# Arcane Power- Wizards Stretched Thin



## exile (Apr 21, 2009)

So, I picked up a copy of Arcane Power yesterday. I was very excited to see what kinds of goodies it contained for my dwarven wizardess. I was distressed to see that most of the feats for wizards had fairly high ability score prerequisites. While most can be met, it sure puts a strain on a character that you also want to take sorcerer multiclass feats with (the new one of which also has fairly tough ability score prerequisites). Discuss.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 21, 2009)

Having not looked at the feats, I'm not sure, but might it be that WOTC wants people to get away from "2 18s, 4 8s" in chargen? (OTOH, if the prereq is Intelligence, I have no clue as to motive.)


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (Apr 21, 2009)

I will, after I get my book today.


----------



## exile (Apr 21, 2009)

The one that irked me the most was 'Wizard Implement Expertise' which lets you crit with an implement power on a 19-20. It required a 21 INT, 15 DEX, 15CON if I am not mistaken. The 15 DEX requirement sucks if you'd planned on making a staff/orb wizard.

Most of teh other feats alone aren't so bad, just bad when you couple them with a desire to take the new sorcerer multiclass feat which requires a 13 STR and 13 CHA.

Chad


----------



## Badwe (Apr 21, 2009)

Well, you’ve got a main class: int/wis/dex/con (in order of importance) and you want to get into a subclass, cha/str/dex. You overlap on one minor stat and your plusses are to wis and con.  There’s only so much new feats can do for you.  Don’t forget, all those sorcerer powers you’re multiclassing into need CHA in order to actually hit, so if you’re just rolling in with a 13… you won’t be hitting much.  As for the implement feat, dex is associated with the wand implement which is the implement of accuracy, so this feat sounds on-theme to me.


----------



## Klaus (Apr 21, 2009)

Lizard said:


> Having not looked at the feats, I'm not sure, but might it be that WOTC wants people to get away from "2 18s, 4 8s" in chargen? (OTOH, if the prereq is Intelligence, I have no clue as to motive.)



Impossible by 4e point-buy rules, which allow for only 1 stat to be below 10.

Taking into account the auto-bumps at 11th and 21st, the feat mentioned by the OP would translate into needing a starting Int of 19 plus Dex and Con of 13. For every point below that, you need to devote one 4th level bump to those stats. If you start with 18 Int, 11 Dex and 12 Con, you can bump Int and Con at 4th, then bump Int and Dex at 8th and 14th, then devote the other bumps to Int and Wis.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2009)

Tell me more about Arcane Power!

What stands out, what grabs your attention, what do you *definitely* want to retrain for your wizard?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 21, 2009)

My group exclusively uses the standard array.

That means that feat prereqs like these are mostly non issues for us.  If you start with a base 16 (before racial modifiers) in intelligence, 14 in your implement ability score, 13 in something else you care about for feats, and a 12 in whatever's left you might possibly care about some day for feats, then by paragon tier you have at least a 13 in all of them.  By epic tier you have at least a 15 in two scores other than intelligence.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 21, 2009)

The illusion spells! There's one where you trap a group of enemies in an illusion of the world being destroyed (Visions of Ruin) - they cannot willingly move out of the AoE and do not have line of sight to anything outside. Even on a miss they're trapped there until the end of your next turn. Anyone forced to move out takes psychic damage and the effect ends for them.


----------



## Rechan (Apr 21, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> The illusion spells! There's one where you trap a group of enemies in an illusion of the world being destroyed (Visions of Ruin) - they cannot willingly move out of the AoE and do not have line of sight to anything outside. Even on a miss they're trapped there until the end of your next turn. Anyone forced to move out takes psychic damage and the effect ends for them.



That is sweet.


----------



## Holy Smokes (Apr 21, 2009)

Must.. update.. character.. builder...!


----------



## Enforcer (Apr 21, 2009)

Holy Smokes said:


> Must.. update.. character.. builder...!




Ugh, seriously. The last Tuesday of every month is not doing it for me. Why not the first Tuesday after the awesome new book comes out? Where by "first Tuesday" I mean "within six seconds".


----------



## exile (Apr 21, 2009)

I've not read Arcane Power closely enough to comment in great detail. I am looking forward to making a summoner type character. I like the new tome implement and that there are two mastery abilities associated with it (there's a new one for the orb as well). Fire Shield is a nice little utility power for my fire-themed dwarven wizardess. All in all, very happy with the book.

Even though I started this thread (in a possibly negative way), I don't think there's some secret agenda against wizards or anything like that, but it does seem, at a glance, that their feats do have higher ability score requirements than the other classes.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Apr 21, 2009)

Enforcer said:


> Ugh, seriously. The last Tuesday of every month is not doing it for me. Why not the first Tuesday after the awesome new book comes out? Where by "first Tuesday" I mean "within six seconds".




The last Tuesday of the month usually _is_ the first Tuesday after the book comes out.  New books usually come out on the third Tuesday of the month.

To answer the question of why not immediately?  Simple.  They want the highly important first week sales.  People who want immediate gratification buy the book.  Otherwise you've got to wait.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 21, 2009)

Rechan said:


> That is sweet.




Hell yeah! And it's 9th level too. 

In general, illusionists seem like some of the best controllers around. The effects of each power are rather straightforward, with no DM fiat required. You could take illusion spells at every level possible and be quite effective IMO. 

I only think wizards are stretched thin now because of all the cool stuff to take!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 21, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Hell yeah! And it's 9th level too.
> 
> In general, illusionists seem like some of the best controllers around. The effects of each power are rather straightforward, with no DM fiat required. You could take illusion spells at every level possible and be quite effective IMO.
> 
> I only think wizards are stretched thin now because of all the cool stuff to take!



Strange that it used to be the other way around.

What would a DM allow with "Major Image"? Nobody knew until they tried.


----------



## amysrevenge (Apr 21, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Tell me more about Arcane Power!
> 
> What stands out, what grabs your attention, what do you *definitely* want to retrain for your wizard?




I found that the Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were far more interesting that those in Martial Power.  I have 4 arcane PCs (I play RPGA so I have many PCs), and found things in there to interest all of them.  Although, some of the Epic Destiny "when you die" effects are so good that it would be tempting to suicide just to activate them lol.

I like that they included powers for Wizards with extra kickers for orb/wand/staff/tome class features, just like every other class has.

I like that there are many more Con-based Warlock powers to choose from (gives me hope for Paladins in Divine Power).

I enjoy the idea of familiars.  I will have to wait and see how useful they actually are in my games, and how much they will be just another set of static bonuses.

I like the new Ranged weapon path for bards.  I won't likely ever use it, but it is an enjoyable option to have.

A little thing, but there is a feat out there for Eladrin wizards that lets you use your unused Fey Step to instead teleport an ally out of the area of one of your spells before the attack goes off - I thought that one was super fun.


Things that make me go "meh*":

The new Warlock pact, Sorcerer sources, and Wizard tome implement.  Meh.

Summoning, in general.  Meh.


*I reserve the right to retract any "meh" in the future, these are just first impressions.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 21, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Strange that it used to be the other way around.
> 
> What would a DM allow with "Major Image"? Nobody knew until they tried.




Yeah, exactly! There's almost none of that to be found in AP. Well, the wizard's Phantom Legion (lvl 22 daily utility) is about as close as it gets.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Hell yeah! And it's 9th level too.
> 
> In general, illusionists seem like some of the best controllers around. The effects of each power are rather straightforward, with no DM fiat required. You could take illusion spells at every level possible and be quite effective IMO.




As long as you don't do "Against the Duergar" followed by "Against the Cyclops"


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 21, 2009)

Good point. I guess it's not the best idea to specialize too much! Illusion & force could be a cool split.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 21, 2009)

Lizard said:


> Having not looked at the feats, I'm not sure, but might it be that WOTC wants people to get away from "2 18s, 4 8s" in chargen? (OTOH, if the prereq is Intelligence, I have no clue as to motive.)



As far as I can tell, bingo. Their reasoning seems to be: if you stick all your points into synergistic abilities, you're already plenty powerful and won't need the feats. Whereas if you spread it out a bit, you might be less straightforwardly powerful, but you might qualify for more useful things.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Apr 21, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> Tell me more about Arcane Power!
> 
> What stands out, what grabs your attention, what do you *definitely* want to retrain for your wizard?




From my initial readthrough at work, there's lots of awesomesauce in here.

Like a swordmage power that lets you create (Con modifier) mirror images of yourself around the battlefield and attack through any of them.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 21, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> As far as I can tell, bingo. Their reasoning seems to be: if you stick all your points into synergistic abilities, you're already plenty powerful and won't need the feats. Whereas if you spread it out a bit, you might be less straightforwardly powerful, but you might qualify for more useful things.



That is a really good point, I will point it out next time one of the players moans! 


Enforcer said:


> Ugh, seriously. The last Tuesday of every month is not doing it for me. Why not the first Tuesday after the awesome new book comes out? Where by "first Tuesday" I mean "within six seconds".



Give this man a hob running the DDi.

I love gnome illusionists (my HR'd 3.5E had a proper illuionist class... i.e. it's illusion spells mimicked spells of a higher level, but they were illusions so it was risky). I can't wait for more illusion power


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 21, 2009)

Further reading yields some insane sorcerer spells. 

Dominant Winds is a 16th lvl at-will utility. As a move action you or one ally can fly your Dex mod as a free action. Not 1/round and you don't have to land at the end of your turn or crash/float down/etc. Flight all the time? Why yes please. 

Ultimate Resistance is a 22nd lvl daily utility. Gain resist 30 to an energy type and 1/round you can switch to a new type as a minor action. Many recent monsters use attacks with multiple energy keywords, but this power is still awesome, and woe to your DM if you search out the various ways to change daily utilities into encounters!

Sorcerous Pulse is a 10th lvl daily utility that lets you choose an energy type, and when you use a like power you can roll damage twice and use the higher result! Until end of encounter, of course. 

They have some very nifty attack spells, especially the ones associated with the new types of sorcerer. I see lower-end damage dice and lots of control in these powers. Practically every power has some form of forced movement, a way to penalize movement, or ongoing damage (and some contagious ongoing damage too). There are also a lot of spells that let the sorcerer move as part of the attack, like turning into a shower of sparks and moving through your foes or casting storm magic while riding on gusts of wind. 

This book just keeps getting better! I guess I'll try to wrap my head around the new warlock powers next.


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 22, 2009)

I love the Magister's 30th level ability. That's my new favorite epic destiny power. Twice per day, use any ritual you know as a standard action.

Now that truly fits my image of what an epic mage should be able to do. Pretty much bend reality with the wave of a hand.

And the familiar rules are just awesome! I've never bothered with having a familiar in any prior edition of D&D and now I'd love to have one for my wizard PC.


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Further reading yields some insane sorcerer spells.
> 
> Dominant Winds is a 16th lvl at-will utility. As a move action you or one ally can fly your Dex mod as a free action. Not 1/round and you don't have to land at the end of your turn or crash/float down/etc. Flight all the time? Why yes please.



So basically, after a good year of 4e steering clear of many of the exploits and abuses of past editions, they're welcoming them back in with open arms. 

You'll have your always-flying blaster that forces DM's to include ranged attackers or low ceilings in every encounter just to prevent rampant kite-killing. Otherwise, it's "wait here, guys, I'm going to go over there and kill that hydra by myself--DM, why don't you just figure out how long it takes? I don't use any encounters or dailies".

And from the preview a few weeks back, Unseen Servant appears to be the zero-cost, inexhaustible, unharmable taker of risks and prober of traps that they previously had cleverly avoided with stuff like the bag of tricks and summoned creatures. 

Well, at least we had a good year. 

So, do warlocks get in on any of the broken fun?


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Apr 22, 2009)

I wouldn't go freaking out just yet, Felon.  While I don't have the book, I imagine that Dominant Winds move is probably Ranged 10 or maybe even Ranged 5.  So the sorcerer would have to at least be nearby to keep his kite flying.  Again, this is a guess until I get the book.  Would someone like to verify this?


----------



## hvg3akaek (Apr 22, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Dominant Winds is a 16th lvl at-will utility. *As a move action* you or one ally can fly your Dex mod *as a free action*. Not 1/round and you don't have to land at the end of your turn or crash/float down/etc. Flight all the time? Why yes please.




(bold mine)

So, its a move action, and a free action?  Or is it a move action to use the power, and a free action to fly as a result? (If the latter, then one would suggest that you only get the free flight once...?)


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2009)

RyvenCedrylle said:


> I wouldn't go freaking out just yet, Felon.  While I don't have the book, I imagine that Dominant Winds move is probably Ranged 10 or maybe even Ranged 5.  So the sorcerer would have to at least be nearby to keep his kite flying.  Again, this is a guess until I get the book.  Would someone like to verify this?



Well, even if it's range 0 (i.e. personal) you have a kite-killer. 

Still, I'm sure abuse in the RPGA will lead to a speedy rules revision--errr, did I say revision? Update! I meant "update"! 



hvg3akaek said:


> (bold mine)
> 
> So, its a move action, and a free action?  Or is it a move action to use the power, and a free action to fly as a result? (If the latter, then one would suggest that you only get the free flight once...?)



Sounds like it's worded that way simply to allow for another player to move during your turn, as similar move-granting powers are. You spend the move action, then you or somebody else gets to fly. Convert your move into an at-will, and you can do it twice.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 22, 2009)

Dominant Winds is close burst 5. Costs a move action to use, and the target can fly as a free action. Use it on yourself to fly as a move action, or use it on someone else to give them a free move at the cost of your move action.

God help us all. 

And no, the warlock doesn't really get anything overpowered. They get some really cool spells, but nothing that reeks of potential abuse like Dominant Winds. 

@ Dragonblade - Damn straight, that Magister ability is incredible! Oh, what you can do with standard action rituals... a perfectly appropriate ability for 30th lvl IMO!


----------



## baberg (Apr 22, 2009)

Can we at least get the actual wording of Dominant Winds before we start freaking out about how it's OMG IMBA?


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 22, 2009)

Yup!

At-Will / Arcane
Move Action  Close burst 5
Target: You or one ally in burst
Effect: The target can fly a number of squares equal to your Dexterity modifier as a free action.

All in a lovely shade of green.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 22, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Yup!
> 
> At-Will / Arcane
> Move Action Close burst 5
> ...



So you don't have to land... but if you don't then you fall.  Interesting.


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2009)

pssst....baberg...is it okay to freak out now? Has the burden of brokenness been met in full? 

OK, I gotta ask...."IMBA"?


----------



## baberg (Apr 22, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Yup!
> 
> At-Will / Arcane
> Move Action  Close burst 5
> ...




Thanks!

Reading over the Fly keyword in the Monster Manual and Fly rules in the DMB, the following sticks out at me: "If you fail to fly at least 2 squares during your turn, whether due to not moving far enough or simply not using the fly action, you crash at the end of your turn."  Also, the altitude limit is the same as the Fly number, so here it would be Dexterity modifier.

So - Sorcerer can put himself (DEX) squares in the air as a Move action.  Each turn he has to at least move 2 around the battlefield or he falls.  If he uses it to make the Ranger fly around and he leaves him hovering in mid-air without a ledge, the Ranger will be unable to move 2 during his turn and therefore fall at the end of it.

So we only have a problem with the Sorcerer being out of range for melee attacks, and only if he keeps moving around the battlefield.  I don't see how this is particularly bad, since any good party would have the Sorcerer in the backfield anyways - and any good encounter is going to have at least a few ranged attackers to plink away at him while he moves around.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 22, 2009)

@ baberg - Altitude limit is not a restriction on every flight-capable creature as far as I can tell, only a quality of flight like clumsy. A search in the DDI Compendium only brings up one monster with an altitude limit, and it's a wraith from Dungeon. 

I also think it could stand to be clarified that you fall at the end of your flight if you haven't landed. Perhaps you can't stay aloft unless you have a true fly speed, but it still seems ambiguous to me.


----------



## Badwe (Apr 22, 2009)

i know we typically ignore it but... the flavor text mentions raising the ally "briefly" into the air... perhaps this was an oversight?


----------



## baberg (Apr 22, 2009)

Felon said:


> pssst....baberg...is it okay to freak out now? Has the burden of brokenness been met in full?
> 
> OK, I gotta ask...."IMBA"?




Battle.net forum joke.  In times of yore, a poster was excited and was attempting to illustrate by typing his subject in all caps, something along the lines of "SOANDSO IS CHEAP AND IMBALANCED!" but there is a character limit on the subject line, so it came out as "SOANDSO IS CHEAP AND IMBA".  Hilarity ensued.

Dominant Winds will break poorly though-out encounters.  It's not going to break the game.


----------



## Hereticus (Apr 22, 2009)

exile said:


> I was distressed to see that most of the feats for wizards had fairly high ability score prerequisites. While most can be met, it sure puts a strain on a character ...




When I ran the introductory sample Delve Night campaign, I told the players to throw out all stat requirements for feats.

What point do such rigid prerequisites serve other than to pidgeonhole stat progressions for players that want to use a certain feats?


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2009)

baberg said:


> I don't see how this is particularly bad, since any good party would have the Sorcerer in the backfield anyways - and any good encounter is going to have at least a few ranged attackers to plink away at him while he moves around.



It is particularly bad because A) simply being in the backfield does not stop melee attacks from reaching you--at the very least, someone has to form a front line to protect you--and B) the pretext that in order for any encounter to be deemed "good" encounter it has to include a compliment of ranged attackers is pretty questionable. 

Seeing the text didn't really allay any concerns. I think a 16th-level sorcerer can swing a +2 Dex, so he has his minimum movement covered.



baberg said:


> Dominant Winds will break poorly though-out encounters.  It's not going to break the game.



This is a pretty equivocal statement. Rather than deeming Dominant Winds to be a poorly-thought-out power with tons of abuse potential,  the rationale becomes that any encounter is "poorly-thought-out" because it fails to account for a character that has an extra plane of movement.

Personally, I can envision many good ideas for encounters that don't happen to involve a token compliment of ranged attackers. Any power that is only balanced when the DM alters every scenario just to mitigate it is not very balanced.

Sometimes things are legitimately imbalanced.


----------



## baberg (Apr 22, 2009)

Badwe said:


> i know we typically ignore it but... the flavor text mentions raising the ally "briefly" into the air... perhaps this was an oversight?




It's not necessarily an oversight, but more a misunderstanding of how the Flight rules work.  I admit I had to read the MM and DMG entries a few times, plus the rules for fighting in 3D, before I could grasp what was going on.

If you don't have Hover and don't move at least 2 while flying, you fall.  Creatures with Fly fall "safely" their Fly rating, but since this doesn't grant Fly a PC will have a Fly of 0.  Then they crash, taking fall damage (DMG p.48).  Since there's no way for a non-Sorcerer PC to fly on their turn (it's a Move action for the Sorc) they will fall, and the DMG specifically says "at the end of your turn".  The Sorcerer can still use his Move to stay aloft, but he will provoke AoOs (though I'm not sure how it would work with 3 dimensions) from moving since you cannot shift.

It's useful for tossing a Rogue up onto a high ledge to engage those pesky sharpshooters, and for keeping the Sorcerer out of harm's way - but just hope you don't get stunned.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Apr 22, 2009)

I think Baberg is right about this - you don't grant your ally 'flying', you allow him or her to Fly a certain number of squares.  It's kinda like Teleport.  If I use a power to let an ally Teleport "x" distance, he doesn't get to keep teleporting afterward.  Your ally Flies and then lands.

Compare it to the Wizard 16th Utility Fly - you gain a _speed of fly 8_ until the end of your next turn - or even the Cleric Utility 22 Angel of the Eleven Winds which does the same thing.  This is not the same concept.  It could be better worded, probably, but I don't even think it's a kite at this point.


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2009)

Hereticus said:


> When I ran the introductory sample Delve Night campaign, I told the players to throw out all stat requirements for feats.
> 
> What point do such rigid prerequisites serve other than to pidgeonhole stat progressions for players that want to use a certain feats?



The point of prerequisites is, ideally, to add a cost to getting something that would otherwise be a no-brainer must-have selection. You can have A, but as a result you can't have B. 

In practice, that's not always the case, of course. The +1 damage feats for implement users, for instance, certainly have unjustifiably stiff costs when Weapon Focus gives the same away at no cost.


----------



## Felon (Apr 22, 2009)

RyvenCedrylle said:


> I think Baberg is right about this - you don't grant your ally 'flying', you allow him or her to Fly a certain number of squares.  It's kinda like Teleport.  If I use a power to let an ally Teleport "x" distance, he doesn't get to keep teleporting afterward.



Well, the analogy is flawed because teleportation is, by PHB definition, instantaneous movement, so there's no keeping it going. However, I'm fine accepting that the rules allow an ally to be only briefly moved. But let's face it, it's kind of moot as the sorcerer has good incentive to keep it just for himself anyway--I suspect many will likely forget altogether that it can even be used on other characters.

"I'm staying in the air where things can't touch me". I've seen this character before, multiple times. A 3e sorcerer with a ring of flying, and a dragon adept, and a warlock. And they certainly screwed-up plenty of encounters that would otherwise have been exciting, simply because that big nasty couldn't touch him. True, the encounters could have been specifically rewritten by the DM every time to allow for kiting, but that is not an ideal situation.


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Apr 22, 2009)

You are correct in that teleportation is "instantaneous" which for game purposes has nothing to do with time and everything to do with what hinders your movement - which in this case is nothing, so long as you have line of sight.  Flying is not instantaneous, so you can still run into stuff but, like walking, you don't need line of sight.  You can fly blind if you want.  Stuff in the air could presumably take OAs on you whereas that doesn't happen with teleportation.  

But we're making the mistake here of confusing a purely mechanical effect with a 'fluff' picture or concept.  If an orc throws a halfling across the room, the halfling has 'flown' - mechanically - some number of squares.  He has moved at a height above ground interacting with whatever he moves into.  That doesn't make it constant, nor does it mean the halfling is allowed to continue flying.  He has no _flight speed_ or _hover _and is therefore grounded.  Same with the sorcerer - he can use his Dominant Wind to throw himself around, but he's not a 'flying blaster' in the defensive sense.  On everyone else's turn, he's still well in contact with _terra firma_.    Compare this to the Wizard or Cleric who *can* in fact spend an entire battle playing dragon - safely out of the reach of anything without Ranged attacks.

I can see this being a little cheesy but hardly game-breaking.  I'd worry more about the Wizard than a guy with what's functionally a REALLY GOOD Jump check.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 22, 2009)

The more I read through this, the less I think that you get to stay in the air after using this power to fly.

The DMG Page 47 text refers to the move action "Fly," available to creatures with a Fly speed.  It does not refer to an exception based rule in a power that gives you some other, differently defined ability to fly.  While the rules could perhaps be more clear, it seems to me that during the action granted by this power, you have the ability to fly.  Before it and after it, you do not.  A sorcerer 30 feet in the air who does not possess the ability to fly, falls.  He doesn't even get to use the rules for crashing, because he's not a flying creature.  He simply falls.

Things could be a bit clearer, but it definitely seems that this power is intended to let you make short, airborne hops around the battlefield.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 22, 2009)

Yeah, if it doesn't grant an actual fly speed, they definitely can't stay in the air. While it ought to have mentioned this explicitly, I think the power's probably OK.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 22, 2009)

I think this is a good way to rule it. Without a fly speed you cannot maintain the flight, so land or fall!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 22, 2009)

Felon said:


> "I'm staying in the air where things can't touch me". I've seen this character before, multiple times. A 3e sorcerer with a ring of flying, and a dragon adept, and a warlock. And they certainly screwed-up plenty of encounters that would otherwise have been exciting, simply because that big nasty couldn't touch him. True, the encounters could have been specifically rewritten by the DM every time to allow for kiting, but that is not an ideal situation.




But can't the wizard do just this with the 6th level daily utility 'Levitate'?

I suppose the issue is that this is an at-will power though, right?

Frankly, if someone has to search around several places in DMG and MM to understand how it is supposed to work, the spell description was pared down too much. Tell us everything that we need to know!

Personally, I like to use the flavour text to inform me about how the spell works (yes, I know it is badwrongfun, but there you go). As such I'm pretty sure that I'd rule that the spell has to land allies at the end of the movement; still doesn't cope with hovering blasters spoiling encounters though (it would be a killer utility for any arcanist or archer ranger to get via multiclassing, wouldn't it?)

Cheers


----------



## erf_beto (Apr 22, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> As such I'm pretty sure that I'd rule that the spell has to land allies at the end of the movement; ...



Those are my thoughts as well. Actually, I think Dominant Wind is just like the wizard's 2nd level utility, Jump, perhaps coupled with some Warlord power that let's your ally move in your place, only at-will and without the limits of the Athletics skill jumping rules...


----------



## Klaus (Apr 22, 2009)

baberg said:


> It's not necessarily an oversight, but more a misunderstanding of how the Flight rules work.  I admit I had to read the MM and DMG entries a few times, plus the rules for fighting in 3D, before I could grasp what was going on.
> 
> If you don't have Hover and don't move at least 2 while flying, you fall.  Creatures with Fly fall "safely" their Fly rating, but since this doesn't grant Fly a PC will have a Fly of 0.  Then they crash, taking fall damage (DMG p.48).  Since there's no way for a non-Sorcerer PC to fly on their turn (it's a Move action for the Sorc) they will fall, and the DMG specifically says "at the end of your turn".  The Sorcerer can still use his Move to stay aloft, but he will provoke AoOs (though I'm not sure how it would work with 3 dimensions) from moving since you cannot shift.
> 
> It's useful for tossing a Rogue up onto a high ledge to engage those pesky sharpshooters, and for keeping the Sorcerer out of harm's way - but just hope you don't get stunned.



That's the right answer, right there.

Dominant Winds lets the caster or the target fly Dex-modifier squares during the caster's move action. Then the flying stops. No fly speed + not landed = falling damage.

In essence, Dominant Winds lets the caster, as a move action, give himself or one ally a successful jump of Dex-modifier squares. No big deal, the Rogue has been doing that since level 2. Sure, the caster could spend a standard, move and action point to give out 3 Dex-modifier flights.


----------



## OchreJelly (Apr 22, 2009)

I could be wrong about this but isn't there also an attack penalty for fliers?  Wouldn't that be a fair trade-off if the read is that the caster can continually fly?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 22, 2009)

OchreJelly said:


> I could be wrong about this but isn't there also an attack penalty for fliers?  Wouldn't that be a fair trade-off if the read is that the caster can continually fly?



Only for clumsy fliers. But the trick is that the spell simply allows you to fly for the moment of its duration the distance specified. You don't get a fly speed, so the biggest benefit is that you can ignore obstacles or difficult terrain and maybe jump onto things (or down).


----------



## D'karr (Apr 22, 2009)

I don't see this as a problem.  It is an at-will, which is going to take up your MOVE action.  At the end of the action, you can convert your standard to a MOVE and do it again or you can attack.  Then you can use an Action Point to do it again or attack.  At the end of your turn, you are no longer flying.  So you have either landed in one of those flights or you fall.  If you have someone else move, they don't even get to attack, since it's not their turn.

This is not IMBA...  LOL


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 22, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I don't see this as a problem.




Yeah, the general consensus is that since the power doesn't give you a fly speed you can't stay aloft between uses of the power. That way, it's not a big deal at all. 

I blew it out of proportion a bit, sorry guys! 

Also, I totally derailed the thread! Probably should have started a Sorcerer Impressions thread...


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 22, 2009)

Felon said:


> "I'm staying in the air where things can't touch me".




I've got to agree with others on being pretty sure this power doesn't let you stay in the air. You use a move action, which lets you fly up into the air. After that free action? You don't have a fly speed - having ended up off the ground, you simply fall. Just like if an ally who could fly flew you into the air and let go. 

Yes, they could probably stand to state that explicitly, but I see nothing indicating you somehow gain the ability to hover in the air once the single free moment of flying is complete.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 22, 2009)

exile said:


> So, I picked up a copy of Arcane Power yesterday. I was very excited to see what kinds of goodies it contained for my dwarven wizardess. I was distressed to see that most of the feats for wizards had fairly high ability score prerequisites. While most can be met, it sure puts a strain on a character that you also want to take sorcerer multiclass feats with (the new one of which also has fairly tough ability score prerequisites). Discuss.




The thing to keep in mind is that once _enough_ feats like that are out there, it is a self-solving problems. Each unique build has its own selection of quality feats to choose from. An optimized build has to make hard choices over whether it wants a powerful Dex-based feat or a powerful Wis-based feat or a powerful Con-based feat. 

The real issue is making sure each selection has its own quality options - if the Dex-based feats are just better than Con-based ones, characters will have an easy choice to focus on. Thus far, though, they seem to have a good selection all around. 

I'm actually rather happy with this - between this and the extra focus on different Implement Mastery choices, you can build a lot of wizards that feel quite distinct in actual play.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 22, 2009)

I've got it today.

I'm very glad to see some wizard powers which vary by 'implement specialisation'. The wizard gets on the same page as everyone else at last! Huzzah!

I'm not glad to see that the illusion spells from Dragon just went straight in without any further review - e.g. we still have a spell which is more effective when it misses than when it hits (immobilises, save ends on a hit. immobilises until end of your next turn on a miss)


----------



## Felon (Apr 23, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Yeah, the general consensus is that since the power doesn't give you a fly speed you can't stay aloft between uses of the power. That way, it's not a big deal at all.
> 
> I blew it out of proportion a bit, sorry guys! ..



Don't be so hard on yourself. I've a strong suspicion that the consensus here will not be the one arrived at in general gameplay. At-will flight will be taken for exactly what it sounds like it is: at-will flight. Going on about how the power lets you fly but doesn't give you a fly speed is going to sound like pretzel logic.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 23, 2009)

Felon said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself. I've a strong suspicion that the consensus here will not be the one arrived at in general gameplay. At-will flight will be taken for exactly what it sounds like it is: at-will flight. Going on about how the power lets you fly but doesn't give you a fly speed is going to sound like pretzel logic.




I agree with this statement.  It is a flight speed as a move action, just like actual flight.  I don't see any difference or have a problem with at-will flight at 16th level for a thematically appropriate class.  Makes more sense for a storm sorcerer specifically, but I don't know how WOTC could have designed the power to make such an exception other than to make it a paragon path power.

In fact, I'll take it a step further.  As written, I believe the power allows the sorcerer to carry a passenger by using a double move.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 23, 2009)

Felon said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself. I've a strong suspicion that the consensus here will not be the one arrived at in general gameplay. At-will flight will be taken for exactly what it sounds like it is: at-will flight. Going on about how the power lets you fly but doesn't give you a fly speed is going to sound like pretzel logic.



I think people understand the difference between "you can do X" and "you can spend a move action to do X."  If you're not spending the move action, you can't do X.


----------



## Felon (Apr 23, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I think people understand the difference between "you can do X" and "you can spend a move action to do X."  If you're not spending the move action, you can't do X.



Actually, people tend to be pretty lousy at making those kinds of distinctions, and in fact they try to only assimilate as much data as they need to get by. 

"You can move an additional square." 
"You can move an additional square when you take a move action."

A lot of folks would intuitively connect movement with move actions (for reasons that are self-evident, even they're not always accurate), and thus would think the former sentence functionally identical to the latter. 

You think the difference is that obvious? You have that much faith? By all means then, sit back for a few months and watch how many people think Dominant Winds amounts to all-day flying.



SoulStorm said:


> I agree with this statement.  It is a flight speed as a move action, just like actual flight.  I don't see any difference or have a problem with at-will flight at 16th level for a thematically appropriate class.



So, you have an outdoor encounter with a hydra, purple worm, or some other big nasty, and the flying just zips around shooting it until it dies, with no real risk to life or limb. No prolbem with that at all?


----------



## Felon (Apr 23, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I've got it today.
> 
> I'm very glad to see some wizard powers which vary by 'implement specialisation'. The wizard gets on the same page as everyone else at last! Huzzah!



Enough about wizards and sorcerers! Let's hear about warlocks!


----------



## baberg (Apr 23, 2009)

Precedence, baby!  Compare these powers from PHB...

Angel of Elven Winds, Cleric 22: "grant... a speed of fly 8"
Cloud Chariot, Cleric 22: "...have a speed of fly 8"
Angel Ascent, Angelic Avenger 20: "You gain a speed of fly 6"
Shadow Form, Warlock (Star) 10: "...gain fly 6"
Wings of the Fiend, Warlock (Infernal) 22: "...gain a fly speed equal to your speed..."
Fly, Wizard 16: "You gain a fly speed of..."
Mass Fly, Wizard 22: "All targets gain a fly speed of..."

...to these powers from PHB and the topic of this discussion from Arcane Power:

Radiant Charge, Paladin 13: "You fly a number of squares..."
Cloak of Shadow, Warlock (Infernal) 16: "Fly a number of squares... "
Dominant Winds, Sorcerer 16: "The target can fly a number of squares..."

If WotC wanted to use this power to give you a fly speed, they would have specifically said that it gives you a fly speed as it does in the other half-dozen abilities that let you "fly".  And since there are powers in PHB that use the same terminology as Dominant Winds, it's not an oversight.  And in case somebody chimes in with "The other powers gave numbers, so this is just a shorthand!" I direct you to Wings of the Fiend, which has no number but specifically states that you get a fly speed.

Dominant Winds does not grant you a fly speed.  If you end your turn above ground with Dominant Winds, you will fall to the ground and take fall damage because you do not have a Fly speed.

It is not broken.


----------



## Inyssius (Apr 23, 2009)

*Finally.*

Okay, first off: there's only the one new at-will, Eyes of the Vestige, but it is super awesome. The Vestige Pact Warlock can be found here, so I'm not going to go into much more detail on that.

There are new powers for every pact so far, including Dark, at essentially every level. There are some dual-pact powers, which are cool. If you're wondering, here's an example: 

*Horrifying Hatching*, a level 9 daily power. 1d8+Charisma damage on a hit; on the Effect line, the target takes 10 ongoing poison damage (save ends). Whenever it takes this damage, you can slide the target 1 square. You can spend a minor action to end the ongoing damage and (if *Fey*) slide the enemy 3 squares, or (if *Dark*) deal 2d10+Int more poison damage.
There are two vestiges for every level, including the level 1 daily slot. *Solis *(level 15) is pretty neat:


 His pact boon deafens every enemy within 3 squares of you and makes them all grant CA until your next turn ends.
His Eyes of the Vestige augment: if the target attacks any of your allies on his next turn, he takes Con-mod fire and thunder damage.
That's pretty tough--and there's an epic-level feat that lets you add any one vestige you have to your primary vestige list, along with Zutwa and King Elidyr. I'm noticing some wonderfully clever utility powers, too:


*Devil's Trade* (E-2) lets you automatically succeed on a saving throw, but gives you vulnerable 5 to all damage until your next turn ends;
*Fey Bargain* (E-2) gives you a +2 bonus to your next attack roll, but you automatically _fail_ your next save;
... and *Destiny Inversion *(E-10)cuts an attack's damage in half, but the remaining sum is instead dealt to you as _ongoing_ damage.
That all might not be terribly powerful, but it's *wicked cool.*


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 23, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm not glad to see that the illusion spells from Dragon just went straight in without any further review - e.g. we still have a spell which is more effective when it misses than when it hits (immobilises, save ends on a hit. immobilises until end of your next turn on a miss)



Unlike some other effects, immobilize is very unlikely to be more useful EONT than save ends. Unless they can make a save before their turn (which is what, hobgoblins and gods?) they're pretty much stuck with 1+ rounds of immobilize. 

Daze and stun I could see you wanting to make sure you had it for your next turn, but even then I think multiple potential rounds is better than one guaranteed.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 23, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm not glad to see that the illusion spells from Dragon just went straight in without any further review - e.g. we still have a spell which is more effective when it misses than when it hits (immobilises, save ends on a hit. immobilises until end of your next turn on a miss)



This seems to be the general precedent for pretty much all powers.  Save Ends is considered better, and IMHO for good reason.

Something that lasts until the end of the next turn will last exactly 1 round and affect the target exactly once.  No more, no less.

Something that lasts until (save ends) will _almost always_ last 1 round at a minimum, and has a decent chance (with many opportunities to improve this chance) to last even longer.

In most cases, (save ends) is a better power.  Not in all cases, mind you, but there are very few monster abilities that either grant them a free save, or let them give allies a free save.

-O


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 23, 2009)

Felon said:


> So, you have an outdoor encounter with a hydra, purple worm, or some other big nasty, and the flying just zips around shooting it until it dies, with no real risk to life or limb. No prolbem with that at all?




This question has nothing to do with the way the power is written.  You seem to be of the opinion that the game isn't robust enough for at-will flight.  I disagree, but it doesn't matter.  One of us is right and the other is wrong, but the truth has nothing to do with our opinion of at-will flight.

It would be an interesting experiment, however, to see if perception of the power correlates with how people feel about the idea of at-will flight.  I don't think this thread is the place for that experiment though.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2009)

Felon said:


> Actually, people tend to be pretty lousy at making those kinds of distinctions, and in fact they try to only assimilate as much data as they need to get by.




This may be true for you, but whether it is a generalisation that can be validly applied to the population at large is another matter. The most obvious interpretation of "fly Dex mod squares" is just that: you fly for Dex mod squares. At the end of that, you fall, if you're not on the ground. This is without looking at anything else in the books, whether it's flying rules, falling rules, or whatnot.



> "You can move an additional square."
> "You can move an additional square when you take a move action."
> 
> A lot of folks would intuitively connect movement with move actions (for reasons that are self-evident, even they're not always accurate), and thus would think the former sentence functionally identical to the latter.




Then these folks have not been playing 4E, or at least have not been playing 4E for 16 levels.

"You can move an additional square as a shift"
"You can move an additional square with a move action"
"You can move an additional square when you take a move action"
"You can move an additional square as a free action"
"You can move an additional square as an interrupt"

are all rather different things, and this kind of variety in action cost is commonplace in 4E. The exact action cost is not something that you take for granted if you have any experience at all with the game.



> You think the difference is that obvious? You have that much faith? By all means then, sit back for a few months and watch how many people think Dominant Winds amounts to all-day flying.




I don't know why you're so worried about the population at large. Their games don't impact you, and you have no say in how their games work. The nice thing about p&p as opposed to WoW is that everything is instanced, even the ruleset. That said, if you want to talk about the population at large, two results will probably occur:

- Ppl will think Dominant Flying allows flying, and they will adjust their encounters and adventures to match.

- Ppl will think Dominant Flying doesn't allow flying, and will rule it so in their game.

Both of these results can coexist with each other in the general population. There is no need for a single ruling to apply to the entire population, so long as each group is consistent in how they treat it individually.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 23, 2009)

hong said:


> I don't know why you're so worried about the population at large. Their games don't impact you, and you have no say in how their games work. The nice thing about p&p as opposed to WoW is that everything is instanced, even the ruleset. That said, if you want to talk about the population at large, two results will probably occur:
> 
> - Ppl will think Dominant Flying allows flying, and they will adjust their encounters and adventures to match.
> 
> ...




Well said!  Still, it will be interesting to see the official response to this question.


----------



## NMcCoy (Apr 23, 2009)

Inyssius said:


> ... and *Destiny Inversion *(E-10)cuts an attack's damage in half, but the remaining sum is instead dealt to you as _ongoing_ damage.



I really, really hope this works with Shared Suffering armor.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2009)

So... what's so good about Destiny Inversion that it's a 10th level power?

(Other than the shared suffering combo, that is.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 23, 2009)

hong said:


> So... what's so good about Destiny Inversion that it's a 10th level power?
> 
> (Other than the shared suffering combo, that is.)




I don't know. The best thing I can come up with is that you might have resistance to the damage inflicted and might be able to ignore the ongoing damage.


----------



## jensun (Apr 23, 2009)

hong said:


> So... what's so good about Destiny Inversion that it's a 10th level power?
> 
> (Other than the shared suffering combo, that is.)



You can be granted saves before the start of your next turn and thereby avooid the ongoing damage entirely.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 23, 2009)

When he says "cuts the damage in half", he means that that half, converted to ongoing, is all that affects you. You take no damage at all from the triggering attack.

So you might take only half, or none if you can get a save before your turn. But you might take a lot more.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 23, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't know. The best thing I can come up with is that you might have resistance to the damage inflicted and might be able to ignore the ongoing damage.




Thats about the only positive scenario I can think of, other than (perhaps) all the damage now would kill you stone dead, but putting off half of it until your next round starts might let someone get some healing in for you first. 

Still seems extraordinarily risky, and I'm sure there are much better utility powers out there.


----------



## hong (Apr 23, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> When he says "cuts the damage in half", he means that that half, converted to ongoing, is all that affects you. You take no damage at all from the triggering attack.
> 
> So you might take only half, or none if you can get a save before your turn. But you might take a lot more.



Ah, right. That's pretty nifty, then.  (There's quite a few powers around to give extra saves and bonuses to saves.)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 23, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> When he says "cuts the damage in half", he means that that half, converted to ongoing, is all that affects you. You take no damage at all from the triggering attack.
> 
> So you might take only half, or none if you can get a save before your turn. But you might take a lot more.



OK, that makes more sense to me now


----------



## DonAdam (Apr 23, 2009)

The following made me weary:

Gnome Phantasmist feat (gnome wizard): +1 feat bonus to attack and damage per tier (15/25 like implement expertise) with arcane illusion powers. Note that this stacks with implement expertise.

I haven't been on the boards for a few weeks, so maybe this is old news by now. I came on this morning to see if there was any discussion about it.

Also Elemental Empowerment (genasi wizard): add Str mod to damage with acid cold, fire, lightning, and thunder wizard powers.

Which you can combine with:

Sorcerous Power- requires paragon mutli as sorc- gain a bonus to the damage rolls of arcane powers equal to your Str or Dex modifier, +2 at 21st.


And there are some changes to the Illusion spells:

This is probably a misprint, but Grasping Shadows was de-errata'd back to 2d8 damage.  Now its back to doing more damage than the comparable daily's.

Illusory Wall is now an encounter power.  That you can sustain for the entire fight.  Obviously amazing now.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 23, 2009)

Illusions are re-errata'd.

No idea what they were thinking with the (three!) tier-scaling attack bonus feats. WTF, Wizards.

I don't actually have a problem with the Genasi double-Strength thing, since Str is such a loser attribute generally for a Wizard, and they're never going to be Striker-level anyway.

Still, now there are Wizard sub-builds for every secondary stat, which I think is cool.


----------



## satori01 (Apr 23, 2009)

DonAdam said:


> The following made me weary:
> 
> 
> Also Elemental Empowerment (genasi wizard): add Str mod to damage with acid cold, fire, lightning, and thunder wizard powers.
> ...




Elemental Empowerment is a bit problematic as it allows a Wizard to have damage that is closer to Striker Dmg, at the cost of having to chose a very specific race.   

I am less concerned with people stacking it with Sorcerous Power.  For 1, the table description of Sorcerous power (and several other multi class feats) is wrong.....which will deter many people.

Secondly, Paragon multi classing to be able to add you STR or DEX modifier could be a down grade in power compared  to Std Paragon Paths.   You miss out of bonus abilities and effectively lose feats to emulate class powers.  STR is a waste of a dump score for Wizard.   Now Dex is Pre Req for so many good Wizard Feats it is the logical option, but again with so many interesting feats w/ high Dex Requirements, spending 2 feats to M/C w/ Sorcerer is more of a problem.

Did anyone else notice that one of the Familiars grants you the power to speak "Infernal".......way to slip in that 3E language designers 
Of course Supernal is just a lame name.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 23, 2009)

Infernal -> Supernal is also errata'd.


----------



## DonAdam (Apr 23, 2009)

The errata is good to know.

I still think gnome phantasmist and elemental empowerment are ridiculous.

Phantasmist would be fine if it didn't stack with implement expertise (given the okayness of implement expertise); then it would be roughly the equivalent of a racial weapon feat.

Elemental Empowerment.... boo for role infringement.  Of course, I dislike the the sorc design anyway (extra damage more than once a round + area attacks? really?).


----------



## Felon (Apr 24, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> This question has nothing to do with the way the power is written.  You seem to be of the opinion that the game isn't robust enough for at-will flight.



"Robustness" doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Kiting is a pretty cut-and-dried issue. Sorcerers have a fair amount of range. Many monsters can't match it, and having an extra plane of movement can make closing the distance impossible.



hong said:


> This may be true for you, but whether it is a generalisation that can be validly applied to the population at large is another matter. The most obvious interpretation of "fly Dex mod squares" is just that: you fly for Dex mod squares. At the end of that, you fall, if you're not on the ground. This is without looking at anything else in the books, whether it's flying rules, falling rules, or whatnot.
> 
> Then these folks have not been playing 4E, or at least have not been playing 4E for 16 levels.



The rebuke regarding making generalizations are pretty much utterly counteracted by the comments that follow it, which would require one to be the self-appointed arbiter of what's "most obvious" as well as what constitutes experience playing 4e. 

Now, the first sentence has the ring of a couched insult, but the latter part of your post encourages me to grant the benefit of the doubt. You inquire as to why something along the lines of an at-will flying utility concerns me when you feel the matter will ultimately resolve itself at each game table. My driving desire is pretty simple. I want to trust that the designers' judgment, I want the comfort of knowing they nip obviously exploitative features in the bud. That way I don't have to feel like I'm fighting against their current, and that's whether I'm DM'ing or playing. It's nice to know that even if the other folks I'm playing with don't concern themselves with a holistic perspective on game balance, at least the guys pushing out the material do. Stuff like flying kites sniping melee-only opponents and unseen servants roaming every hallway poking around for danger chip away at my sense of trust, and would constitute an extremely uncomfortable change in current.

This is particularly true of 4e and its ever-growing catalog of powers, feats, rituals, and so forth. I don't want to have to parse each one, I just want a good vibe about the team of creative folks behind them. They've done an overall good job so far. For instance, you want to use a bag of tricks or your spirit companion as danger delegates? Go ahead, but it will wind up costing somebody some healing surges. With Martial Power, they only thing that jumped out as immediately OTT is the rage fighter build. I hope Arcane Power is similarly trustworthy.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> "Robustness" doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Kiting is a pretty cut-and-dried issue. Sorcerers have a fair amount of range. Many monsters can't match it, and having an extra plane of movement can make closing the distance impossible.




So ban it. You have the power, as a DM. You have the innate ability to make a judgement call of this nature, as a human being and not a computer.



> Your rebuke regarding generalizations are pretty much utterly counteracted by the comments that follow it which set you as the self-appointed arbiter of what's "most obvious" as well as what constitutes experience playing 4e.




Well, we're all just shootin' off opinions here. And it is obvious. You fly Dex mod squares. Ignore everything in the rules about fly speeds, falling, and whatnot. Just going from first principles, when you stop flying, you tend to fall.

Similarly, if you have played 4E for any length of time, you know that action costs are a part of what makes the game what it is. So your analogy fails to hit the mark.



> Now, the first sentence has the ring of a couched insult, but the latter part of your post encourages me to grant the benefit of the doubt. You inquire as to why something along the lines of an at-will flying utility concerns me, it's pretty simple. I want to trust that the designers' judgment, I want the comfort of knowing they nip obviously exploitative features in the bud. That way I don't have to feel like I'm fighting against their current, and that's whether I'm DM'ing or playing. Stuff like flying kites sniping melee-only opponents and unseen servants roaming every hallway poking around for danger chip away at my sense of trust, and would constitute an extremely uncomfortable change in current.




This sounds like you want to switch off your capacity for judgement as a human DM: to go back to the 3E paradigm of "taking the DM out of the equation". By doing so, you lose the big advantage of p&p over videogaming, namely that everything is moddable. You also go back to a ruleset that looks more like a law textbook than anything related to a recreational pastime.


----------



## Felon (Apr 24, 2009)

hong said:


> So ban it. You have the power, as a DM. You have the innate ability to make a judgement call of this nature, as a human being and not a computer.



Well, as I said, it's not always about me as the DM. As a player, I have to rely on someone else's judgment. Sometimes it's me as the player trying to enjoy myself by figuring out how to overcome challenges, and then having someone ruin it with his perma-flight or endless suppoly of zero-cost-fodder. A DM might not see anything wrong with this--after all, if the game provides the tools, how can one begrudge a guy for availing themselves of them? And who cares about figuring things out? D&D is about feeling powerful, not clever, right? But I want to play, and I like my group. Just can't always trust them. Good rules for players what good locks do for neighbors. 



> This sounds like you want to switch off your capacity for judgement as a human DM: to go back to the 3E paradigm of "taking the DM out of the equation".



Not sure how you got that. I do reserve the right as a DM to disallow--as I said, the rage fighter build is out. But I would like to be able to relax and grant the benefit of the doubt rather than feel like there's also some looming exploit that the design team just let slide. As a DM, I'm empowered to clean up messy rules. Doesn't make it a lot of fun. Switch off my brain? No. Trust? Yes, please.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> Well, first off, as I said, it's not always about me as the DM. As a player, I have to rely on someone else's judgment.




Then you ask your DM: "DM, in your game, do you have to land at the end of Dominant Flight"? Keeping this dialogue going is something that is very useful indeed, for all sorts of reasons besides heading off twinkage.

Nothing is ever going to stop p&p gaming from being fully instanced, so you might as well take advantage of that.



> Not sure how you got that. I do reserve the right as a DM to disallow--as I said, the rage fighter build is out. But I would like to be able to relax and grant the benefit of the doubt rather than feel like there's also some looming exploit that the design team just let slide. As a DM, I'm empowered to clean up messy rules. Doesn't make it a lot of fun.




There will always be messy rules. 3E tried to get rid of messy rules by expanding the word count of the rulebooks enormously. It didn't work, as a squiz at the 3E Rules forum will show. If anything, it facilitated a mindset where RAW was supreme and should override everything, including commonsense and DM judgement. If 4E can change that mindset, that will do a lot more to make tweaking and cleaning the rules a less painful experience than trying to catch every exploit.


----------



## Felon (Apr 24, 2009)

hong said:


> Then you ask your DM: "DM, in your game, do you have to land at the end of Dominant Flight"? Keeping this dialogue going is something that is very useful indeed, for all sorts of reasons besides heading off twinkage.
> 
> Nothing is ever going to stop p&p gaming from being fully instanced, so you might as well take advantage of that.
> 
> There will always be messy rules. 3E tried to get rid of messy rules by expanding the word count of the rulebooks enormously. It didn't work, as a squiz at the 3E Rules forum will show. If anything, it facilitated a mindset where RAW was supreme and should override everything, including commonsense and DM judgement. If 4E can change that mindset, that will do a lot more to make tweaking and cleaning the rules a less painful experience than trying to catch every exploit.



Everything you say here is pretty reasonable. However, the way I see it, the inter-player social contract is not a replacement for sound game design. Rather, it's another layer. Bother have their place. There will always be messy rules, but there are degrees of acceptability.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 24, 2009)

I Emailed customer service about the Dominant Winds power.  When I get a response, I'll post it here.

For what it's worth Felon, given WOTC's prior treatment of flight, your ruling is probably the correct one.  If so, the power is poorly worded and needs to be errated.


----------



## fnwc (Apr 24, 2009)

Has anyone mentioned the flavor text for Dominant Winds? While it is questionable to make a mechanical ruling from flavor text, it might give insight into the _intentions _of the designer(s).

_"Silver winds curl out of nowhere and lift you or an ally *briefly *into the air."_
(emphasis mine)

This makes me believe this power was not intended as an all-day fly, especially given that WotC has been fairly consistent including the verbiage of "fly speed" when appropriate.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> Everything you say here is pretty reasonable. However, the way I see it, the inter-player social contract is not a replacement for sound game design. Rather, it's another layer. Bother have their place. There will always be messy rules, but there are degrees of acceptability.




And this one is pretty acceptable to me or hong, apparently. And also the designers, I suspect. "You fly n squares" means you fly that distance. You don't get a flight speed. You find it not described clearly enough.

Maybe that means the PHB 3 glossary or the DMG 2 will have a note on that. But in the end, who will that really help? Only those that read the note and don't forget it when its content ever comes up. 

That's why player and DM being able to talk each other about unclear rules is so important. If unclear, the DM makes a ruling on the spot.
Or he doesn't, and instead spends a time to consult various rulebooks on the issue of "flying" and figure out what the RAW is.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 24, 2009)

fnwc said:


> Has anyone mentioned the flavor text for Dominant Winds? While it is questionable to make a mechanical ruling from flavor text, it might give insight into the _intentions _of the designer(s).
> 
> _"Silver winds curl out of nowhere and lift you or an ally *briefly *into the air."_
> (emphasis mine)
> ...




They've also said flavor text has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical function of the power, so that kinda shoots down that argument, as much as I am  inclined to agree.

/Devil's Advocate on the first part, incidentally.


----------



## muchan (Apr 24, 2009)

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but Arcane Power already has some errata up here.

The noteworthy changes (or re-changes) is that Grasping Shadow is back to 1d8 rather than 2d8, and that Illusory Wall has been turned back into a daily utility power instead of an encounter.


----------



## Runestar (Apr 24, 2009)

> So ban it. You have the power, as a DM. You have the innate ability to make a judgement call of this nature, as a human being and not a computer.




I think the issue here is not so much that a DM cannot ban a power he deems to be problematic, it is moreso that he has to resort to banning in the first place.

The whole point of people shelling out good money for published material is so that we don't to go through the hassle of designing our own material and playtesting it. Rather, we trust that the designers would have done a very good job of balancing the material before releasing it, and we can pretty much just play it right out of the books without first having to pour through every page, scrutinize every ability to the last letter and worry if it is overpowering or too weak. 

DM fiat is simply no excuse for faulty game material.


----------



## hong (Apr 24, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I think the issue here is not so much that a DM cannot ban a power he deems to be problematic, it is moreso that he has to resort to banning in the first place.
> 
> The whole point of people shelling out good money for published material is so that we don't to go through the hassle of designing our own material and playtesting it. Rather, we trust that the designers would have done a very good job of balancing the material before releasing it, and we can pretty much just play it right out of the books without first having to pour through every page, scrutinize every ability to the last letter and worry if it is overpowering or too weak.
> 
> DM fiat is simply no excuse for faulty game material.



By the standards of the RPG industry, you will not find a more well-balanced and thoroughly playtested product than D&D 4E. It's balanced to the extent that many ppl who don't like it say that it's boring. Calling it "faulty" is to ignore the REALLY faulty stuff out there, and one ambiguously-worded power isn't going to change that.

You will never find a perfect, fault-free game (just as you will never find a perfect X in most fields outside mathematics). You will always have to exercise DM judgement in deciding what's appropriate for your game, and what sort of exploits you're comfortable with.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 24, 2009)

Balance concerning at-will flight is subjective at best.  The soon to be released Champions Online just recently dealt with the persistent flight issue.  The original plan was to limit flight during combat, but the player base wasn't very happy with that idea, so instead, they just added more flying and ranged opponents.

I think 16th level is about the perfect time to introduce at-will flight for thematically appropriate classes and paragon paths.  It's not about using flight to beat the system.  It's about using flight because it's cool, dynamic, and evocative of high fantasy.

Water breathing Genasi are also cool.  D&D isn't just a combat game.  It's also a fantasy game.  When game designers start sacrificing the fantasy elements for the sake of game balance during combat they're cutting off a portion of their player base.  Instead of sacrificing fantasy, WOTC should be balancing the system to allow fantasy to flourish.  4e has improved in this regard since its release, but it still falls far short in my opinion.  The option to build a character with at-will flight at a reasonable level would be a major step in the right direction.  If a particular DM has a less open idea of fantasy, then ban the option in that campaign.  But I really wish people would stop trying to imprint their personal idea of a fantasy game onto the entire player base.


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 24, 2009)

Felon said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself. I've a strong suspicion that the consensus here will not be the one arrived at in general gameplay. At-will flight will be taken for exactly what it sounds like it is: at-will flight. Going on about how the power lets you fly but doesn't give you a fly speed is going to sound like pretzel logic.




I'm sure some DMs will let you use it like that. I am ever more certain that the rules do not actually support this.  I think baberg's post shows exactly why. Your ruling is inconsistent with the defaults of the rules, all prior powers involving flight, and the concept of the power itself. The opposing viewpoint matches all those things. I think it is safe to say which is the correct ruling.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 24, 2009)

Gah! My pre-order still has not arrived and the LGS I was at last night was out! I'm looking for Swordmage gpoodies


----------



## baberg (Apr 24, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Gah! My pre-order still has not arrived and the LGS I was at last night was out! I'm looking for Swordmage gpoodies




6 new paragon paths

A new Aegis that teleports the target adjacent to you after it attacks and grants CA to everybody until the end of your next turn

New at-will that's sort of the opposite of Tide of Iron for Fighter - instead of moving the target and shifting into that square, you shift and move your target to your previous square

And a fun level 29 ability, "Mirrorblade Army", that makes conjurations of yourself around the battlefield that you can attack and Opportunity Attack through, but they're minions with only 1 HP.


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 24, 2009)

Don't forget the paragon path attack 20 ability for swordmages that lets you attack everyone you can see for 1w+int... Take that 19/20ths of the invading army of minions!


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 25, 2009)

Here are the questions I asked customer service regarding Dominant Winds and the response I received:

1) Does the target of the effect have to land at the end of each turn, or can the flight be sustained from round to round?

2) Does the answer to this question change if the target has the ability to hover?

3) Can a double move be used to allow both the sorcerer and an ally to fly dexterity modifier squares?

Any target with a fly speed without a hover speed (or overland flight) must land at the end of each move action.

Yes, you can use two move actions to move both the sorcerer and another target.

Now I need some help decrypting this reply.  First of all, doesn't this answer contradict the 2 squares rule to avoid falling without hover?

Taking this answer at face value, does this mean that a Genasi using the Stormrider feat can use Dominant Winds to fly without landing?

Stormrider
Prerequisite: Genasi
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to speed when
you are manifesting windsoul or watersoul. When
flying, you hover.

Thanks


----------



## baberg (Apr 25, 2009)

Once again, we find that we can't trust WotC's Customer Service to fully grasp the ruleset - even the basics sometimes escape them.  

Creatures with a Fly speed can stay aloft as long as they move at least 2 squares each round, which is clearly contradictory to the first answer given by the CS representative.  MM p.281

As for the Stormrider feat, I'm going back to my argument that Fly Speed and Flying are two separate things.  The Hover keyword only exists as a sub-topic of Fly Speed so if you have no fly speed, hover means nothing.  

I think the Stormrider feat should read "While you have a fly speed, you have the hover keyword".  But that's using my interpretation that there is a distinct and purposeful difference between "Fly Speed" and "Fly"


----------



## Rechan (Apr 25, 2009)

baberg said:


> New at-will that's sort of the opposite of Tide of Iron for Fighter - instead of moving the target and shifting into that square, you shift and move your target to your previous square



So, Footwork Lure?


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 25, 2009)

I've resubmitted the Dominant Winds question to customer service.  I also asked:

Does Dominant Winds actually grant a fly speed, or just the ability to fly dex modifier squares with a move action? Is there a difference?

As before, I'll post the response when I get it.


----------



## RefinedBean (Apr 25, 2009)

Rechan said:


> So, Footwork Lure?




Footwork Lure with an extra shift, I believe.

Also, it's called a spell, when it's really not.  I mean, honestly.  It's got the arcane keyword, and nothin' arcane is going on.  Kinda lame.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 26, 2009)

Ok, here is the follow up response from WOTC:

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support! We're sorry for the confusion. We've looked a bit closer at the ability and here are the answers you seek.

1) Does the target of the effect have to land at the end of each turn, or can the flight be sustained from round to round?
Strictly according to the rules as written, unless the power in question tells you that you crash unless you land, then you do not have to end your movement on the ground. The flying rules state only that you crash at the end of your turn if you did not fly 2 or more squares during that turn. The sorcerer can effectively stay in the air this way without falling as long as he flies at least 2 squares each turn.

2) Does the answer to this question change if the target has the ability to hover?
No, but even if you have Hover, you still have to use the Dominant Winds power to have the ability to fly, even if you don't move.

3) Can a double move be used to allow both the sorcerer and an ally to fly dexterity modifier squares?
It's not a "double move" unless it's one target making both moves. But the sorcerer can use Dominant Winds to move himself, and Dominant Winds a second time to move his ally. It is a good idea for the ally to land at the end of this move because when the ally's turn comes, if they did not land previously, and if they do not otherwise fly two spaces on that next turn, then they will crash at the end of their turn.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 26, 2009)

Argh, that is so incredibly wrong. The flight rules are written for creatures with a flight speed! They don't apply here at all! Stupid CustServ.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 26, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> Argh, that is so incredibly wrong. The flight rules are written for creatures with a flight speed! They don't apply here at all! Stupid CustServ.




You seem to be presuming that flying and having a flight speed are two different things, but I'm not aware of any rule that makes such a distinction.  Are you aware of such a rule?  If so, please point it out to me.

Until then, the ruling by customer service seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 26, 2009)

Maybe CustServ is correct then that is a broken, fly all day and zap from range power. I'll stick with the must land at the end ruling in my game, if it ever comes up.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 26, 2009)

Aargh.  Rant time.

This is seriously stupid.  I'm filing it with the moronic swordmage versatile weapon hand jive as an obviously unintended consequence of rules written for one purpose being used again for another.

The page 47 fly action rules are clearly written for monsters with a fly speed.  So it makes sense to include things like crashing only at the end of your turn.  It models momentum.  I'm cool with that.  If you're flying, and you need to fly two spaces per turn to stay in the air, then you should logically only crash when its no longer possible for you to do that.  Ie, at the end of your turn.  But this doesn't make sense for creatures that fly as the result of a magical effect.

But now we get to have all kinds of rules glitches while WotC tries to ram these two areas of the rules together.

Look at the fun we can have!  Allow your ally (or yourself) to fly X spaces with this power or with Telekinetic Leap or some equivalent power.  They choose to end their movement in the air.  Ok.  That's fine, apparently.  Next round, they start their turn in the air.  So what happens?  They instantly crash?  Nope!  They're flying!  Somehow!  Except they have no fly speed!  So they can't actually move, because they have no fly speed and their feet aren't on the ground.  They're hovering motionless in the air in total defiance of the logic of the power, the description of the power, basic reasoning, and the nearly obvious intent of the designers!  And they sit there until the END of their turn, motionless, at which point they plummet.

Way to go.  This rule made sense when it modeled momentum issues for a monster generally capable of flying.  Not so much for people flown by an effect which terminated in the previous round.

I hate rules glitches.

There are a bunch of powers that now "officially" work weird.  I think my favorites are the druid powers that let you transform into a flying animal.  Now they let you transform into a bird, fly a bit, then transform into a, I dunno, giant floating rhinoceros or something.

Radiant Charge becomes bizarre.  Charge something, flying through the air as you do so, then hover for a round and battle ferociously.  Then, like a cartoon coyote suddenly realizing that he left the cliff some ten meters back, plummet with a whistling sound and raise a little *poof* dust cloud when you land.

Come on, WotC.  It wouldn't be tough to duck this one, just declare that the page 47 rules apply only up until the moment you no longer have the ability to fly.  Its logical, plausible from the reading, and doesn't lead to silly outcomes.  And it matches the reasoning in powers that strip enemies of their ability to fly, which generally state that when a creature loses the ability to fly while in the air, it crashes.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 26, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> You seem to be presuming that flying and having a flight speed are two different things, but I'm not aware of any rule that makes such a distinction. Are you aware of such a rule? If so, please point it out to me.
> 
> Until then, the ruling by customer service seems perfectly reasonable to me.



The difference is whether you have the ability to fly between turns.  A creature with a flight speed does.  And since the default flight speed rules assume wings, it makes sense to have rules for momentum- move at least 2 spaces, or you crash.  Alright.0

Meanwhile a creature without a flight speed who was granted the ability to fly by a power has the ability to fly as long as the power grants it.  In this case, for one move action during which you can fly a maximum of a particular distance.  A normal reading of the power would suggest that you have the ability to fly while its active, and then not while its not.  It does not make sense to take rules designed to mimic momentum and then boot strap them into a full round of hovering after a power's defined effect has ended.

The upshot of this ruling is that all non-fly-speed-flight now has an "until the end of your next turn you can hover if you moved at least 2" effect built into it, unless it specificaly states otherwise.

Which is kind of awkward at times.  See above for details, the amazing flying rhino, etc.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 26, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> The difference is whether you have the ability to fly between turns




There is no such thing as between turns.  Turns are only useful as a mechinism to simulate the ability for all creatures to act during the round.  All characters act simultaneously, turns exist only to bring gamist order to that simultaneous activity.

For flying creatures, the only point of concern is the ability to fly each round.  If there is a round where you can't fly, you fall.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 26, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> This is seriously stupid.  I'm filing it with the moronic swordmage versatile weapon hand jive as an obviously unintended consequence of rules written for one purpose being used again for another.



Also, thanks to Storm Pillar issues, according to their latest ruling, they apparently distinguish between _enter_ and _move into_. So _Wall of Fire_ just got weird, because you can throw people into it without hurting them. And _cause fear _does, but _command_ doesn't. That ruling just made _Wall of Fire_ worse (and _Storm Pillar_ also looks a bit less enticing now). 

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 26, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> There is no such thing as between turns. Turns are only useful as a mechinism to simulate the ability for all creatures to act during the round. All characters act simultaneously, turns exist only to bring gamist order to that simultaneous activity.
> 
> For flying creatures, the only point of concern is the ability to fly each round. If there is a round where you can't fly, you fall.



Except for one small problem with your analysis- powers themselves are also gamist artifacts of the turn system, and have set, clearly defined starts and finishes.

And its worth remembering that a sorcerer isn't a "flying creature."  Its a dude who cast a spell that let him fly for a set, clearly defined length of time: one move action.  Once that move action is over, he's not a flying creature.  Except apparently in this area of the game the regular rules that cover set, clearly defined lengths of time now have an exception: the only exception of this type, in fact, in the entire game.  That exception is that anyone who flies at least two spaces for any reason does not cease flying until the end of their next turn.

I view it as pretty much obvious that the rules for flying two spaces to stay aloft exist to facilitate winged creatures who need speed to remain airborne.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 26, 2009)

Alright, punks!  How about this one!

Energetic Flight, sorcerer 22.  Lets you fly, and HOVER, until the end of your next turn.

Now lets interpret this using the interpretive lens that brought us this stupid ruling on flying.

It lets you fly, and hover, until the end of your next turn.  So on this turn you fly straight up 30 feet and 10 feet over, and next turn you fly straight up another 30 feet and ten feet over.

Now, what happens next round?

Well, if this power did NOT grant hover, you'd stay in the air, poised 60 feet off the ground, unleashing magic on the suckers below.  Then, because you didn't travel at least two spaces, you'd crash at the end of the round.

So what does the power do now, since it DOES grant hover?

It lets you stay in the air, poised 60 feet off the ground, unleashing magic on the suckers below.  At the end of your turn you fall because you didn't move two... NO!  Wait!  That rule doesn't apply to you because you hover!  "A monster that can hover... ... remains flying even if it did not move the minimum distance normally needed to remain aloft.  It stays in the air even if it takes no move actions to fly."  You float in the air indefinitely, immobilized, unable to move in any way, just... sitting there!  Totally.... awesome?  Yeah...

Now the normal objection to this is that its moronic.  Obviously you no longer HAVE hover.  You no longer have any ability to fly at all.  Heavy objects in midair that do not fly tend to fall.  This is basic logic.  But we're not dealing with basic logic here.  We're dealing with ridiculous rules interpretation.  And apparently we're supposed to be swallowing the line that someone who flies and loses the ability to fly remains airborne until he invokes the "crash" rule.  And in fact, you can remain flying even in rounds after your flying magic expired, up until the moment that you invoke the crash rule.  That's why the earlier debated powers let you remain airborne for an entire round in which you had no active flying magic.

Hovering creatures never invoke the crash rule.  By "rules as written" (in my opinion, rules as interpreted in an instance where a rules glitch exists), you fly until you crash, and due to faulty universe programming, you never invoke the "crash" subroutine.

You fly forever.

This is hand jiving all over again, except worse.


----------



## GAAAHHH (Apr 26, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Alright, punks!  How about this one!
> 
> Energetic Flight, sorcerer 22.  Lets you fly, and HOVER, until the end of your next turn.
> 
> ...




According to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that's what flying is.  You throw yourself at the ground, and miss.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 26, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> You seem to be presuming that flying and having a flight speed are two different things, but I'm not aware of any rule that makes such a distinction.  Are you aware of such a rule?  If so, please point it out to me.
> 
> Until then, the ruling by customer service seems perfectly reasonable to me.



Sure: Pg. 47 in the DMG. Everything about the move action "Fly" is built around the Movement: "a number of squares equal to your *fly speed*". You can't take the move action "Fly" without one. (You can spend a move action to use a power that lets you fly, but that's neither here nor there) You therefore can't use the section "Remaining in the Air", since that's an aspect of the Fly move action.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 26, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> Sure: Pg. 47 in the DMG. Everything about the move action "Fly" is built around the Movement: "a number of squares equal to your *fly speed*". You can't take the move action "Fly" without one. (You can spend a move action to use a power that lets you fly, but that's neither here nor there) You therefore can't use the section "Remaining in the Air", since that's an aspect of the Fly move action.




I just read that entire section and nowhere is there a distinction drawn between flying and having a fly speed.  Until stated otherwise they are one in the same.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> I just read that entire section and nowhere is there a distinction drawn between flying and having a fly speed.  Until stated otherwise they are one in the same.



You've proven there's a rules gap, nothing else.

That section gives the rules for using a fly speed. We assume you use the same rules when you fly without one (which makes sense), but it still doesn't qualify as using the "Fly" action--what actually happens isn't spelled out. Granted, they need a section on flying without a flight speed, but that doesn't mean you can go and grant it the same effects of having one.

Seriously, you need to consider the Githyanki's Telekinetic Leap before you keep arguing this point. Do you seriously think a level 30 Githyanki Demigod can stay in the air indefinitely? Given the name and the flavor, I think it's pretty clear they can't--and the mechanics there are exactly the same.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 27, 2009)

Here's my best counter example.  Mind you that all I'm trying to prove here is that the designers screwed up, the rules for flight in the DMG were written with winged flight and a flying speed in mind, and now we're getting glitches because powers that refer to flight only have that one section, written for a different purpose, to refer to.

A druid shifts into the form of a raven.  In a particular turn, he flies 2 squares.  Then he uses a minor action to turn into a rhinoceros.  Then he attacks as a rhinoceros.

Now he remains in the air, as a rhinoceros.  Next round he continues to attack as a rhinoceros.  As a minor action he turns back into a bird, and as a move action he flies another two squares.

He can spend two full standard actions in mid air, as a rhinoceros, without falling.

I think its pretty safe to say that this is not the designer's intention.  Whether there is a rules as written difference between "Fly: Move Action" on page 47 and the DMG and a move action granted by a power that lets you fly is one issue (though it does suggest an obvious question, what if a power let you fly as a free or minor action?).  Whether the designers intended this outcome is another.

I think its pretty clear that they didn't.

Oh, and PS- Flight granted by a power that lets you hover leaves you floating in midair forever when it expires.  By rules as written.  If you believe this particular cserv argument.  Which I do, only to the extent that I acknowledge a decent case can be made for it in the context of interpretation a set of rules drafted in error.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 27, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> Seriously, you need to consider the Githyanki's Telekinetic Leap before you keep arguing this point. Do you seriously think a level 30 Githyanki Demigod can stay in the air indefinitely? Given the name and the flavor, I think it's pretty clear they can't--and the mechanics there are exactly the same.




Ok, I've read it.  I still don't see the issue.  The Githyanki flies for one round.  If the Githyanki doesn't use a fly action to move at least two squares the following round it falls.  I fail to see the issue.

Yep, sounds like a 30th level Githyanki Demigod who uses all of its encounter powers can fly indefinitely using telekinetic leap.  I still don't see the problem.  Yes, the extremely powerful 30th level Demigod power significantly changes the potential of a lot of encounter powers.  Telekinetic leap is just one of many that is much more effective when it can be used every round.  Who cares, we're talking about 30th level.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 27, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Here's my best counter example.  Mind you that all I'm trying to prove here is that the designers screwed up, the rules for flight in the DMG were written with winged flight and a flying speed in mind, and now we're getting glitches because powers that refer to flight only have that one section, written for a different purpose, to refer to.
> 
> A druid shifts into the form of a raven.  In a particular turn, he flies 2 squares.  Then he uses a minor action to turn into a rhinoceros.  Then he attacks as a rhinoceros.
> 
> ...




Rinoceros or mouse, gravity doesn't care either way.  Again, I don't see the big deal, because turns aren't discreet entities that act in a vacuum.  All opponents on the field act simultaneously.  If the druid can pull off some badass shapeshifting flying stunt for two rounds, the only thing I have to say in response is kick ass!

Also, hover is dependent on the ability to fly each round.  If you have a round when you can't fly, you also can't hover.  Again, no problem.  I don't know, the fly rules as written seem pretty good to me.  And keep in mind, this comes from a person who has some definite issues with 4th edition.

This is a fantasy game with badass fantasy heroes.  Let the heroes do what heroes do.  Otherwise you may as well play accounting, the IRS files.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> Rinoceros or mouse, gravity doesn't care either way. Again, I don't see the big deal, because turns aren't discreet entities that act in a vacuum. All opponents on the field act simultaneously. If the druid can pull off some badass shapeshifting flying stunt for two rounds, the only thing I have to say in response is kick ass!



To each his own, but I'm pretty sure that the whole point of clearly stating that the druid can't attack while shifted into a raven was to stop the druid from flying into the air, flying around, and launching attacks.  Under this reading he can not only do that, he can even shift into a humanoid form and cast spells from altitude.  I think its pretty clear that the designers didn't mean to give that out in the heroic tier. 


> Also, hover is dependent on the ability to fly each round. If you have a round when you can't fly, you also can't hover. Again, no problem. I don't know, the fly rules as written seem pretty good to me. And keep in mind, this comes from a person who has some definite issues with 4th edition.



I agree with you.  Except this totally contradicts the whole interpretation you're backing.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 27, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I agree with you.  Except this totally contradicts the whole interpretation you're backing.




How so?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 27, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> He can spend two full standard actions in mid air, as a rhinoceros, without falling.



Hehe sig-worthy. And I agree.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> How so?



You are trying to argue that a person who flies in round 1, and then stops, crashes only by means of the application of the fly rules.  This happens in round 2, a significant time after the flight ended.

To make this happen, you are applying the fly rules to a creature without flying.  You're applying it to a creature that DID have flying, some time ago, but which hasn't got it anymore.

Ok.

Now what if the fly rules that creature operates under grant hover?

Well, at the end of the flight power, we apply the hovering flight rules.  It doesn't fall.  Next round, we apply the hovering flight rules.  It continues not to fall.  In fact, at no point will the hovering flight rules cause it to fall.

For your argument to make sense, you have to argue that a non flying creature in mid air who got there due to a power that granted hovering flight which has since expired IS subject to the rules for flying even though it cannot fly anymore since flying is how it got into the air, but IS NOT subject to the rules for hovering flight under precisely the same circumstances.

There is no reason at all to make that distinction.

If you are going to mechanistically apply the flying rules to a formerly flying creature and only cause it to crash when the fly rules say it should crash, then that's what you should do.

In this case the fly rules don't say that the creature crashes, because its governed by the "hovering" flight rules.

I agree that its silly to apply the hovering flight rules to a creature who no longer possesses hovering flight.

But its no less silly than applying the regular flight rules to a creature who no longer possesses regular flight.

If the general principle of "reference the rules for falling that are built into the power that got you into the air" are to be used, then we should actually use them.  It just so happens that doing so breaks the game.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> Yep, sounds like a 30th level Githyanki Demigod who uses all of its encounter powers can fly indefinitely using telekinetic leap. I still don't see the problem.



So, uh, you want to address the real issue here? Are you even going to attempt to defend your use of the "Fly" ruleset when its requirement (fly speed, explicitly stated) is missing?

Deliberately misquoting someone not only means you automatically lose the discussion - sort of the messageboard equivalent of Godwin's Law - it can get you threadbanned. Don't do it, please. ~ Piratecat


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 27, 2009)

~ we have a problem with people sidestepping the profanity filter in any way. If you've got a problem you can discuss it rationally or if you think it is serious, report it and moderators will handle it if necessary: Plane Sailing ~


----------



## D'karr (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> Yesnomu, or anyone else for that matter, never ****ing attribute quotes to me that I didn't write again!!!  I have a major ****ing issue with that.



You might want to chill out.  Usually when something like that happens it's by mistake.  So getting all upset and "angry" about it and then reacting in that way becomes counterproductive.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 27, 2009)

No, I'm not going to chill out about it.  There was no mistake.  It was deliberate and reprehensible.  I'm just making it clear exactly how reprehensible.  Perhaps next time people will think before pulling such a crap move.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> Yesnomu, or anyone else for that matter, never ****ing attribute quotes to me that I didn't write again!!!  I have a major ****ing issue with that.



I was paraphrasing, and didn't mean to be offensive. I'm sorry if I did offend you. I'll put a real quote in there.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 27, 2009)

SoulStorm said:


> No, I'm not going to chill out about it.  There was no mistake.  It was deliberate and reprehensible.  I'm just making it clear exactly how reprehensible.  Perhaps next time people will think before pulling such a crap move.




You'd better chill out about it, otherwise you'll end up getting suspended - and it's not worth that.

Feel free to email me if you want to talk about it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 27, 2009)

Blimey! One more admin in here at work at the same time and we reach critical mass!

I'll duck out quickly before Henry or Morrus appears.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 27, 2009)

Thanks for apologizing. As you know, that's not the best way to discuss something. It's fine to disagree, but never resort to anything that could be considered a cheap shot. And if someone offends you, reporting the post is the correct action instead of taking the other member to task in the thread.

Carry on, folks.


----------



## almuric (Apr 27, 2009)

Can I quote some things from pages 28 and 29 in the PHB?



> In the paragon tier, your character is a shining
> example of heroism, ... You are
> able to travel more quickly from place to place, perhaps
> on a hippogriff mount or using a spell to grant your
> ...



The game was designed with characters being able to fly at paragon and above levels. I see several level 22 utilities that grant flight (with or without hover) until the end of the encounter. Maybe it's unfair that sorcerers get it at 16th, but it's not completely unexpected. It appears that lack of flight will be the unusual characteristic by mid-epic.

If I were to DM and some of the characters had the power of flight, I'd make sure to account for it in my combats. If the sorcerer, who's somewhat squishy, wants to fly 10 squares up and lob acid bolts all day, then he'll find that he's fighting some other flying thing 10 squares away from where his buddies can help him. 

The game's not broken because someone gets flying; It was obviously designed with that in mind. I remember months ago where someone did some stats on the Monster Manual and IIRC at epic a sizable percentage of monsters could fly.

If I'm a 16th level sorcerer and I fly this round, then I'm in the air at the end of the round. At the start of my next round I'm still in the air and as long as I fly at least 2 squares that round I will still be in the air at the end of it. So I'm fine as long as I use this 16th level utility to fly each round. If I'm ever stunned, immobilized, dazed, or something, then things will change. I really don't see the mechanical problem. If for some reason I don't use my fly at-will, I fall. So if I only get one action (dazed?) and I don't use it to fly, then I guess I'd fall and be completing my one other action just before I splatted, perhaps.




> Mass Fly Wizard Utility 22
> <snip>
> Targets: You and each ally in burst
> Effect: All targets gain a speed of fly 8 until the end of your
> ...



That one's in the PHB. How come no one in here thought that was broken for the last 9 months? How come this 'kiting' problem is only now rearing its ugly head?


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 27, 2009)

almuric said:


> How come no one in here thought that was broken for the last 9 months? How come this 'kiting' problem is only now rearing its ugly head?




Mass fly is a daily. Most people don't have a problem of daily I win buttons for epic. They will just put 2 encounters instead of one.

Having one person fly forever whilst shooting, however, is a problem because they don't want to use flying or ranged foes or have ceilings in every encounter.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 27, 2009)

almuric said:


> The game was designed with characters being able to fly at paragon and above levels. I see several level 22 utilities that grant flight (with or without hover) until the end of the encounter. Maybe it's unfair that sorcerers get it at 16th, but it's not completely unexpected. It appears that lack of flight will be the unusual characteristic by mid-epic.



That snippet you posted specifically mentions flight for short distances in paragon, and that's been the trend for level 16 stuff so far--single move actions or a per-day restriction. In epic, fly speeds are granted much more often, and if DW were epic, the interpretation that allows the sorc to stay in the air would be more palatable. As-is, it's too early.


> If I'm a 16th level sorcerer and I fly this round, then I'm in the air at the end of the round. At the start of my next round I'm still in the air and as long as I fly at least 2 squares that round I will still be in the air at the end of it.



This is disputed. Rules for flying without a fly speed are absent, and assuming the flight speed rules apply completely is dangerous. This haphazard rules application leads to things like Cadfan's example of hovering rhinos (druid in bird form flies, shifts to rhino, attacks. Next turn, attacks again, turn back to bird and flies again).

Anyway, it'll get clarified soon, for sure. We'll see where it goes then.


----------



## Uber Man Beast Child (Apr 28, 2009)

when i first started playing... it was a really bad 4e wizard... the whole group got a bad impression, and i was waiting for arcane power to see if they got better to prove to freakes who bash wizards tha their some of the most magical classes in the game... 

i do really need to get the book though...


----------



## baberg (Apr 28, 2009)

Uber Man Beast Child said:


> when i first started playing... it was a really bad 4e wizard... the whole group got a bad impression, and i was waiting for arcane power to see if they got better to prove to freakes who bash wizards tha their some of the most magical classes in the game...




I'm not sure about other people, but I've had no problem with Wizards as a class - especially after my group picked one up mid-stream at about level 6 (level 8 now) and suddenly I had to deal with Sleep and Stinking Cloud in my encounters.  Those were major game-changers and made me revisit how I was running encounters.

As for being "magical"... when compared to 3.5 everybody but the Wizard has stepped up in the "I'm Magic!" department while the Wizard has stepped down.  But they still get cantrips to play around with, so I'm ok with that.


----------



## Felon (Apr 28, 2009)

Well, ever since Soulstorm posted the custserv response--you know, the one that contradicted the indisputably "obvious" answer--I've been tuning to watch how the worm has turned. I'm curious to ask those insistent that falling is an implicit part of flying without a fly speed: should we just deem powers that explicity state "if you don't land, you fall" as simply engaging in unnecessary exposition?


----------



## baberg (Apr 28, 2009)

Felon said:


> I'm curious to ask those insistent that falling is an implicit part of flying without a fly speed: should we just deem powers that explicity state "if you don't land, you fall" as simply engaging in unnecessary exposition?




I would say that the powers that don't explicitly state "if you don't land, you fall" are lacking in that respect rather than the other way around.  IOW, I think the end errata for this power will be "Add the following sentence to the end of this power: If the target does not land at the end of this movement, it crashes."

I agree that under your interpretation of Fly, the power is broken.  But I do not think that is the right interpretation and also disagree with CustServ's interpretation.  If WotC had intended for this power to grant long-term flight they would have said "Fly Speed" as they have done in every other case where the flight is long-term (meaning encounter-length or longer)

I'm interested in hearing your responses to the points that Cadfan and I have made since you were a strong advocate that this power is broken.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 28, 2009)

Felon said:


> Well, ever since Soulstorm posted the custserv response--you know, the one that contradicted the indisputably "obvious" answer--I've been tuning to watch how the worm has turned. I'm curious to ask those insistent that falling is an implicit part of flying without a fly speed: should we just deem powers that explicity state "if you don't land, you fall" as simply engaging in unnecessary exposition?



I don't think that a 100% textually consistent answer is possible at this point.

But I think that concluding that you fall if you're in the air without the ability to fly, you fall, generates uniformly consistent and playable results.  All other conclusions are worse, save perhaps those that flat out rewrite the rules from the ground up.


----------



## Felon (Apr 28, 2009)

baberg said:


> I'm interested in hearing your responses to the points that Cadfan and I have made since you were a strong advocate that this power is broken.



I prefer the interpretation you and Cadfan came up with, but really the whole thing's out-of-whack. One of those "if you don't land, you fall" powers is a 16th-level Warlock utility, and it only allows flight for one round per encounter. There's little balance in giving the sorcerer at-will flight, especially since the sorcerer utilities tend to be on the weak side (at least for arcane utilities). 



Cadfan said:


> I don't think that a 100% textually consistent answer is possible at this point.
> 
> But I think that concluding that you fall if you're in the air without the ability to fly, you fall, generates uniformly consistent and playable results.  All other conclusions are worse, save perhaps those that flat out rewrite the rules from the ground up.



Well, another possible interpretation--one that allows for the broken at-will flight--is that on the turn after you stop flying, you basically have the opportunity to cough up some flight during that turn, and if you don't manage to, *then* you fall.


----------



## SoulStorm (Apr 28, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> I was paraphrasing, and didn't mean to be offensive. I'm sorry if I did offend you. I'll put a real quote in there.




Thank you.  All is forgiven.


----------



## chaotix42 (Apr 28, 2009)

baberg said:
			
		

> IOW, I think the end errata for this power will be "Add the following sentence to the end of this power: If the target does not land at the end of this movement, it crashes."




Agreed!

I lol'ed when this was brought up on the WotC forums and the first impression was "at-will flight, because it doesn't state you fall if you don't land." 

Let's see some errata WotC!


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 28, 2009)

It'd be funny if they added, "This allows for at-will flight." to the end of it as errata.


----------



## Byronic (Apr 29, 2009)

baberg said:


> I would say that the powers that don't explicitly state "if you don't land, you fall" are lacking in that respect rather than the other way around.  IOW, I think the end errata for this power will be "Add the following sentence to the end of this power: If the target does not land at the end of this movement, it crashes."





Shouldn't that be "if the target does not land by the end of his turn, it crashes"? This would allow the Sorcerer to use his Standard action as well to move himself even further. The way you say it makes it seem as if he can only use one movement action to fly before crashing.

I'm also not sure about the word "crash" instead of "land" But I'd have to look that up and I don't feel like it.


----------

