic ranged attack, just like the ranger firing an arrow without using an exploit.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> I think you're over emphasizing what the roll means.
> Just because the wizard is rolling doesn't mean they're aiming.




And I think you're too fixated on fireball, since that's the spell that constantly comes up during this argument, despite us having no idea what the 4e version actually does.

Magic Missile and Sonic Orb do exactly nothing when you miss. Since they are attacking Reflex, the reasonable assumption one would make is that when you fire off an MM or an SO and miss, then you've actually missed your target because your aim was off/he dodged out of the way.

Therefore, reasonably, one would assume that firing an MM or an SO at an MI'd wizard would make him harder to hit, since you've got to pick from 4 targets (real and 3 images)... but that's not the case. For some reason, the effect of those illusions duplicates plate armor's ability to deflect blows, rather than Reflex's ability to avoid them.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm just going to point out something I just noticed.

We're comparing a PC defense ability verses a _PC_ offensive abilities, correct? Why are we doing that? Shouldn't we be looking at _Monster_ abilities verses Mirror Image? Does any known monster have an ability like the Rouge's Deft Strike? Will any monsters be getting abilities like that?


----------



## Graf (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And I think you're too fixated on fireball, since that's the spell that constantly comes up during this argument, despite us having no idea what the 4e version actually does.



 We know there are spells that affect lots of opponents at once and they require attack individualized attack rolls.

You're dodging, I think, because I've got a very good point.
Some spells will require "attack rolls" but obviously aren't guided by the precise angle of the wizard pointing a finger. Some will obviously perform this behavior (hitting lots of foes) and go even further such as hitting lots of foes some of whom aren't visible to the wizard at all (i.e. dropping a fireball at the corner of a hallway; or on a group of foes some of which are invisible).

I think it's reasonable to assume these AOE's will affect invisible creatures, creatures down the hall, etc.
I think one of these AoE's will be called fireball, but maybe they'll decide to call it blast-of-fire.

Either way it's a problem with your logic. Insisting that the emperor's wizard doesn't know fireball because we haven't seen his spell book yet isn't much of a logical defense.



Your explanations and interpretations are all reasonable. They're one very specific extrapolation targeted at insisting that MI -has- to work differently.
You can attempt to avoid alternative possibilities that allow this, but it's doesn't make your argument any stronger (or weaker). It remains one (strict, game limiting) possibility.

You're dogged insistence that this is the only possible way that it could work has defeated me. I shall post no more on the subject.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> You're dodging, I think, because I've got a very good point.




Not really.

I'm saying "Single-target spells require the same type of aim as ranged attacks, especially Magic Missile, since it's a basic ranged attack. It doesn't make sense that an illusion which masks your true location would only affect attacks that are required to penetrate armor. It'd be like Invisibility granting you a bonus to Armor Class, but not to Reflex, so it's just as easy to hit you with something, unless I'm trying to penetrate the armor you're wearing."



> Some spells will require "attack rolls" but obviously aren't guided by the precise angle of the wizard pointing a finger.




And some are... like Magic Missile, Acid Arrow, and Sonic Orb. Even 3e's low-level Mirror Image stymied casters trying to target you with spells (it explicitly calls it out), by making them have to pick which one to attack (there was no real system for how it actually helped you or anything like that). It seems strange to me to up it in level, and then give it an effect which makes it



> Either way it's a problem with your logic. Insisting that the emperor's wizard doesn't know fireball because we haven't seen his spell book yet isn't much of a logical defense.




Now you're just trying to put words in my mouth. My argument is that single-target attacks should be subject to the Defense bonus granted by Mirror Image, and you keep saying "Well, that's not how Reflex interacts with fireball."

I'm talking about a single-person pewpew attack, and you're saying that it doesn't need to be consistent, since that's how AoE works.

The description of MI is "Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions perfectly and confusing your enemies," but it should more accurately be "Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions perfectly and confusing your enemies when they try to penetrate your armor."


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 7, 2008)

Ultimatecalibur said:
			
		

> I'm just going to point out something I just noticed.
> 
> We're comparing a PC defense ability verses a _PC_ offensive abilities, correct? Why are we doing that? Shouldn't we be looking at _Monster_ abilities verses Mirror Image? Does any known monster have an ability like the Rouge's Deft Strike? Will any monsters be getting abilities like that?




There are lots of monsters that have been posted, and I'm sure I've seen a few of them that target reflex saves instead of AC.

Regardless, a dm is going to throw npcs at his party, not just monsters all the time. MI should stand up mechanically to both.

I agree its a real easy fix, just use the +2 to AC and reflex defense (lose an image each attack that misses AC or reflex defense) that people have mentioned. Quick, clean, and easy...and it fixes all the problems.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> There are lots of monsters that have been posted, and I'm sure I've seen a few of them that target reflex saves instead of AC.
> 
> Regardless, a dm is going to throw npcs at his party, not just monsters all the time. MI should stand up mechanically to both.
> 
> I agree its a real easy fix, just use the +2 to AC and reflex defense (lose an image each attack that misses AC or reflex defense) that people have mentioned. Quick, clean, and easy...and it fixes all the problems.



 I suspect NPCs will be expected to be statted up in the same vein as monsters. It's the culmination of the villain class approach.

That said, this doesn't actually rule out said NPCs using spells like fireball either.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 7, 2008)

Mirror Image should apply to Reflex defense as well as AC. Too many things attack Reflex and ignore AC, like grabbing and magic missiles.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I agreed with you completely until I got to this point in my post, and realized something... since poison attacks are usually against Fortitude, this wouldn't defend from poison stinger attacks and stuff like that. The power probably needs a bit more tweaking.




Don't forget that poisonous stingers and such seem to be pretty much always the poison as a secondary affect targeting fortitude once the delivery mechanism has made its hit.

So that isn't relevant.

Cheers


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 7, 2008)

Graf said:
			
		

> MM was also never affected by Mirror Image.




Better reread Mirror Image in 3E and 3.5.  When someone casts Magic MIssile at you, they are required to select their target(s) from among you and the images.  If they don't pick the real you, you don't get hit by a Magic Missile...

-Hyp.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 7, 2008)

The more I've been thinking about the new Mirror Image, the less I like it. I like the simple, easy way they did it, but the benefits are far too small. Heck, even level 1 clerics can throw around +1 AC bonuses like their nothing. I think they should greatly increase the bonus or allow it to avoid more attacks, or both. A +10 starting bonus sounds good to me.


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Don't forget that poisonous stingers and such seem to be pretty much always the poison as a secondary affect targeting fortitude once the delivery mechanism has made its hit.
> 
> So that isn't relevant.




I phrased that totally wrong. What I meant to say was that all Fortitude-based attacks aren't just secondary effects from other attacks, so making the extra images disappear only on Ref/AC attacks might not cover everything.

The Hobgoblin Warcaster has Force Lance, an ability that is a single-target ranged attack against Fortitude, which deals 2d8+4 force damage and slides the target 3 squares. Although it doesn't target Reflex or Fortitude, it sure sounds like something that MI would make harder to target.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I phrased that totally wrong. What I meant to say was that all Fortitude-based attacks aren't just secondary effects from other attacks, so making the extra images disappear only on Ref/AC attacks might not cover everything.
> 
> The Hobgoblin Warcaster has Force Lance, an ability that is a single-target ranged attack against Fortitude, which deals 2d8+4 force damage and slides the target 3 squares. Although it doesn't target Reflex or Fortitude, it sure sounds like something that MI would make harder to target.




Excellent example.

To bring together a potential problem that others have noted separately - Reflex defence seems to now include 'touch attack' and 'reflex save' from the old world merged together.

Which is fine, except that some things that mirror image should protect against (old touch attack) end up being conflated with things that it should have no relevance to (old reflex save) since Reflex defence covers it all.

Unless WotC has some last minute changes in mind, I forsee difficulties, disgruntlement and problems arising from this!

Cheers


----------



## fuindordm (Mar 7, 2008)

I really don't understand why they felt they had to express the effect of Mirror Image in terms of defenses at all...

I think I'll just be houseruling that one to "You get 3 images in your square. Any attack targeted on you has a chance of targeting an image instead.  A hit dispels the image. Traps,
area effects, and environmental conditions usually do not dispel the images."

Are there any situations that this does not cover? Is it too powerful?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 7, 2008)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> Is it too powerful?




That's going to be difficult to answer until we see the PHB, won't it? So much depends upon how other things are arranged.


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 7, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I phrased that totally wrong. What I meant to say was that all Fortitude-based attacks aren't just secondary effects from other attacks, so making the extra images disappear only on Ref/AC attacks might not cover everything.
> 
> The Hobgoblin Warcaster has Force Lance, an ability that is a single-target ranged attack against Fortitude, which deals 2d8+4 force damage and slides the target 3 squares. Although it doesn't target Reflex or Fortitude, it sure sounds like something that MI would make harder to target.



 Good get.  I think the rogue's Crimson Edge attack also targets Fortitude, but is clearly a physical attack that, in prior versions, _mirror image_ would defend against.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel (Mar 7, 2008)

Maybe Mirror Image could just be a +6 bonus to all Defenses that only applies against single target powers/spells, decreasing as attacks miss or something similar.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 7, 2008)

fuindordm said:
			
		

> Are there any situations that this does not cover?




You end up with the complexities that 3E has, so the spell description ends up being three times as long, and still has more FAQ answers than any other spell (some of which contradict the spell text).

If the ranger shoots you and it turns out he picked the right one, can observers then ignore the images they know to be false?  For how long?

Does an image have a Will Defence?  Does it just use yours?  Does the image have an Armor Class?  Is an image wearing plate armor harder to hit than an image wearing leather armor?

What happens if the attacker has his eyes closed?

-Hyp.


----------



## rkanodia (Mar 7, 2008)

BarkingDeathSquirrel said:
			
		

> Maybe Mirror Image could just be a +6 bonus to all Defenses that only applies against single target powers/spells, decreasing as attacks miss or something similar.



I'd also include the caveat, "non-followup".  This means that the poison never hits the wrong target AFTER the stinger makes contact.  I don't think causing a 'one-two punch' to never miss the second punch because of the image is a loss in believability.  I mean, he already hit the 'real' you once, so he should know which is which until you move again.


----------



## hong (Mar 8, 2008)

I think they should just drop mirror image. It's one of those spells that just doesn't fit cleanly into the new framework (nor into the old framework, even). They can always make a new defensive spell to replace it with.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 8, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I think they should just drop mirror image. It's one of those spells that just doesn't fit cleanly into the new framework (nor into the old framework, even). They can always make a new defensive spell to replace it with.




This.


----------



## WalnutNinja (Mar 9, 2008)

I know I'm a bit late for this discussion, but I noticed a few things that seem to have a common meme with other threads that deal with rules:

- 4 Kobold minions in 4 rooms and 15 minutes left on a ritual -

I know this was in the spirit of facetiousness, but it's important to remember that PC's don't *have* to rest after every encounter. They can just rush off to the next one without recouping any spent Second Winds, Encounter powers, etc. So they just rush through the rooms smashing heads, breaking tiny reptilian necks, and scorching scales.

- Minions and hitpoints -

Yes, minions die when they are *hit* Whether this is intentional or just poor phrasing, any game I run will have minions falling over clutching their disemboweled innards if they take any damage at all. Which I believe is the intention: that minions fall over even if you roll poorly on your damage.

- Paladin Challenge vs Otiluke's bubble of Benchwarming - 

I believe I saw somewhere that wizards has changed the wording of the paladin's divine challenge to reduce the instance of abuse. IMO, anyone trapped in the bubble isn't subject to a "challenge" because they're in a situation where they're prevented from hitting the paladin, which is outside the spirit of the power. Said poor mook would be allowed to beat down the sphere, but once breaking out, would be required to head straight to the pally to avoid being radiated to a crisp. Same thing occurs if the paladin challenges an enemy without a ranged attack, then the wizard levitates said paladin above the battlefield. *Not* a challenge.

There was something else, but I didnt get enough sleep last night to remember it.
My overall point is that there's something inherently missing among all these posts about exploits based on vague wording:

A responsible DM.

I play WoW a lot, but the primary thing that keeps me coming back to the table is the creative force behind the game, whether I'm running it or one of my friends is. Most of the posts citing exploits seem to operate in a vacuum where there's noone at the head of the table with a screen saying, "yeah, umm... No." Some of these posts are probably only poking fun at mis-wordings that create unusual or humorous situations, and I bow to said poster's rapier wit. On the other hand, I sit at my kitchen table and firmy reserve the "Scroll of No" and the "Hammer of WTF were you Thinking" for my personal use when situations like this come up.

Just my 2 copper.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

*Cleave And Mirror Image*

I just noticed something -- Cleave automatically does (a little) damage to an adjacent target, no attack made.

Does this mean mirror image is useless when you're a victim of a cleave? That makes precious little sense; you'd be pretty likely to hit the 'wrong' wizard when swinging madly.

I wonder how 'no attack roll' powers like cleave interact with 'bonus to defense' powers, if there's anything we're missing, or if they're just 'free rides' that go through any kind of defense bonus. (The damage from cleave is low, but it seems like it might sometimes make sense to attack a weak foe so as to score free damage on a hard-to-hit one. Does anyone know how incorporeality works in 4e?)


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I just noticed something -- Cleave automatically does (a little) damage to an adjacent target, no attack made.
> 
> Does this mean mirror image is useless when you're a victim of a cleave? That makes precious little sense; you'd be pretty likely to hit the 'wrong' wizard when swinging madly.




Hmm? 

Wouldn't one be more likely to accidently hit the right target with a wild swing than a precise attack against one of the images?

The images are all alike so an area attack or a wild swing that hits more than 1 is the best offense versus mirror image IMO.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Hmm?
> 
> Wouldn't one be more likely to accidently hit the right target with a wild swing than a precise attack against one of the images?
> 
> The images are all alike so an area attack or a wild swing that hits more than 1 is the best offense versus mirror image IMO.




So he actually hit all of them, and only the wizard takes damage? Then wouldn't the other images vanish?

I'd houserule it to randomly determine what he struck, and if he hit an image, it vanishes and the AC bonus decreases. While the cleave damage is pretty low, it still reeks of exploit to me to let it be an automatic hit even on a protected target. (Same problem with high AC targets...I can't hit you at all if I'm trying, but I can at least nick you if I aim at your buddy...)

Of course, there might be a lot of 'hidden' rules (rules not in the preview) that cover these kinds of things.


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So he actually hit all of them, and only the wizard takes damage? Then wouldn't the other images vanish?
> 
> .




Why would the other images vanish? The images duplicate the movement of the actual wizard so even if one image vanishes, the others should be ok

What am I missing? 

Cleave doesn't strike me as an unfair option given that it was DESIGNED to attack multiple foes. Mirror Image was designed to fool a single directed attack by creating multiple foes.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Why would the other images vanish? The images duplicate the movement of the actual wizard so even if one image vanishes, the others should be ok




Sorry, I meant that to be absolutely certain the wizard is hit, the attacker must have hit all the other images.



> What am I missing?
> 
> Cleave doesn't strike me as an unfair option given that it was DESIGNED to attack multiple foes. Mirror Image was designed to fool a single directed attack by creating multiple foes.




It does this, mechanically, by having each image vanish as it's hit. Cleave damages the wizard by hitting him. Presumably, since the person doing the cleave doesn't know which wizard is real, he hits every image. Hence, if a person uses cleave on a mirror-imaged wizard, it ought to dispel the spell since each image is struck. If not every image is struck, there is a chance the wizard doesn't take damage.

Like I said, I'd houserule it so that a random image is struck and the AC bonus drops as per the spell. It seems the fairest solution, and the one which requires the least scenario-building to justify the mechanics. Occam's razor, and all that.


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 9, 2008)

Cleave does damage to an enemy adjacent to the target.  Per Mirror Image, all images share your square, hence they aren't adjacent.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 9, 2008)

fafhrd said:
			
		

> Cleave does damage to an enemy adjacent to the target.  Per Mirror Image, all images share your square, hence they aren't adjacent.




I'm discussing:
Fighter is adjacent to wizard; both are adjacent to Orc

W
FO

Orc barbarian with cleave attacks fighter.
Wizard takes cleave damage, despite mirror image.

Or is that not how it works?


----------



## fafhrd (Mar 9, 2008)

Mirror image has no effect on direct damage that doesn't require attacks.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> So he actually hit all of them, and only the wizard takes damage? Then wouldn't the other images vanish?




4E Mirror Images don't vanish when they're struck.  They vanish (one at a time) when the subject is _missed_.  Since Cleave doesn't miss, it doesn't dispel images.



> Orc barbarian with cleave attacks fighter.
> Wizard takes cleave damage, despite mirror image.




Right.  4E Mirror Image increases your AC.  Cleave bypasses AC.  

-Hyp.


----------

