# Displacement - a bit wussy eh? Mirror image too...



## Plane Sailing (Mar 25, 2008)

I was just looking at Displacement from the photographed page from DDXP. I quote:

*Displacement. Wizard Utility 16*
The recipient of this spell appears to be standing slightly to the left or right of his actual position, making it harder for enemies to hit him.

Encounter * Arcane, Illusion
Immediate Interrupt. Ranged 5
Trigger: A ranged or melee attack hits you or one ally in range.
Effect: The attacker must reroll the attack roll.



Now I'm thinking "Hang on, a 16th level power, and it just forces a reroll once per encounter? Like that halfling racial power that a 1st level halfling can have (Corrin, "second chance") but ooooo, you could use it on someone else?

I would have thought that for a 16th level "encounter" utility spell it could at least give a guaranteed miss for a particular attack (and what if the attackers reroll is HIGHER the second time? Have I used an Encounter power to allow me or my buddy to take *more* damage?

I'm just really puzzled at the apparent power level of this spell. A high paragon spell to give me the protection that any 1st level halfling can get? Seems very weak to me.


Then there is Mirror Image.

On the face of it, moderately reasonable, except for this line:

Effect: three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. _Each time an attack misses you_, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2.

Pardon?

Hobgoblin Warcaster:"You runty kobold minions attack him first"

Minions "But all his defences are 25 or higher! We can't even touch him!"

Hobgoblin Warcaster "Ah, but your wild waving will frighten away his mirror images"

Minion 1 rolls 1 "miss"" (one image goes)
Minion 2 rolls 3 "miss!" (another image goes)
Minion 3  rolls 2 "miss!" (final image goes)

Hobgoblin Warcaster now attacks the measly defence 19 wizard whose protections have been stripped away by the baby kobold minions...

????

There seems to be something wrong here to me.

I would have thought that each time an attack HITS you one of the mirror images should go (or better yet, each time an attack misses you by the bonus which is being added by the spell, it dismisses an image). Either of those would have made sense, but the apparent text just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 25, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> There seems to be something wrong here to me.




Yup. Wait until June when there are gigabytes of discussions on the strangeness of the new actual rules.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 25, 2008)

As Wizards have already said that some text on that page was incorrect or has been changed, I wouldn't assume all those abilities will be in the same form when the PHB comes out in June.

Mirror Image is, yes, completely useless as it can be broken by a housecat rolling 1s. I certainly hope it's changed or at-least made per-encounter as it's hardly worth being a daily power.

Displacement? I'd certainly like Displacement. Note that Displacement uses the LOWEST score from the two attacks that are rolled, effectively meaning you can negate an enemies' critical hit, cause that last attack that'd kill you to miss, stop yourself from becoming a Mind Flayer's mind slave... Heck, I'd love to make my enemy re-roll an attack then use its lowest score. Think how many situations that could get you out of! I see no problem with that being a paragon power.

My only concern with Displacement is that a Halfling Wizard will be a real pain in the arse to kill.


----------



## Henry (Mar 25, 2008)

Both spells do seem a bit... wussified.  If that's the final wording, I can't even see a reason to take the displacement, and the mirror image at level 10? I'd definitely be taking that Resistance over the Mirror Image.


----------



## Henry (Mar 25, 2008)

Gargazon said:
			
		

> Displacement? I'd certainly like Displacement. Note that Displacement uses the LOWEST score from the two attacks that are rolled,




where does it say that? All the images I've seen say what Plane Sailing quoted.


----------



## Lurker59 (Mar 25, 2008)

In some ways I agree it seems underpowered but two things make it more useful that a halfing racial ability. First, it is an immediate interupt action, meaning it doesn't take up a wizard's actions and can be used during anyone's turn. Being able to potentially negate a critical hit against yourself or an ally can be very useful, especially against something like a bodak's gaze attack.

Second, it is an encounter power so you can use it in every battle. Unlike most abilities it doesn't need to compete with the usefulness of other spells. In terms of an economy of actions it's (sort of) a free lunch. I'd imagine it's an ability that would be used in every battle, even just to reduce the amount of damage that needed to be healed afterwards.


----------



## Transit (Mar 26, 2008)

I'm sure that in the final rules the text for Mirror Image will be changed to something like:

Effect: three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. *Any successful attack on you automatically misses instead.* Each time an attack misses you, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> where does it say that? All the images I've seen say what Plane Sailing quoted.




Oh... well, that's certainly the case with the halfling racial power. I would've assumed it was the same for Displacement but if not the power is... slightly lamer. It just needs to be used with more caution. My comment about the Halfling Wizard still stands   

I certainly hope these are not the final versions of the spells.


----------



## erf_beto (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Then there is Mirror Image.
> 
> On the face of it, moderately reasonable, except for this line:
> 
> ...



It's even worse when you remember that being invisible grants you +5 to ALL defenses - something that a 1st level warlock can do, even if in a restricted situation (Eyebite, invisible against one target, until beggining of your next turn)...  :\


----------



## Henry (Mar 26, 2008)

Transit said:
			
		

> I'm sure that in the final rules the text for Mirror Image will be changed to something like:
> 
> Effect: three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. *Any successful attack on you automatically misses instead.* Each time an attack misses you, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2.



First of all, that would make it better than the displacement power. Second, if that were the case, why the need for the +6 AC bonus? Very likely instead it would be just changing "misses" into "hits", which means the +6 still means something, makes it harder for the spell to be discharged, and gives diminishing returns just like the original spell.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> ...Displacement...
> 
> I'm just really puzzled at the apparent power level of this spell. A high paragon spell to give me the protection that any 1st level halfling can get? Seems very weak to me.




We don't know how common the "force an enemy to reroll an attack" powers are; we only have these two examples. If they're the only two in the game, then it would be better described as a "a paragon level spell that gives an ability that otherwise only halflings can  get." (Also, 16 isn't "high paragon". Pretty much middle paragon.)

Even if these sort of powers are relatively common, Displacement looked to me to be the best of the 16th level Wizard utility powers on that page. I'd rather have displacement every encounter as a minor action than flight or invisibility for 5 minutes daily.

As for Mirror Image, there's been a whole lot of discussion if its problems already.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

Edit: What I said had already been said. D'oh.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

Displacement is powerful because its an immediate interrupt that effectively retroactively defines reality. I don't know if it should be 16th level though.

Its like saying, "You think you hit me monster? Ha! FOOLED YOU! You didn't notice, that I was really displaced that whole time!"

I agree that the Mirror Image thing is kind of lame if the monster would have missed anyway. I would probably houserule it so that the images are only dispelled if the monster otherwise would have hit but missed only due to the bonus provided by the images. Although this might make the spell a bit more powerful than intended.

Alternatively, instead of providing an AC bonus, just rule that whenever the monster attacks and hits, there is a 75% chance that he hit a duplicate and thus really missed you. On the second hit, there is a 66% percent chance that the monster hits a duplicate, then 50%, and then spell effect is gone.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> First of all, that would make it better than the displacement power. Second, if that were the case, why the need for the +6 AC bonus? Very likely instead it would be just changing "misses" into "hits", which means the +6 still means something, makes it harder for the spell to be discharged, and gives diminishing returns just like the original spell.




Y'know, I bet they accidentally put 'misses' instead of 'hits' on that page. Cause if that were the case the power is actually good.


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 26, 2008)

_Mirror Image_ grants a +6 AC bonus to the wizard as a minor action.  It seems to me that it is supposed to be used if the wizard finds himself at a disadvantage and needs stall for time, either to attack (standard action), flee (move action), or wait for the defender to help out.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Alternatively, instead of providing an AC bonus, just rule that whenever the monster attacks and hits, there is a 75% chance that he hit a duplicate and thus really missed you. On the second hit, there is a 66% percent chance that the monster hits a duplicate, then 50%, and then spell effect is gone.





Problem is, that is more powerful than the higher level lame displacement spell!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Then there is Mirror Image.




Mirror Image was one of the first things I noticed on that page.

The bizarreness of it to me is that it provides no help against attacks targeting non-AC defenses - Magic Missile vs Reflex, the +6 bonus to AC is of no benefit - but if those attacks miss, you lose an image.  The Sleep spell misses your Will defense?  Pop, lose an image.

-Hyp.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Problem is, that is more powerful than the higher level lame displacement spell!




Well, it would be. Mirror Image is a daily power. Displacement is an encounter power. They should not be of equal awesomeness.


----------



## Gundark (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree that the Mirror Image thing is kind of lame if the monster would have missed anyway. I would probably houserule it so that the images are only dispelled if the monster otherwise would have hit but missed only due to the bonus provided by the images.




Nice Fix


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 26, 2008)

Yeah, these spells really suck, especially compared to their 3e counterparts. It looks like that Wizards will not only have far fewer spells, but the spells they have will be far weaker. I fear that in their crusade to "balance" the wizard class, they have gone too far and nerfed it into oblivion.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Yeah, these spells really suck, especially compared to their 3e counterparts. It looks like that Wizards will not only have far fewer spells, but the spells they have will be far weaker. I fear that in their crusade to "balance" the wizard class, they have gone too far and nerfed it into oblivion.




I don't know if I would say this yet. I need to see the rules as a whole. In my 4e playtest I was playing the Wizard (and the Cleric, simultaneously), and I was definitely laying the smack down.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

I think I'll point out something that just occured to me about Mirror Image - it is clearly not designed to be a 'let's throw some defences up at the start of an encounter' spell, it's designed to be a 'oh crap, the fighter's down and the ogre with the massive club is coming to make a fine paste of me, don't want to be hit!' spell. You don't take it so you can go 'Oh, this'll help us at the start of the fight', but more as life insurance for when Ogres go clubbing near you.

Which I think is a good way to look at all Daily powers. These are not powers you throw away on a simple minion, these are powers you save for the bad-ass Black Dragon who's going to literally melt your face. They require inspection with a more tactical eye, not with the mindset of 'Oh, that power is completely useless when I use it in a non-specific situation where I probably don't need it'.


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I don't know if I would say this yet. I need to see the rules as a whole. In my 4e playtest I was playing the Wizard (and the Cleric, simultaneously), and I was definitely laying the smack down.




I think he perhaps meant the versatility of the wizards utility spells.  From what I've seen the 4E wizard seems like a potent version of the 3.5 Warmage, a definite nerf compared to the 3.x Wizard.  Without seeing rituals it may be unfair to make this assessment.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> I think he perhaps meant the versatility of the wizards utility spells.  From what I've seen the 4E wizard seems like a potent version of the 3.5 Warmage, a definite nerf compared to the 3.x Wizard.  Without seeing rituals it may be unfair to make this assessment.




Good point. Keith Baker did say that until we see rituals we are only seeing half the magic system.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 26, 2008)

Mirror Image was incredibly powerful for its spell tier.

It pretty much needed the nerf.


----------



## Ipissimus (Mar 26, 2008)

I can see what they're trying to do with Mirror Image. The depleting +6 AC makes it less likely for the next three regular attacks to hit you, which feeds into the depletion factor, etc. It might help keep the damage down if you're surrounded by minions. Still, this is supposed to be a daily? Considering that Sleep seems more useful than this, I wonder if Mirror Image will be downgraded to an Encounter power. On the other hand, I guess that Sleep does have a chance of not working completely, where as protections tend to work... ugh. Still wussy.

And yeah, Displacement's claim to fame is the immediate interrupt, as well as its wide range of effectiveness. As long as it's a ranged or melee attack, doesn't matter what defense it goes against... ok, it only forces a re-roll every encounter. I'll take some hope vs. none as a free action.

Sooooo, if these are examples of the sorts of high-level powers we'll be getting, who would like to start the whinging that 4E, despite being more powerful at low level, is nerfed?


----------



## MerricB (Mar 26, 2008)

Displacement is fairly awesome. Why? _It takes an immediate action_. That is, you use it as a reaction and it doesn't take up any of the actions on your turn.

Cheers!


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 26, 2008)

One thing people are forgetting, attack rolls aren't just attacks anymore.

How would like a reroll from being dominated, fireballed, or dispelled?


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

Remember that both of these spells are minor or immediate actions.  As such, they will not and should not pack anywhere near the punch of spells that use a standard action.  Imagine that each of these spells is usable as a standard action, but in addition to its listed effect, it also has the effect of one of the wizard's at-will powers at that level.



			
				Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Sooooo, if these are examples of the sorts of high-level powers we'll be getting, who would like to start the whinging that 4E, despite being more powerful at low level, is nerfed?




4E at high levels has absolutely been nerfed.  If you look at monster XP values, you'll see that they double every 4 levels; whereas in 3.5E, monster power doubled every 2 levels (CR).  Assuming that PC power follows the same trend, and if we figure level 1 in 4E equals level 4 in 3.5E, then a 20th-level 3.5E character is almost 70% more powerful than a 30th-level 4E character.

...or, perhaps I should say, a 20th-level 3.5E _party_ is 70% more powerful than a 30th-level 4E party.  After all, a 20th-level 3.5E caster and a 20th-level 3.5E fighter are not quite on the same level.

Not that I have any objections to this.  Monsters became obsolete much too fast in 3.X, and high-level play was frickin' insane.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Sooooo, if these are examples of the sorts of high-level powers we'll be getting, who would like to start the whinging that 4E, despite being more powerful at low level, is nerfed?




I would not neccessarily say it has been nerfed (not that a product that hasn't yet been released can be nerfed    ). I would say it has been more... standardised.

The Wizard is no longer the equivalent of a flying deathcopter, destroying foes with waves of his fingers, while the Fighter stands and watches - beside him sitting the Rogue, who sheds a single tear at his insignificance.

Would you say that the Fighter has been nerfed? I certainly would not, he now seems to be as big a threat in combat as the Wizard. Which, in any game designed to be fun for everybody, is really what you want.

The Wizard has been nerfed, yes, if you compare him to what he was in 3.5. But look at what he was in 3.5. There was much beating with the nerf bat to be had if he was to be balanced with the other, more mundane classes.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 26, 2008)

The thing with Mirror Image is that you have, for at one three attacks, a huge AC boost.  It isn't a constant-use spell like Mage Armor, it's a spell that could easily make the first attack against you only hit on a 20, especially considering that Int adds to AC and wizards can, if they toss a feat or two down that path, wear armor and use shields.

Exactly how long would it be reasonable for a wizard to be hittable only on a crit?

That said, still no idea how it balances with anything else until we see the real, final rules.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 26, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Mirror Image was incredibly powerful for its spell tier.
> 
> It pretty much needed the nerf.



Exactly, 3.x Mirror image and Displacement could theoretically allow a Wizard to be harder to hit than a character with an infinite AC, although it practice they weren't quite that good, Mirror image in particular was overtly overpowered, as you would expect for the abilties of a class that only gets to use it's abilities 5 times per day.

4e Displacement seems fine, it provides a good "burst" defense while not being particularly helpful against extended attacks, that's exactly what Wizard defensive spells _should_ be like. The problem I have with the 4e Mirror image is the wording (the fact that it doesn't work against attacks against other defenses), and perhaps the kobold thing. I don't otherwise have a problem with it, I'm not willing to look at these things and decide how powerful they are without looking at the abilties other characters have at these levels.


----------



## Voss (Mar 26, 2008)

The flavor of displacement bothers me more than anything else.  It isn't that your buddy was actually displaced, its that you made the attack miss in some way that doesn't make sense.  Retroactivity is weird, unless some sort of time magic is involved... which this clearly isn't.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Mar 26, 2008)

Isn't the 3.X wizard considered the most powerful class?  Isn't the wizard considered so powerful he rendered the fighter and rouge useless?  Wasn't there people who believed that the wizard needed to be nerfed?

Now that wizards are getting nerfed, people are complaining that it's a bad thing?  Did you perfer the 3.X wizard?


----------



## Delta (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> There seems to be something wrong here to me.




You're seeing a symptom of why I wouldn't touch 4E with a 10-foot pole.

The spells in 3E took up, what, half the PHB? And those spells have been refined and playtested over literally 30+ years. You can pick out lots of specific language that was copy-and-pasted from 1E all the way through to 3E, with desired refinements.

Now here's 4E that's burned the entire system right to the ground (half the PHB by my count) and starting over from scratch. They're trying to rewrite ever single spell in a totally different power system. It's simply mandatory that it's going to have loads of balance and writing issues, without the benefit of 30 years of playtesting behind them. And it's a heck of a lot more content to fill in at once than, say, OD&D started out with.

It's a common issue in software, too -- in theory a clean code rewrite sounds spectacular, but commonly you wind up losing a lot of refinements. Example: Blog from last week on refactoring that points out, "The problem is that warty old code isn’t always just warty - it’s battle-scarred": http://basildoncoder.com/blog/2008/03/21/the-pg-wodehouse-method-of-refactoring/

Or this essay on "Why You Should Almost Never Rewrite Your Software": http://onstartups.com/home/tabid/33...hould-Almost-Never-Rewrite-Your-Software.aspx


----------



## Henry (Mar 26, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Exactly, 3.x Mirror image and Displacement could theoretically allow a Wizard to be harder to hit than a character with an infinite AC, although it practice they weren't quite that good, Mirror image in particular was overtly overpowered, as you would expect for the abilties of a class that only gets to use it's abilities 5 times per day




On the other hand, I can't even see why I would bother taking the mirror image spell over, say, the resistance spell, especially at 10th level, when you're bound to be hit by more frequent energy attacks, if the sample monsters are to judge. It really doesn't do much for you that a healing surge, to counter the damage, wouldn't do, because it really isn't going to make you harder to hit. At worst, it will make an enemy waste one action on you.

The Displacement, I can possibly see, though it could spell the enemy getting a critical hit on you!  That doesn't seem right.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The flavor of displacement bothers me more than anything else.  It isn't that your buddy was actually displaced, its that you made the attack miss in some way that doesn't make sense.  Retroactivity is weird, unless some sort of time magic is involved... which this clearly isn't.




I also dislike retroactive narrative, but in this case I think it's okay--the two events are so close together that you can handwave cause and effect.  You see that your friend is in a position where he's wide open to attack, and in a fraction of an instant you create an illusion that diverts the enemy.


----------



## Henry (Mar 26, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Now that wizards are getting nerfed, people are complaining that it's a bad thing?  Did you perfer the 3.X wizard?




That's a question for another thread entirely.  In our games, they were only played by one person at most per group, because most people didn't like that when you caught them unawares, they were toast. In keeping with 4e, they seem to be a bit tougher on the low end, but to compensate seem weaker on the higher end.

I suppose it's because we don't have anything higher or lower to compare to, but for the equivalent of mid-levels, these do seem like awfully weak defensive spells. I would expect a re-roll at "heroic", but paragon tier?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I suppose it's because we don't have anything higher or lower to compare to, but for the equivalent of mid-levels, these do seem like awfully weak defensive spells. I would expect a re-roll at "heroic", but paragon tier?



A reroll is equally powerful regardless of character level.


----------



## Gargazon (Mar 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I can't even see why I would bother taking the mirror image spell over, say, the resistance spell, especially at 10th level, when you're bound to be hit by more frequent energy attacks, if the sample monsters are to judge. It really doesn't do much for you that a healing surge, to counter the damage, wouldn't do, because it really isn't going to make you harder to hit. At worst, it will make an enemy waste one action on you.
> 
> The Displacement, I can possibly see, though it could spell the enemy getting a critical hit on you!  That doesn't seem right.




You must have a different monsters file, because most of the level 10-ish creatures I have in the .pdf taken from this website are dealing physical damage. I think whether or not energy attacks will be seen is purely up to the nature of the actual encounter, and nothing to do with what level you're at. I imagine at 30th level an Earth Titan is smashing your party with its fists, not using fireballs and lightning strikes (though I can see some thuder attacks being caused by stomping). In such a difficult encounter Resistance would be pretty much useless, but you could use Mirror Image to stop the Earth Titan smashing you with its fist.

Mirror Image is a situational power, just like Resistance. Taking one is helping you get out of a tight spot where you would benefit from the said power. No clever wizard is going to use Mirror Image at the start of the fight, or when he's got the ogre next to him but the Cleric's still up and healing, and the Fighter is rushing over to help. Nor when the party is fighting a troupe of wizards. He's going to use it when the Cleric is lying in a bloody pool and the Fighter is in the Titan's stomach. It's Daily - it's not something you throw away when four kobold minions knock down your door.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A reroll is equally powerful regardless of character level.




Very true.  One thing we've gotten used to with 3.5 is the idea that spell effectiveness increases level by level, _relative to opponents at the same level_.  At 3rd level, an opponent who fails a Fort save against your spell is blinded; at 13th level, an opponent who fails a Fort save against your spell drops dead.

This seems natural at first, and helps create the sense of progress as you gain levels--you're not just increasing your numbers, you're doing cooler stuff.  Unfortunately, it also inevitably leads to the high-level uber-wizard... because the wizard is getting more and more powerful relative to his opponents at each level.  Ten or twelve levels of that and you can't help but be overpowered.

(It's worth noting that editions before 3E had a solution to this problem.  All saving throws were fixed difficulty--whether you were a 1st-level wizard or a 20th-level one, it didn't get any harder to save against your spells.  High-level monsters had better saving throws, so the increased effect was compensated for by the decreased chance of success.  Unfortunately, this makes the game increasingly "swingy" at high levels and has verisimilitude issues.)

4th Edition has clearly recognized this.  Consequently, I don't think we're going to see much of the old "bigger status effect" approach to magic.  Spells will do more damage, commensurate with monsters' higher hit points, but if a 1st-level spell dazes one monster for one round, you won't see a 20th-level spell that dazes ten monsters for ten rounds.  The sense of progress will largely result from increased tactical options--_fly_ and the like.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 26, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> You're seeing a symptom of why I wouldn't touch 4E with a 10-foot pole.
> 
> The spells in 3E took up, what, half the PHB? And those spells have been refined and playtested over literally 30+ years. *You can pick out lots of specific language that was copy-and-pasted from 1E all the way through to 3E, *with desired refinements.




And that's why _I _won't touch 3e with a Reach 2 pole. 

I'd rather see spells completely redesigned with the new system in mind rather that shoehorned 'as is' into 4e because they kindasorta worked in previous systems.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

Dausuul- Exactly.

My thoughts in short-

I'd use Displacement.  I'd definitely use it.  Why?  Because monsters have nasty per encounter abilities, and Displacement is per encounter.  I'd wait for an enemy to do something really, really nasty, and then I'd toss Displacement on the target of the attack.  If a particularly nasty enemy is hitting about half the time, that means Displacement gives me a 50% chance of negating the best ability of each big monster I meet.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Mar 26, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Mirror Image was incredibly powerful for its spell tier.
> 
> It pretty much needed the nerf.




I agree. What a lot of people seem to be forgetting about Mirror Image and Minor Retcon... er, "Displacement" is that they're Utility spells, and thus siloed differently from normal encounter spells. You never have to pick between Mirror Image and Fireball.

This wasn't the case in 3.5, where all the combat "utility" spells had to be ridiculously overpowered to stand a chance of competing with Fireball and other nuking spells.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 26, 2008)

MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Isn't the 3.X wizard considered the most powerful class?  Isn't the wizard considered so powerful he rendered the fighter and rouge useless?  Wasn't there people who believed that the wizard needed to be nerfed?
> 
> Now that wizards are getting nerfed, people are complaining that it's a bad thing?  Did you perfer the 3.X wizard?




Simply put the Wizard is not the most powerful class.  In 1e & 2e, yes...once you got past low levels.  In 3.5 the Meeleist is the the sure fire way to deal damage.  At high levels the high saves of the monsters negates damage.   The thing about 3.5 Wizards, and the Wizard class in general is the range of powers, that with good forethought can change a battle.  The use of Dimensional Anchor to stop a key advesary from retreating....or casting Mass Fly, etc.

I have severe doubts about the Magic system, I have severe doubts about the utility aspect of magic.  For alot of players I suspect if the magic does not feel right...people will not play.


----------



## Cactot (Mar 26, 2008)

the power gamer in me sheds a tear at the plight of the wizard/druid/cleric, but every other fiber of my being rejoices.  The power level of the 4e wizards will still be extremely competitive, unlike most melee classes that have suffered for the past 8 years under the reign of 3/3.5e.  This might actually allow EVERYBODY to have fun... crazy idea eh?  Being the fountain of "RealUltimatePower" was awesome for a time, but that time has come to an end and its time to share the fun with the rest of the classes.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 26, 2008)

satori01 said:
			
		

> For alot of players I suspect if the magic does not feel right...people will not play.



Example number 1 here, changes to the magic system are the primary reason I want nothing to do with 4e.  The magic just doesn't feel like D&D to me, in any other system I would've accepted it because it's not a BAD system, but to me it's not *D&D* magic


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Dausuul- Exactly.
> 
> My thoughts in short-
> 
> I'd use Displacement.  I'd definitely use it.  Why?  Because monsters have nasty per encounter abilities, and Displacement is per encounter.  I'd wait for an enemy to do something really, really nasty, and then I'd toss Displacement on the target of the attack.  If a particularly nasty enemy is hitting about half the time, that means Displacement gives me a 50% chance of negating the best ability of each big monster I meet.




Another easy use is as a "critical negator." First time a monster criticals a party member, make it reroll. There's a 95% chance of negating it.

Displacement is a really handy power IMO.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 26, 2008)

Also the wizard's shtick was versatility and status effects.  Fighters didn't just keep up they OWNED damage dealing at higher levels.  I've played in campaigns to 25 and DMed to 39.  By the time fighters in our 3e campaigns hit level 20 they could easily make 300 damage a round at the high end they could top 1000 without overspecializing.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Also the wizard's shtick was versatility and status effects.  Fighters didn't just keep up they OWNED damage dealing at higher levels.  I've played in campaigns to 25 and DMed to 39.  By the time fighters in our 3e campaigns hit level 20 they could easily make 300 damage a round at the high end they could top 1000 without overspecializing.




I don't think 1000 hitpoints of damage a round from a fighter is possible, even at 39th level. How would that be done?

I have played in a 40 level game, and if you weren't a caster you were pretty much dead.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I don't think 1000 hitpoints of damage a round from a fighter is possible, even at 39th level. How would that be done?
> 
> I have played in a 40 level game, and if you weren't a caster you were pretty much dead.



I'll direct you to the Wizard's CharOp board where many builds make 1000 damage possible.  It's more accurate to say a caster is necessary to the survival of the party as a whole at high levels.  You can survive just fine so long as the casters provide with buffs that occupy their expendable resources.  Just as the casters are generally dependent upon the non-casters for pure damage dealing while they shine on status effects that have to get through SR and often very high saves.  But the non-casters have a source of damage they can count on and while it may not be showy like a SoD it can be relied on and won't run out.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I'll direct you to the Wizard's CharOp board where many builds make 1000 damage possible.  It's more accurate to say a caster is necessary to the survival of the party as a whole at high levels.  You can survive just fine so long as the casters provide with buffs that occupy their expendable resources.  Just as the casters are generally dependent upon the non-casters for pure damage dealing while they shine on status effects that have to get through SR and often very high saves.  But the non-casters have a source of damage they can count on and while it may not be showy like a SoD it can be relied on and won't run out.




Ah yes. 

I have only ever seen one build from those boards do that much damage and it was a hulking hurler build based off some dubious assumptions about how much damage boulders could do. But I have seen some crazy stuff from there, no doubt.


----------



## drjones (Mar 26, 2008)

Ignoring the fact that we have limited/inaccurate info I really don't know how anyone can talk about the wizard being 'nerfed' when the entire game has changed including every single thing you will ever fight.  That is like saying they really nerfed the pistol in Bioshock because it did less damage than the one in Goldeneye.

Do you _Really_ think they are going to release a game where a xth level Wizard can't kill anything?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Ah yes. ...... But I have seen some crazy stuff from there, no doubt.



I've had more than a dozen builds in my campaigns that hit 1000 per round without caster levels and without the end run of the Hulking Hurler.  It's actually not quite so harsh, I've seen a build that uses two exploits and a Bo9S maneuver to do 4d8^23 damage.  Damage can far exceed 1000 per round if you become a one-trick pony but even keeping some breadth you can break 1000 by lvl40.  

I don't mind those sort of builds, other people can't stand them.  Tastes differ, thing is they put a bullet in the concept only casters can keep up.  Casters just focus on a different kind of boom that being flashier often gets more attention and causes people to ignore how swingy it can be in contrast to the reliable damage of non-casters.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Mar 26, 2008)

No. That would be the druid.

Followed by the cleric.

And the wizard never made the fighter useless in 3.x. Anyone who thinks that has never seen a competently designed fighter or compared him to a wizard who tries to deal damage. In Age of Worms our archer (with no prestige classes--BTW, just Ranger 2/Fighter 12) very reliably deals 90-120 points of damage per round to everything we face--and that's with decidedly suboptimal equipment choices (no boots of speed, for instance). Our wizard--with two or three prestige classes can only come close to that with a maxmized disintegrate... if the monster rolls a 1 on his saving throw. And that's been pretty typical of play at all levels in all the campaigns and in all of the rounds of Living Greyhawk or Living Arcanis I've judged, or played. Melee fighters are a little less reliable than archers but also dish out more single target damage than your typical wizard.

Wizards have a very definite place in the 3.x party, but the only times I've seen them hog the limelight is when they are played by a player who is simply far better at choosing his actions than the other players.

As to the last part, I haven't seen a real 4.0 wizard. Every time I look at the playtest characters, I have to remind myself that very very few of the 3.x delve or fastplay characters that I saw WotC pass out at cons even hinted at what could be done with their classes. And we haven't seen any ritual rules. But, if, as seems likely, the 4th edition wizard does the same xdy+prime stat modifier damage as everyone else as a standard action at [1/2 char level+prime stat bonus+implement/weapon] attack bonus just like everyone else--with maybe a push/pull or immobilization effect (again, like everyone else), then yes, I prefer the 3.x wizard warts and all.



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Isn't the 3.X wizard considered the most powerful class?  Isn't the wizard considered so powerful he rendered the fighter and rouge useless?  Wasn't there people who believed that the wizard needed to be nerfed?
> 
> Now that wizards are getting nerfed, people are complaining that it's a bad thing?  Did you perfer the 3.X wizard?


----------



## Henry (Mar 26, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Do you _Really_ think they are going to release a game where a xth level Wizard can't kill anything?




Who said anything about killing things? I'm talking about not getting killed. 



			
				HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I'll direct you to the Wizard's CharOp board where many builds make 1000 damage possible




While the Character Optimization forums there are useful, I really disagree that they're the standard of play. I've seen 20th level characters of any stripe do an average of 200 damage under most circumstances, and most of the CharOp builds I've seen are the real "statistical outlier" stuff. Heck, a maximized Disintegrate only tops 240. And I'd love to see the Book of Nine Swords thing that allows 4d8^23 damage, because my Crusader could really use that.

_EDIT - having looked at more of the CharOp builds, I'm seeing characters CAPABLE of over 1000 damage, but usually using five or six splatbooks and sometimes rules interpretations to get there, with the average falling in the 200 damage range. I revised upward, remembering spells like meteor swarm and horrid wilting, but most of the characters I've seen actually played by players don't get into the stratosphere. _



> You must have a different monsters file, because most of the level 10-ish creatures I have in the .pdf taken from this website are dealing physical damage.




I'm not talking about the level 10 creatures, I'm talking about anywhere from level 5 to level 20; remember, powers are supposed to be useful at far wider ranges than spells would be now. So, I'm comparing Mirror Image to Resistance, the other level 10 spell in its bracket. Resistance prevents a definitive amount of damage round after round; the mirror image at most will apparently prevent damage from a few lower level creatures, or make a larger creature waste one or at most two blows. It jsut strikes me as waaay too weak for its level; maybe I'm missing it and only actually playing it shows its usefulness.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> While the Character Optimization forums there are useful, I really disagree that they're the standard of play. I've seen 20th level characters of any stripe do an average of 200 damage under most circumstances, and most of the CharOp builds I've seen are the real "statistical outlier" stuff. Heck, a maximized Disintegrate only tops 240. And I'd love to see the Book of Nine Swords thing that allows 4d8^23 damage, because my Crusader could really use that.



They aren't everybody's certainly but they're fairly standard at my table.  I'd say on average I see about 300 at twenty increasing to about 500 by lvl35.  1000/round is the top end of the range before you hit the total cheese builds.  

The Bo9S build is a one-trick pony using the tornado throw and a series of speed loopholes that few DMs will actually allow.  But in the most twinked out version could theoretically throw an enemy into orbit.  Even restricting it to fewer and less contentious options you can throw an enemy 11 miles at lvl 20.  I'll need to root through my saved files and paste it for you.


----------



## Incenjucar (Mar 26, 2008)

On the flavor of Displacement, remember that they like to recycle old names for new things.

4E Displacement, by the way it works, is more like a split-second partial shift that perhaps leaves an after-image behind.  The wizard just may cause the character's image to stay in place for a half-second while they continue their normal movement.

That considered, it also showcases the wizard being -incredibly- quick-thinking.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (Mar 26, 2008)

It seems like they are nerfing most of a wizard's 3e utility powers but making them minor actions so you can use them while still throwing out firecubes with your standard action. Given how bland the wizard attack powers we've seen so far are, I can 't say I'm particularly happy with this change.


----------



## Enkhidu (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> ...Pardon?
> 
> Hobgoblin Warcaster:"You runty kobold minions attack him first"
> 
> ...




How is this much different than in 3e?


Hobgoblin Fighter:"You runty kobold minions attack him first"

Minions "But there are 4 of him! How do we know which one to hit?"

Hobgoblin Fighter "But your wild waving will frighten away his mirror images, so get poking, pansies!"

Minion 1 rolls, hits AC 16, but strikes an AC 10 image instead - one image goes
Minion 2 rolls, hits AC 11, but strikes an AC 10 image instead - another image goes
Minion 3 rolls, hits AC 9, and misses everything 

Hobgoblin Fighter now attacks the AC 19 wizard with 1 image left (and a 50/50 shot to whack him), the rest being stripped away by the baby kobold minions...


Is the new version worse? Yes. Is it worse by leaps and bounds? Not until higher levels, when casters in 3e get a max of 8 images. The AC 10 image (adjusted only for size, not dex or anything else) is an equalizer.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The flavor of displacement bothers me more than anything else.  It isn't that your buddy was actually displaced, its that you made the attack miss in some way that doesn't make sense.  Retroactivity is weird, unless some sort of time magic is involved... which this clearly isn't.




The abstract mechanics only need emulate notable results in a manner that approximately as effective overall _while minimizing overhead_.

For all we know, the PCs perceive Displacement to be running all the time, but they only feel certain it had a decisive effect every once in a while.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Mar 26, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> It seems like they are nerfing most of a wizard's 3e utility powers but making them minor actions so you can use them while still throwing out firecubes with your standard action. Given how bland the wizard attack powers we've seen so far are, I can 't say I'm particularly happy with this change.




It was a balance problem is 1e/2e/3e for a defensive spell to both be plausibly be worth an Action after the initiative is rolled while yet not be overwhelming if a couple were stacked up pre-combat.

I believe the 4e model is the spirit of making two completely independent decision points for the Wizard in combat: (1) Which cool offensive power do I use now?  (2) Which minor utility ability do I use now?

One might choose to look at that as having 2 Actions instead of 1, which is generally more fun,  even if the second of the Actions is weaker than the other.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

The attacker swings.  You perceive that your ally will be struck, and create a displacing image that makes it hard for the enemy to strike.  Tadaa.

Look, if this is going to be a problem, every reroll ability is going to be a problem.  No one seems to think that Elvish Accuracy means you shoot an arrow, miss your target, _rewind time complete with a backwards traveling arrow returning to your quiver and a shpshpshpshp noise_, and try again.  No one thinks a halfling using his luck power pulls an orc's ax out of his own skull, hands it back to the orc, and asks for a do-over.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> No. That would be the druid.
> 
> Followed by the cleric.
> 
> ...




This has been my experience as well.  I generally don't want to say anything since so many people state the wizard is overpowered as fact, and it just seems like arguing the point is a way to just start a fight.  But yeah in my experience the fighter dishes out way more damage than the wizard and is only out shined by the wizard when the wizard is just flat out run better.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> It was a balance problem is 1e/2e/3e for a defensive spell to both be plausibly be worth an Action after the initiative is rolled while yet not be overwhelming if a couple were stacked up pre-combat.
> 
> I believe the 4e model is the spirit of making two completely independent decision points for the Wizard in combat: (1) Which cool offensive power do I use now?  (2) Which minor utility ability do I use now?
> 
> One might choose to look at that as having 2 Actions instead of 1, which is generally more fun,  even if the second of the Actions is weaker than the other.




This is a interesting point but its also something we never saw.  Some buffs were done pre-fight in the sense that they lasted long enough that you'd put them up almost for your adventuring period.  The short powerful buffs/defenses rarely saw use before a fight because spell casting is fairly loud and this just announced your presence, spoiling an ambush, or maybe making it so you got ambushed.  Post teleport in rare circumstances they'd drop a few and teleport in, but since in my campaign world teleport defenses are common, if you could pull this off, chances are it was an easy wind/mook encounter anyways.  

Still if this issue was common enough I guess this system would solve the issue.  Though with durations being tied to being while the fight music is going, can you pre-buff in 4e?  I'm not being snarky, I'm just asking if you cast buff/defense of justice that lasts an encounter pre-fight what happens?  Do we know yet and I missed or forgot it.


----------



## UltimaRatio (Mar 26, 2008)

I must disagree with the view that the wizard was not the most powerful character at high levels of play in 3.5. A single one is capable of handling an entire party by himself, core.

Foresight up so you can never be caught by surprise, thus forcing a normal initiative check. Contingency up for Teleport Without Error to a safe locale in case you lose initiative. Why risk it?
Upon taking your turn, Metamagic Rod'd Maximized Time Stop. In those 5 rounds, cast two Gates for two Celestial Great Wyrm Gold Dragons (with an Ioun Stone making your CL 21), cast Telepathic Bond so you can command them, Quickened Invisibility and Fly, then Teleport Without Error to a safe observation point nearby. Time Stop ends, they have no idea where you went, and they have to deal with two annoyed CR 29 monsters who each cast spells as a 19th level Sorcerer.

This is ignoring the truly ridiculous things one can do with the class, which only gets more insane as you add more splats. And there's usually a whole party backing him up.

EDIT: I see now that a lot of people are focusing on damage as the relevant metric. I don't know - I've never tried to optimize a wizard for damage. That's not its thing. Its thing is handling whatever's thrown at it with minimal risk, through proper planning and resource management. Damage is fun, but in 3.5e dealing damage yourself involved so much risk it was usually superior not to bother.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The attacker swings.  You perceive that your ally will be struck, and create a displacing image that makes it hard for the enemy to strike.  Tadaa.
> 
> Look, if this is going to be a problem, every reroll ability is going to be a problem.  No one seems to think that Elvish Accuracy means you shoot an arrow, miss your target, _rewind time complete with a backwards traveling arrow returning to your quiver and a shpshpshpshp noise_, and try again.  No one thinks a halfling using his luck power pulls an orc's ax out of his own skull, hands it back to the orc, and asks for a do-over.




Eh they totally have a different feel to me.  In both the other cases its just saying you can have two shots at things either hitting or getting missed.  Self done inherent re-rolls don't have the feel that the event occurred and you are fixing it, just that the even turned out better than initially expected. When it is a spell you are actively casting it and then the effect occurs, which happens before the hit occurs, even though you decided to cast it afterwards.  Thematically they totally have a different feel to me. 

 I would not mind displacement if it was a per encounter power that lasted an encounter or until used which ever came first, and during the encounter you had minor precognitive abilities about blows that would take place to you and your allies.  Then the use after the fact actually pays off because you saw the blow before it actually hit and activated the displacement effect.  

Its not too hard to visualize you just seeing your friend or self in trouble and casting an instant spell in the nick of time.  It just seems off fro the description.  I'd probably require a perception check to notice the blow in advance so you could get the spell off in time though since this spells seems kind of weak I don't think it needs another nerf.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 26, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> You're seeing a symptom of why I wouldn't touch 4E with a 10-foot pole.
> 
> The spells in 3E took up, what, half the PHB? And those spells have been refined and playtested over literally 30+ years. You can pick out lots of specific language that was copy-and-pasted from 1E all the way through to 3E, with desired refinements.




I'm sorry, but just because some are 30+ years old doesn't mean they are anywhere near fine. Mirror Image has been overpowered since 2nd edition, at the very -least-. Broken sacred cows need to be made into sacred hamburger more than any other.  As an example, I personally breathed a sigh of tremendous relief at what was done to Stoneskin after 2E.



			
				Ahglock said:
			
		

> This has been my experience as well. I generally don't want to say anything since so many people state the wizard is overpowered as fact, and it just seems like arguing the point is a way to just start a fight. But yeah in my experience the fighter dishes out way more damage than the wizard and is only out shined by the wizard when the wizard is just flat out run better.




Caster overpoweredness has comparatively little to do with the maximum damage output. Blasting is not how the job gets done at higher levels. Thinking in terms of pure HP reduction output is a very limited and frankly flawed perspective.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 26, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> This is a interesting point but its also something we never saw.  Some buffs were done pre-fight in the sense that they lasted long enough that you'd put them up almost for your adventuring period.  The short powerful buffs/defenses rarely saw use before a fight because spell casting is fairly loud and this just announced your presence, spoiling an ambush, or maybe making it so you got ambushed.  Post teleport in rare circumstances they'd drop a few and teleport in, but since in my campaign world teleport defenses are common, if you could pull this off, chances are it was an easy wind/mook encounter anyways.
> 
> Still if this issue was common enough I guess this system would solve the issue.  Though with durations being tied to being while the fight music is going, can you pre-buff in 4e?  I'm not being snarky, I'm just asking if you cast buff/defense of justice that lasts an encounter pre-fight what happens?  Do we know yet and I missed or forgot it.



Notice how they all say "untill the end of the encounter or five minutes"? yeah, that.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

UltimaRatio said:
			
		

> I must disagree with the view that the wizard was not the most powerful character at high levels of play in 3.5. A single one is capable of handling an entire party by himself, core.
> 
> Foresight up so you can never be caught by surprise, thus forcing a normal initiative check. Contingency up for Teleport Without Error to a safe locale in case you lose initiative. Why risk it?
> Upon taking your turn, Metamagic Rod'd Maximized Time Stop. In those 5 rounds, cast two Gates for two Celestial Great Wyrm Gold Dragons (with an Ioun Stone making your CL 21), cast Telepathic Bond so you can command them, Quickened Invisibility and Fly, then Teleport Without Error to a safe observation point nearby. Time Stop ends, they have no idea where you went, and they have to deal with two annoyed CR 29 monsters who each cast spells as a 19th level Sorcerer.
> ...




Yes 9th level spells are totally broken, luckily I don't start my game at level 17.  So I see levels 1-10 where the wizard is actually sub-par, level s 11-14ish where he is average, 14-16 where is above average and 17+ where he is ridiculous.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Notice how they all say "untill the end of the encounter or five minutes"? yeah, that.




Don't know why, but I've been reading that as which ever is shorter not whichever ever is longer.  Now that you point it out though, um duh.


----------



## hong (Mar 26, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Eh they totally have a different feel to me.  In both the other cases its just saying you can have two shots at things either hitting or getting missed.  Self done inherent re-rolls don't have the feel that the event occurred and you are fixing it, just that the even turned out better than initially expected. When it is a spell you are actively casting it and then the effect occurs, which happens before the hit occurs, even though you decided to cast it afterwards.  Thematically they totally have a different feel to me.




Probability is probability. Trust me, I'm a statistician.


----------



## UltimaRatio (Mar 26, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Yes 9th level spells are totally broken, luckily I don't start my game at level 17.  So I see levels 1-10 where the wizard is actually sub-par, level s 11-14ish where he is average, 14-16 where is above average and 17+ where he is ridiculous.




Well, I was responding to allegations that either meleeists, druids, or clerics dominate high-level play. Such allegations are patently false. Clerics are probably a fairly close number two, but Wizards still win because they have the largest number of "get out of jail free" cards to play.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Caster overpoweredness has comparatively little to do with the maximum damage output. Blasting is not how the job gets done at higher levels. Thinking in terms of pure HP reduction output is a very limited and frankly flawed perspective.




Well since that is hardly the entire list of my criteria and merely an example whoopedy.  As I said the wizard was not overpowered in my games.  He was balanced.  I'm sorry if your games did not work out that way, but that doesn't make caster overpowerdness a fact, just a game style you played with.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 26, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> I think he perhaps meant the versatility of the wizards utility spells.  From what I've seen the 4E wizard seems like a potent version of the 3.5 Warmage, a definite nerf compared to the 3.x Wizard.  Without seeing rituals it may be unfair to make this assessment.



No. Your assessment is spot on. This was a willful and deliberate design choice. Casters will NOT have a swiss army kit of spells that lets them do everything better than melee classes.


----------



## Ahglock (Mar 26, 2008)

UltimaRatio said:
			
		

> Well, I was responding to allegations that either meleeists, druids, or clerics dominate high-level play. Such allegations are patently false. Clerics are probably a fairly close number two, but Wizards still win because they have the largest number of "get out of jail free" cards to play.




I guess it depends on what you consider high level play. I think 10+ is high level and for much of that I don't find the wizard overpowered, at the very end of high level play 17-20 I do.  I can't say anything about 20+ because I don't play it in 3e and never have had a desire to. So these level 40 comparisons I'll just stay out of if that is what is considered "high level.." 

   I've seen plenty of hypothetical wizards with cool tricks that seem to make them overpowered, but it never seems to work out that way in game play for us.


----------



## Iron Sky (Mar 26, 2008)

In my 3-3.5 games, we've only ever had a Wizard live long enough to reach 4-5th level spells once(my current game), but even seeing him at level 10, he's the win button, even allowing only 3 core + PHB II in my games.

Ambush on 12 lvl 5 NPCs(Fighters + 2 Clerics + Sorcerer) = 3/4 dead in the first round, last few with <10 hp.  12 headed cryo-hydra = phantasmal killer insta-death.  Enemy wizard = 1 int and cha on 2nd round.  The power-gamed 10th level archer can get 75 damage(not counting crits) a round on a single target while the wizard can get 60 damage on each of 20 or do one of his insta-kill/insta-nerf spells.

My game is dangerous enough that the players are glad to have his firepower, but from time to time he so dominates the battle that everyone else kinda gets this "well, I guess I'll attack or something" attitude after watching him insta-kill the boss or vaporize 15 flunkies at once...

This is the same player whose druid + druid cohort + animal companions(known as the "Feral Four") kinda ended our last game, but it just shows me how scary a 3.5 wizard can be in competant hands.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 26, 2008)

Ahglock said:
			
		

> Well since that is hardly the entire list of my criteria and merely an example whoopedy.  As I said the wizard was not overpowered in my games.  He was balanced.  I'm sorry if your games did not work out that way, but that doesn't make caster overpowerdness a fact, just a game style you played with.




I'm pretty sure said overpoweredness is the majority opinion, given even the developers openly admitted to/agreed with it in Races & Classes. If not the majority, its certainly suppoted by people with a very thorough understanding of system mechanics.

He was likely 'balanced' in your games by being played in a suboptimal manner. 

I've never seen a Fighter one round a BBEG. I have seen a Wizard do it.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Mar 26, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> On the flavor of Displacement, remember that they like to recycle old names for new things.
> 
> 4E Displacement, by the way it works, is more like a split-second partial shift that perhaps leaves an after-image behind.  The wizard just may cause the character's image to stay in place for a half-second while they continue their normal movement.
> 
> That considered, it also showcases the wizard being -incredibly- quick-thinking.




Grrr...you just sold me on Displacement or at least gave me enough to sell myself.

We're all assuming that Displacement is the classic illusion we all know and love, what if it isn't?  What if it really does shift the target just slightly in reaction to the attack?  This could still easily be described as "Displacement" but doesn't have the rewriting reality issue.

On the whole I think people are jumping to some big conclusions about power levels.  Given that Displacement is free in the action economy I have no real issue with this power.

Mirror Image still needs a big rewrite IMO just for some of the unintended consequences.


----------



## neceros (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Effect: three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. _Each time an attack misses you_, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2.
> 
> Pardon?
> 
> ...



The spell gives you AC to simulate the fact that your enemies will be hitting your clones. Thus, if they attack and miss, due to the increased AC, they are instead hitting an image. IF they hit, then they actually found the real one.

Backwards, I know, but it works mechanically.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (Mar 26, 2008)

Except if they swing and hit dirt they destroy one of your clones...or if they Sleep you and fail they were distracted by the clones with their area attack?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 26, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Mirror Image was incredibly powerful for its spell tier.
> 
> It pretty much needed the nerf.




Yes, but keep in mind that mirror image used to be attainable at level 3, and you could have other spells at that level as well. Now it is a level 10 spell, and you (presumably) only get to chose 1. You also only get to use it once per day. Before, with daily spell slots, wands, scrolls, etc, you could cast it far more often. From what I've seen, I'm guessing that a 30th level character will have around 20 total powers. Each and every spell you chose is now a precious comodity. Nobody should ever have to look at a daily power and think "gee that's not really that great." I don't care what class they are or how they were compared to other classes in 3rd edition. Daily powers for every class should be things that make you think "wow!"



			
				MichaelSomething said:
			
		

> Isn't the 3.X wizard considered the most powerful class?  Isn't the wizard considered so powerful he rendered the fighter and rouge useless?  Wasn't there people who believed that the wizard needed to be nerfed?
> 
> Now that wizards are getting nerfed, people are complaining that it's a bad thing?  Did you perfer the 3.X wizard?




Oh I agree that casters (not just Wizards) needed to be toned down a bit, but I think they may be going a bit too far. The pendulum can swing too far the other way.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 26, 2008)

DevoutlyApathetic said:
			
		

> Except if they swing and hit dirt they destroy one of your clones...or if they Sleep you and fail they were distracted by the clones with their area attack?



Yes, that's why they need to change it to "+6 to defenses against ranged and melee attacks" like displacement, and then specifically state that only missing on these attacks dispels an image, as opposed to +6 to AC, and wording that by RAW supports your arguments.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (Mar 26, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> No. Your assessment is spot on. This was a willful and deliberate design choice. Casters will NOT have a swiss army kit of spells that lets them do everything better than melee classes.




Except this is the knife wizards are getting in 4e:


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> The spell gives you AC to simulate the fact that your enemies will be hitting your clones. Thus, if they attack and miss, due to the increased AC, they are instead hitting an image. IF they hit, then they actually found the real one.
> 
> Backwards, I know, but it works mechanically.




You are missing the point. Every attack that rolls a 1 misses wildly and destroys an image. How does that make sense?

It would make sense if (and only if) an image was destroyed on either a hit or a miss by the amount of current protection you are recieving or SOMETHING like that.

Destroying an image by an attack that rolls a 1? Doesn't work logically, doesn't work mechanically.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

Those people who are happy with Displacement as is (at 16th level it is about the equivalent of  a top spell for an 11th level 3e wizard - so a 6th level spell).

Are you happy that someone might have hit you, you cast the spell and on the re-roll they crit you?

Are you happy that your top defensive spell might actually make you get hurt worse?

Just doesn't make sense to me.

As KarinsDad says at the top of this thread - come June there is likely to be a whole load of "what the heck?!?" posts about powers coming.... 

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Those people who are happy with Displacement as is (at 16th level it is about the equivalent of  a top spell for an 11th level 3e wizard - so a 6th level spell).
> 
> Are you happy that someone might have hit you, you cast the spell and on the re-roll they crit you?
> 
> Are you happy that your top defensive spell might actually make you get hurt worse?



Do you ask if I would be happy if it happens, or do you ask if I am happy that it could happen?
Well, definitely a no for the former (but it would be so funny  ), and I'm fine with the second. 
Learn from it: Only use the power when it counts! Magic is risky (at least 5% risky)!


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Do you ask if I would be happy if it happens, or do you ask if I am happy that it could happen?
> Well, definitely a no for the former (but it would be so funny  ), and I'm fine with the second.
> Learn from it: Only use the power when it counts! Magic is risky (at least 5% risky)!




Why should magic be more risky than anything else?


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 26, 2008)

Because it's magic.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Those people who are happy with Displacement as is (at 16th level it is about the equivalent of  a top spell for an 11th level 3e wizard - so a 6th level spell).
> 
> Are you happy that someone might have hit you, you cast the spell and on the re-roll they crit you?
> 
> Are you happy that your top defensive spell might actually make you get hurt worse?




Fine by me. The spell did what it was meant to do: force a reroll.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 26, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> Why should magic be more risky than anything else?



Why not? Adventuring is a risky business. 

Off course, the risk of this 5 % off-chance that something worse happens is probably the maximum I'd go.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 26, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Because it's magic.



So all magic in D&D is risky now?  I haven't seen evidence of that.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 26, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Oh I agree that casters (not just Wizards) needed to be toned down a bit, but I think they may be going a bit too far. The pendulum can swing too far the other way.




I agree with you. However, I do want to point out that it is easier buffing a wizard class after release, than nerfing it, at least spell-wise. So while I don't hope, I rather have them go a bit too far, than not far enough.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 26, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So all magic in D&D is risky now?  I haven't seen evidence of that.




No, but in my opinion, it _should_ be.

Obviously, D&D has never really had risky magic. But when asked "Why should magic be riskier?" the answer is "because it's magic".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Fine by me. The spell did what it was meant to do: force a reroll.




Although you are not answering the implied question of whether that is a reasonable thing for a 16th level power to do.

OK, I suppose by implication you think that is a reasonable thing for a 16th level power.

For me, I'll wait until I can see the whole nine yards, but it certainly seems a pretty feeble spell. 

(Then again, considering the "greater invisibility" on that page is significantly weaker than the traditional 2nd level invisibility spell, perhaps it says something about the whole range of utility spells that we can expect to see)

Cheers


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why not? Adventuring is a risky business.
> 
> Off course, the risk of this 5 % off-chance that something worse happens is probably the maximum I'd go.






			
				Simon Marks said:
			
		

> No, but in my opinion, it _should_ be.
> 
> Obviously, D&D has never really had risky magic. But when asked "Why should magic be riskier?" the answer is "because it's magic".




From a mechanical point of view, if all power sources are of equivalent power (as they seem to be pushing for in 4th edition), and if magic is the only thing that can backfire, then magic would be less desirable than the other sources of power that won't literally blow up in your face when you use them.


----------



## jtrowell (Mar 26, 2008)

Doesn't displacement force the attacker to keep the *lower* roll ?

And about mirror image, I expect that it was an error, and that you lose an image only if it is a miss *because of the power* (so if it miss by more than 6 you don't lose an image).

About the targeting effect, I would like the "bonus defence versus attacks on AC or Ref" to be changed into "bonus defence against targeted attacks (melee or ranged, but not burst or blast)", and maybe it has since, as it was only a preview exemple from a beta version, not the final one.


----------



## Voss (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The attacker swings.  You perceive that your ally will be struck, and create a displacing image that makes it hard for the enemy to strike.  Tadaa.
> 
> Look, if this is going to be a problem, every reroll ability is going to be a problem.  No one seems to think that Elvish Accuracy means you shoot an arrow, miss your target, _rewind time complete with a backwards traveling arrow returning to your quiver and a shpshpshpshp noise_, and try again.  No one thinks a halfling using his luck power pulls an orc's ax out of his own skull, hands it back to the orc, and asks for a do-over.




This is true.  But neither of those powers involve someone else *taking an actual action*.  The actual wizard character is actually doing something, right *after* the attack, using up his one immediate action for the round.  The elf and halfling abilities are in a real way, part of the attack, they're happening with player knowledge, sure, but unlike the displacement spell, there is nothing that says the character is aware or actively doing something- he's just unusually focused for that attack.  

The halfling and elf powers work within the narrative. Displacement actively restructures the game world- and is a very meta-game spell.  Its either rolling back time, or its always on (effecting everyone!), but irrelevant except for once an encounter, or its cast in negative time in order to save a party memeber.  None of these make me happy, particularly with the descriptive text, because the target *wasn't* 'appearing to be standing slightly to the left or right of his actual position, making it harder for enemies to hit him'. until after the spell is used.  It actually looks like the original version lasted for the whole encounter (which would have made sense with the description), and when the spell got changed to this version, no one bothered to changed the descriptive text.

Interestingly, if the name was changed and the flavor was something like 'With a gesture, you teleport an ally out of the way of an attack', it wouldn't bother me so much.  It would at least be consistent with the effect.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 26, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> From a mechanical point of view, if all power sources are of equivalent power (as they seem to be pushing for in 4th edition), and if magic is the only thing that can backfire, then magic would be less desirable than the other sources of power that won't literally blow up in your face when you use them.




All power sources, as seen, appear to have differing risk/reward qualities associated with them.
Martial Daily attacks are 'Reliable', Arcane looks riskier, divine appears to be in the middle.

Displacement, for example, as an encounter power could be riskier than using (say) "Roll with the blow" martial exploit (made up here and now) but have a much better effect with a 5% chance of a worse one.

I'm not saying that this is the way it is going, but I'd like it to be. To me it's a better way of showing that Martial is more reliable than magic but less flashy than the Vancian system.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

Gargazon said:
			
		

> As Wizards have already said that some text on that page was incorrect or has been changed, I wouldn't assume all those abilities will be in the same form when the PHB comes out in June.




This might be true, but there is a more fundamental issue here.

It's a problem that these spells got written the way PS listed them in the first place.

It's one thing to playtest and find out that "Opps, this power is too weak or too strong and we have to adjust it.".

It's another thing to write down lame (or inadequately written) higher level powers in the first place that NOBODY caught as lame right away. Not a single designer said "Opps" when it was first written.

Sorry, but a re-roll is a low level power when compared to some of the abilities that we have seen so far.

The only time that this power is significantly useful is if the PC got criticaled. Then, 95-% of the time, less damage would occur (the same damage could occur if the critical is re-rolled or if the damage dice on a normal hit maxed out).

Sure, we do not know all of the rules yet. Sure, the entire game might have been nerfed so that Wizards cannot do squat in combat except Magic Missile "the Darkness" every round.

But if the game is not nerfed to that extent, then it really does not bode well that a designer wrote these two spells down the way they are written at all. Even if they are fixed now, it means that whomever wrote these spells down did not know game balance and total rules requirements from a hole in the ground and shouldn't be designing this stuff in the first place. It means that with the entire model re-design of 4E spells, we might be seeing a lot of issues here. That's not a good thing for the consumers, for WotC, or for the DND franchise.

Even if some generic rule corrects some of this stuff (which is not likely), WotC should not be releasing this type of "poorly written spells" to the general public anyway.

One or more WotC employees made the decision to allow this half baked looking stuff out to the public. That's not good. It doesn't really matter if it's fixed in the final version (and it might not be), the version that we got to see gives the impression of an inferior product.


----------



## Jack99 (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sorry, but a re-roll is a low level power when compared to some of the abilities that we have seen so far.
> 
> The only time that this power is significantly useful is if the PC got criticaled. Then, 95-% of the time, less damage would occur (the same damage could occur if the critical is re-rolled or if the damage dice on a normal hit maxed out).




I do agree that re-rolling is a relatively weak power. But, with only one attack per character, one re-rolled attack is like a whole round of re-rolled attacks in 3.5. Even more so, if it a daily power that you force a re-roll on.


----------



## Delta (Mar 26, 2008)

jtrowell said:
			
		

> And about mirror image, I expect that it was an error, and that you lose an image only if it is a miss *because of the power* (so if it miss by more than 6 you don't lose an image).




I would strongly bet otherwise. That's the kind of side-effect math operation that it looks like they're trying to specifically clean out of the new rules (in their supposed attempt to simplify things). 

In fact, that looks a lot like the classic "missile shot into melee, what happens on a miss" rule that the designers have expostulated on at great length about what a bad complex idea it is.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

jtrowell said:
			
		

> Doesn't displacement force the attacker to keep the *lower* roll ?




Not according the text on that page!


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 26, 2008)

The spells, for the most part, look fine to me.  I like the fact that with mirror image, there's no wrangling about whether if an attack missed, it missed narrowly enough to hit an image, or which exact image did it hit or anything.  The spell is simplified, and that's they way I like it.  There's no math about figuring out the mirror image's AC, and no figuring out, every time you hit, the odds of how likely it is that you'll hit either the wizard or one of his 6 images.  Plus, as people have mentioned, mirror image was sort of ridiculously powerful, basically at any level.  Anything which drives the miss chance above the miss chance for full concealment or invisibility is silly, in my book.  This things reasonable and simple.  There's no extra rolling, which is great.  Plus, think of it this way.  If an enemy needs to roll a 13 to hit the wizard before the wizards casts mirror image, then the wizard has just made himself 1/4 as likely to get hit.  Voila.

That said, I would personally like it better if only misses which targeted AC destroyed an image.

I like the Displacement spell too.  I like that it's an encounter power that works on anyone.  It makes the wizard helpful to the rest of the party, or at least whoever's getting hit really bad.  Gameplay-wise, I think that it will usually work out that the wizard only uses the power whenever the results of a reroll couldn't possibly be any worse, like when the target is getting critically hit, or it's a life-or-death situation.

Like most of you, I'm surprised at how high-level all the spells are, but this is something that I'd like to evaluate in some context, not just what level the spells "always were".


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

A reroll isn't a weak power.  Ever.

Rerolls scale with level because the things they negate scale with level.

Maybe this is a "you think its weak, I think its powerful, maybe that means its balanced" type situation.  Because I would definitely take Displacement.  

Flip through the monster's we've seen so far.  You can only judge the power level of a reroll in the context of what is being rerolled.  Consider the Bodak Reaver's Per Encounter Death Gaze.  Its a ranged attack, so you can force it to reroll.  So, in a fight against a Bodak Reaver, Displacment is equal in power to the ability to reroll a save vs an auto-reduction to zero hit points.

And best of all, the Bodak Reaver only has the ability to do that once per encounter, and you only have to use Displacement if your ally fails the initial saving throw.

There are certain effects which automatically scale as your enemies scale, and are therefore worthwhile regardless of level.  These are generally powers which grant or deny actions.  And that's essentially what a reroll does.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A reroll isn't a weak power.  Ever.
> 
> Rerolls scale with level because the things they negate scale with level.
> 
> ...




I would take Displacement too. I think Displacement is good for all the reasons that Cadfan outlines.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I agree that the Mirror Image thing is kind of lame if the monster would have missed anyway. I would probably houserule it so that the images are only dispelled if the monster otherwise would have hit but missed only due to the bonus provided by the images. Although this might make the spell a bit more powerful than intended.




But then you need some sort of stacking order for defense.  For example, if my AC is 20 (Base 10, +4 Dex, +6 Mirror Image).  If the attack roll is a 12, did I miss because of the +4 to Dex or the +6 from Mirror Image?  Which do you apply first?  Why?  What you propose works fine, as long as there is a rule for which order you stack bonuses to Defense.

What happens if you have a power where you can make an Opportunity Attack against a target who misses you because of Dex?  Then you would run into a situation where, why did they miss you, because of Dex bonus or because of MI?


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But if the game is not nerfed to that extent, then it really does not bode well that a designer wrote these two spells down the way they are written at all. Even if they are fixed now, it means that whomever wrote these spells down did not know game balance and total rules requirements from a hole in the ground and shouldn't be designing this stuff in the first place. It means that with the entire model re-design of 4E spells, we might be seeing a lot of issues here. That's not a good thing for the consumers, for WotC, or for the DND franchise.




As stated earlier, re-rolls scale with level.  It's not like direct-damage spells.  A re-roll at level 30 is _just as powerful_ as a re-roll at level 1.

You seem to be stuck in the 3.5E mindset that all effects must scale up as you advance; if a 1st-level spell dazes one monster for one round, then a 15th-level spell must daze several monsters for several rounds.  But that's a recipe for broken wizards; because it means that the wizard is getting more and more powerful _relative to monsters of the same level_.

Re-rolls are level-independent.  They have just as much impact on a 30th-level monster as on a 1st-level one.  Therefore, the level assigned to a re-roll power is essentially arbitrary; this particular power could be granted at 1st level or 15th or 30th, and it would be balanced regardless, because it is equally useful at all of those levels.

If you ask me, this spell represents the 4E designers realizing some vitally important things about game balance, and applying them.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Maybe this is a "you think its weak, I think its powerful, maybe that means its balanced" type situation




I've never held with the idea that balance can be inferred by two strongly opposing opinions about a subject. I think that something is typically balanced if the consensus is that it is balanced (or at least the majority). If there are two different views it just means that it is controversial, not that it is balanced!



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This might be true, but there is a more fundamental issue here.
> 
> It's a problem that these spells got written the way PS listed them in the first place.




I agree. The principle that they've taken for creating these powers should theoretically allow them to be models of simplicity and clarity - but just on this page alone I don't think they seem to be.

I would have expected issues like this to have been considered when the text was still in the galley stage, well before it made it to print layout!

The displacement spell mechanics raises another question in my mind (which might have been addressed in other general text somewhere we haven't seen yet). How do various reroll abilities interact? The elf shoots at a halfling. He uses Elven accuracy to re-roll the attack. The Halfling wants to use his second chance... does he do that after the Elf has determined the actual results of his roll, or can the Elf use his elven accuracy *after* the halfling has used his second chance to force a reroll of the initial attack?

What if the elven ranger wants to "Split the Tree" and so rolls twice and takes the best one, but even that isn't so good and he wants to use elven accuracy - does he reroll one of those two attack rolls or both of them, or compare his re-roll to his final result? 

If the elven ranger wants to use Split the Tree to shoot two enemies, a halfling and a kobold. He wants to use his elven accuracy and the halfling wants to use his Second Chance and his wizard friend wants to use displacement on the halfling. What combination of rolls are going to be used then?

I wonder how the rules will handle these kind of combinations which exist just amongst the handful of rules we know?

(I wish they'd let me be a playtester )

Cheers


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 26, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> But then you need some sort of stacking order for defense.  For example, if my AC is 20 (Base 10, +4 Dex, +6 Mirror Image).  If the attack roll is a 12, did I miss because of the +4 to Dex or the +6 from Mirror Image?  Which do you apply first?  Why?  What you propose works fine, as long as there is a rule for which order you stack bonuses to Defense.
> 
> What happens if you have a power where you can make an Opportunity Attack against a target who misses you because of Dex?  Then you would run into a situation where, why did they miss you, because of Dex bonus or because of MI?




You make good points. For simplicity I would say that you consider what AC would be with Mirror Image (AC 20) and without (AC 14). If the monster would have hit AC 14, but not AC 20 then the Mirror Image took the attack. If the monster hits AC 21+ then the attack hits anyway (i.e. hits the wizard instead of an image).

If the attack would not have hit AC 14, then the attack would have missed anyway. I'll likely run the game by the book for the first 6 months anyway. If the spell works fine in play then I won't houserule it. I don't like houseruling things until I try them first to make sure I understand the impact of my changes. After all, trying 1-1-1 movement is what convinced me that it was actually a change for the better.


----------



## Voss (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> A reroll isn't a weak power.  Ever.
> 
> Rerolls scale with level because the things they negate scale with level.




But... you can get a reroll at level 1 or level 16.  If they're equally awesome, something is seriously wrong.  Especially since the 1st level power is apparently better.


@ Dausuul-  actually, 4e seems to scale more than 3e did.  3e spells usually didn't scale.  Level 1 spells were largely irrelevant at higher level, and save DCs quickly become level inappropriate.  4e doesn't do that- most things look like they scale now, and attacks (replacing save DCs) definitely do.  Sleep, for example, is effective across multiple levels.

But if you're claiming that they're level independent, they can really all be assigned to level 1.  What will really matter is the opportunity cost of the power- what you have to give up to get the reroll.  In this particular case its pretty low, what with the gutted versions of fly and invisibility, but some levels might have powers you don't want to give up.


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 26, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> You make good points. For simplicity I would say that you consider what AC would be with Mirror Image (AC 20) and without (AC 14). If the monster would have hit AC 14, but not AC 20 then the Mirror Image took the attack. If the monster hits AC 21+ then the attack hits anyway.



Right, but we're talking about a level 10 spell.  By level 10, the Wizard is going to have an AC closer to 20-22 or higher.  Maybe 10 AC base, +5 from levels, +4-5 from Int, +2-3 from enchanted cloth armor.  Plus other stuff that we don't even know about.  Does each mirror image have all that stuff?  They didn't in 3rd edition.  They were just AC 10 + size + Dex bonuses.  I'm guessing there's not a single monster that can miss that at level 10.  So let's skip calculating the the mirror image's feeble AC, and say that any attack destroys one, unless it hits you.

I like the simplicity.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But... you can get a reroll at level 1 or level 16.  If they're equally awesome, something is seriously wrong.  Especially since the 1st level power is apparently better.




One thing 4e might be going for is the fact that racial abilities are just very cool and special. The fact that the half ling can force a reroll of an attack is a very powerful thing, and it may take a lot of magical mojo to replicate it.

In general, while we have little context for other spells, when I think about how cool rerolling a save in dnd is I have to think displacement is stronger than people give it credit for. I can reroll a dominate, or a petrify, or a fireball, or a big crit, once EVERY battle!!

However, I do agree with plane sailing that is the reroll can turn a regular shot into a crit that's a bit of a break in the system.


----------



## Khaim (Mar 26, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> You're seeing a symptom of why I wouldn't touch 4E with a 10-foot pole.
> 
> The spells in 3E took up, what, half the PHB? And those spells have been refined and playtested over literally 30+ years. You can pick out lots of specific language that was copy-and-pasted from 1E all the way through to 3E, with desired refinements.
> 
> Now here's 4E that's burned the entire system right to the ground (half the PHB by my count) and starting over from scratch. They're trying to rewrite ever single spell in a totally different power system. It's simply mandatory that it's going to have loads of balance and writing issues, without the benefit of 30 years of playtesting behind them. And it's a heck of a lot more content to fill in at once than, say, OD&D started out



I think you're both right and wrong here. Yes, they're rewriting everything. But your assumption is that the 1e>2e>3e progression was refining the game to a better, more perfect system. And in my experience, that's false. Yes, it was making the game _better_- but it was also making it painfully obvious how broken the underlying assumptions are. Namely, that wizards can do everything.

Look at _Wish_. Mostly unchanged from the first iteration. No problem so far. Now tell me what a fighter, rogue, or any other non-full caster can do that even remotely touches that kind of power. Heck, a simple _Forcecage_ will kill anything that doesn't have access to teleportation or disintegration magic. With no save.

D&D desperately needed a rewrite, so the game would be something more than "watch the wizard blow stuff up". From what I hear, they're doing exactly the right thing.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 26, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Yeah, these spells really suck, especially compared to their 3e counterparts. It looks like that Wizards will not only have far fewer spells, but the spells they have will be far weaker. I fear that in their crusade to "balance" the wizard class, they have gone too far and nerfed it into oblivion.




I'm fearing this as well.  4e is balanced for combat, so that a Wizard 10 and Fighter 10 are equivalent when duking it out. Compared to the past 30 years of D&D, that's going to have a wonky effect on magic.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @ Dausuul-  actually, 4e seems to scale more than 3e did.  3e spells usually didn't scale.  Level 1 spells were largely irrelevant at higher level, and save DCs quickly become level inappropriate.  4e doesn't do that- most things look like they scale now, and attacks (replacing save DCs) definitely do.  Sleep, for example, is effective across multiple levels.




But the point is that in 3.X, if you compare a high-level spell to a low-level spell, the high-level spell has a greater effect against high-level monsters than the low-level spell has against low-level monsters.  To reiterate the point I made earlier, compare _blindness_ (a 2nd-level spell) to _finger of death_ (a 7th-level spell).  Both are single-target spells that grant a Fortitude save, but _blindness_ only blinds the target where _finger of death_ kills it outright, as well as doing damage even if the save is made.

What this means is that if we assume these two spells to be representative of their levels, and that a high-level monster is about as likely to save versus _finger of death_ as a low-level monster versus _blindness_, a 3rd-level wizard who successfully uses her best (where "best" means "highest-level") spell against a monster still has to finish the monster off, and has to worry that the monster might be able to remove the effect somehow.  A 13th-level wizard who successfully uses her best spell against a monster takes that monster out completely--and even if she fails, she does a bit of damage.  Ergo, the wizard's position on the "weaksauce to uber" scale has shifted; the 13th-level wizard is more powerful _for her level_ than the 3rd-level wizard is for hers.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> But if you're claiming that they're level independent, they can really all be assigned to level 1.




True, but then we get a glut of level 1 powers.  Ideally, of course, the level-independent powers should be grouped by what they do; so, for instance, forced re-rolls might be considered a "mid-Paragon" effect, even though they could just as easily be early Heroic or late Epic.  That would create the feeling of "Hey, I get cool new stuff!" even though what you're getting is not necessarily better than what you had.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> What will really matter is the opportunity cost of the power- what you have to give up to get the reroll.  In this particular case its pretty low, what with the gutted versions of fly and invisibility, but some levels might have powers you don't want to give up.




This is certainly true.  But until we see a power of comparable level that is demonstrably way better, I don't think it's reasonable to claim that _displacement_ isn't balanced.


----------



## Khaim (Mar 26, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I'm fearing this as well.  4e is balanced for combat, so that a Wizard 10 and Fighter 10 are equivalent when duking it out. Compared to the past 30 years of D&D, that's going to have a wonky effect on magic.



Rituals.

Which, by the way, we know _nothing_ about.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 26, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> Compared to the past 30 years of D&D, that's going to have a wonky effect on magic.



I don't care about its effect on _magic_. I care about its effect on _play. _


----------



## Baumi (Mar 26, 2008)

I think both spells are quite useful ... 

The Displacement Spell was already discussed and I concur that a forced reroll is ALWAYS great.

I think the Mirror Image also work quite well as written even though it help only a against a few attacks. A Wizard should never be in the position to be attacked in the first place so he should be far less often attacked as long as the group plays well together.


----------



## Khaim (Mar 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> You seem to be stuck in the 3.5E mindset that all effects must scale up as you advance; if a 1st-level spell dazes one monster for one round, then a 15th-level spell must daze several monsters for several rounds.  But that's a recipe for broken wizards; because it means that the wizard is getting more and more powerful _relative to monsters of the same level_.



I think we're still going to see some of this in 4e. Not so much "daze several monsters for several rounds", but better status effects, better targeting, etc. If they keep the rate of progression to a more reasonable level, it's not so bad. Then dazing several monsters for several rounds (i.e. save ends, in 4e-talk) is more like a mid to high epic spell, and probably a daily at that.

Of course, the balancing factor is that the monsters' abilities are getting more powerful in similar ways. Look at the Bodak: it drops you to 0 hp. I bet you won't see that kind of effect at 1st level, or anywhere in the heroic tier for that matter. And what I've heard about epic play ("once per day, when you die, ...") only confirms this.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> The displacement spell mechanics raises another question in my mind (which might have been addressed in other general text somewhere we haven't seen yet). How do various reroll abilities interact? The elf shoots at a halfling. He uses Elven accuracy to re-roll the attack. The Halfling wants to use his second chance... does he do that after the Elf has determined the actual results of his roll, or can the Elf use his elven accuracy *after* the halfling has used his second chance to force a reroll of the initial attack?




I fail to see the issue here.  The Halfling Power explicitly says that you apply it after an attack *has hit*.  So you have a couple of possibilities.

(1) Ranger attacks doesn't like result, uses accuracy.  Hits Halfling.  Halfling uses luck, which makes the Ranger re-roll his attack.  Both attacks used.

(2) Ranger attacks and hit.  Halfling uses luck.  Ranger re-rolls, doesn't like his attack, uses accuracy and takes the best result.

Neither are confusing.  I suppose you may think that the Ranger in #1 is entitled to a re-roll of his second attack, but he isn't as long as you take each roll as a clear and distinct event, which is clearly the case.  

I do hope that 4e does spell this out, just to be sure.  However, you shouldn't be attacking the confusion caused by this interaction before actually reading the book, don't you think?  If they have a "rerolls in combat" section, your attack will look sorta silly once the book comes out.



> What if the elven ranger wants to "Split the Tree" and so rolls twice and takes the best one, but even that isn't so good and he wants to use elven accuracy - does he reroll one of those two attack rolls or both of them, or compare his re-roll to his final result?




Each roll is distinct.  Splitting the Tree says he uses the best of two rolls.  Elven accuracy says he gets to reroll the result of a roll.  Thus, no, you don't reroll both dice.



> If the elven ranger wants to use Split the Tree to shoot two enemies, a halfling and a kobold. He wants to use his elven accuracy and the halfling wants to use his Second Chance and his wizard friend wants to use displacement on the halfling. What combination of rolls are going to be used then?




This is my take on it, and I don't find it particularly confusing.  Just go roll by roll and don't back up.

(1) Elf shoots using split the tree.  Rolls twice.  He may use elven accuracy at this point.  He applies the results to both targets.

(2) The halfling may use luck,  the result as already been applied to the kobold and is a seperate "event", so only the halfling's roll is rerolled.  (I may be wrong about this one- thus the reason for some clarification in the rules, which I hope and expect to be there).  The elf may use accuracy after the reroll to improve it.

(3) The attack is determined as being a hit or a miss on the two targets.  The wizard then uses displacement, which forces the elf to reroll the attack on the halfling.  Again, the elf may use accuracy after the reroll.

A minor bit of confusion, and only on whether the halfling's power applies to the kobold as well.  I think the way the halfling's power is worded indicates that it applies only to the halfling, but yes, some coverage of these interactions would be expected.

As for whether this is an appropriate 16th level power, I don't know- it depends on the number of encounter powers you have by 16th level.  Force Orb is moderately more powerful than magic missile, but not so much more powerful as to make it invaluable.  The two options we're talking about are (1) having displacement memorized and using magic missile, which does approximately the same amount of damage as force orb but to only one target, or (2) having force orb available and not using displacement.  Since you can use both magic missile and displacement in the same round, I'd give the edge to displacement, but you can make arguments either way.  Being able to pop someone out of the way of a sleep spell or away from the critical hit once an encounter is pretty powerful, especially if you're able to see the DM's rolls.


----------



## OgreBane99 (Mar 26, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> By the time fighters in our 3e campaigns hit level 20 they could easily make 300 damage a round at the high end they could top 1000 without overspecializing.




Ughhh.  Halfling outrider.  *shudders*


----------



## Lacyon (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But... you can get a reroll at level 1 or level 16.  If they're equally awesome, something is seriously wrong.  Especially since the 1st level power is apparently better.




You can have a reroll at level 1, if you're playing a halfling. At level 16, you can give anyone a reroll within 5 squares no matter what race you are, and if the target is playing a halfing it's a second reroll for him this encounter.

I'm not sure what about the first level power is supposed to make it better.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But... you can get a reroll at level 1 or level 16.  If they're equally awesome, something is seriously wrong.  Especially since the 1st level power is apparently better.



The Halfling's ability isn't really better, as far as I can tell. It can't help a comrade, and that can be very important. Both have their uses.

There is another thing to consider: These powers "stack" e.g. you can have both.

Think about it. Weapon Focus (1st level feat) grants a +1 bonus. By your logic, a 10th level Weapon Focus feat should grant a higher bonus, shouldn't it? But that's only true if the bonuses don't stack. If they do, the 10th level Weapon Focus is good at +1. (at least it is not worse or better then the Weapon Focus at 1st level. We might think neither feat is that great, but, if the first one sucks, so does the second.  )

So, maybe you can get a Heroic Tier reroll ability. And you can get a Paragon Tier reroll ability. And you can get a Epic Tier reroll ability. If the per encounter powers can be all used (and are not replacing each other), this means you have one ability of these at your disposal each round, reducing your enemies chance to do serious harm to you by 50 %. 



> @ Dausuul-  actually, 4e seems to scale more than 3e did.  3e spells usually didn't scale.  Level 1 spells were largely irrelevant at higher level, and save DCs quickly become level inappropriate.  4e doesn't do that- most things look like they scale now, and attacks (replacing save DCs) definitely do.  Sleep, for example, is effective across multiple levels.
> 
> But if you're claiming that they're level independent, they can really all be assigned to level 1.  What will really matter is the opportunity cost of the power- what you have to give up to get the reroll.  In this particular case its pretty low, what with the gutted versions of fly and invisibility, but some levels might have powers you don't want to give up.



There are a few spells that scale relatively good with level: 
- Buff spells. +4 to Strength is +4 to Strength is +4 to Strength
- Magic Missile - low damage, for sure, but if you need to conserve resources (which you're supposed to do in 3E, after all), it's very good.
- Scorching Ray can even beat Fireball in damage against individual opponents.
- Glitterdust stays useful, regardless whether you fight a Phantom Fungus or a 16th level Illusionist.
- Divine Favor: Bread & Butter spell for Clerics.
- Barkskin, Mage Armor, Shield: Useful over all levels (Mage Armor might be the weakest, since Bracers of Armor aren't that expensive at high (15+) levels.)
- Haste.
There are more spells like this.

The exceptions really are those spells that require saving throws and are directed at enemies. And there are enough that do different things and are still very useful.


----------



## JosephK (Mar 26, 2008)

I think that while displacement might look at bit shabby at first glance, it'll probably be really good in practice. Immediate action that forces a reroll.. Forcing a reroll was an exceptionally rare ability in 3e for a reason (off the top of my head I can only think of the fatespinner and some of the stuff in Bo9S is reminiscent). It'll be even more potent in 4e, when basically everything has an attack roll. Even if you have to keep the 'worse' result, I still think it'll be very good. 

Basically once per encounter you have a chance to really save someones bacon, big time (or your own), that's a pretty solid ability to have imo, especially EVERY encounter and as a immediate action.. I would predict way more DM frustration with the new displacement than with the old  If I learned anything from playing a high-level Bo9S character, it is that the counters are -very- good in practice, they can really make a difference in those critical combat situations, especially because you chose when to burn them. Imo 3e displacement was probably too good a spell.. Especially at that level.

I agree that mirror image looks a bit on the weak side to me, mainly because it's a daily.. I think it would be more suitable as an encounter power.


----------



## Imban (Mar 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> - Buff spells. +4 to Strength is +4 to Strength is +4 to Strength




This one is actually pretty weird, and I would suggest doesn't scale at all, actually. +4 to Strength is a carrying capacity modifier, which you may or may not care about, a +2 to hit which scales perfectly with level, and a +2 or +3 to damage, which is useful at all levels but does not scale with level. The problem is that, assuming you're talking about Bull's Strength, it's an enhancement bonus and so can't stack with the belts of strength everyone wears. Whoops.

On the topic, Mirror Image sucks and I'd need to rewrite it before I'd feel comfortable playing with it. The designers may think patent nonsense is better than the tiny bit of extra math, for instance, required to implement the "if it hits your image" solution, but I definitely feel otherwise. Fly is still awesome assuming flight still lets you rain down death on your foes, which I will because the alternative is one of those "WotC are monkeys" things. Greater Invisibility is kinda questionable - if that's Greater, what the heck is normal invisibility?

Displacement, on the other hand, is actually pretty quality mechanically, though the flavor provided for it is a bit questionable, for reasons detailed extensively on this thread already. If anything, I'd just swap out the flavor, which is the easiest of things.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 26, 2008)

Khaim said:
			
		

> I think we're still going to see some of this in 4e. Not so much "daze several monsters for several rounds", but better status effects, better targeting, etc. If they keep the rate of progression to a more reasonable level, it's not so bad. Then dazing several monsters for several rounds (i.e. save ends, in 4e-talk) is more like a mid to high epic spell, and probably a daily at that.




My guess is that you won't necessarily see a lot better spells. However, as wizards gain access to more encounter spells, they will be able to build up combos.

For example:

Withering Field
Encounter
Burst 3 within 20
Benefit: All creatures within the mist suffer a -5 to saving throws. The mist ends at the end of your next turn.
Sustain Minor.

Combine this with the sleep spell and you suddenly have a much stronger version of sleep, without actually adjusting the spell itself.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

> Displacement, on the other hand, is actually pretty quality mechanically, though the flavor provided for it is a bit questionable, for reasons detailed extensively on this thread already. If anything, I'd just swap out the flavor, which is the easiest of things.



It _would_ be kind of cooler if, instead of creating an image that confuses your opponent (while leaving your ally in the same spot), it warped your ally a few inches over and left an image behind.


> This one is actually pretty weird, and I would suggest doesn't scale at all, actually. +4 to Strength is a carrying capacity modifier, which you may or may not care about, a +2 to hit which scales perfectly with level, and a +2 or +3 to damage, which is useful at all levels but does not scale with level.



You're correct that the bonus to hit scales just fine.  The bonus to damage does scale due to multiple attacks.  Whether it scales _well_ depends on your opinion about whether multiple attacks makes melee damage scale well.


> Greater Invisibility is kinda questionable - if that's Greater, what the heck is normal invisibility?



I'm not sure I understand the Greater Invisibility entry.  Does sustaining the ability with a minor action mean that attacking no longer causes it to end?  Because if that's the case, we now have our rules for how we get invisible stabby rogues.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

Baumi said:
			
		

> The Displacement Spell was already discussed and I concur that a forced reroll is ALWAYS great.




What, even when the attack was a 19, you force a reroll and it gets a 20 and crits you? ALWAYS better even in that case 

There is nothing in the spell that says take the lowest of the two rolls. 

(Indeed, after just checking I notice that the Halfling ability doesn't either... it says take the second roll even if lower, doesn't put any limit on if it is higher. In fact I remember when I did a 4e 'playtest' there was much laughter when a kobold skirmisher threw a javelin at the halfling paladin and hit him, so the paladin said "second chance!" and the kobold re-rolled it getting a critical )

Cheers


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 26, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I don't care about its effect on _magic_. I care about its effect on _play. _




Well, in D&D, magic is an integral part of play; they go hand in hand.  What i meant is that the feel of magic in D&D is going to be vastly different in 4e than past iterations of the game.  If the game is still rocking fun, i think we'll get used to the changes. Assuming they fix that messed up Displacement and Mirror Image


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> I think that while displacement might look at bit shabby at first glance, it'll probably be really good in practice. Immediate action that forces a reroll.. Forcing a reroll was an exceptionally rare ability in 3e for a reason (off the top of my head I can only think of the fatespinner and some of the stuff in Bo9S is reminiscent). It'll be even more potent in 4e, when basically everything has an attack roll. Even if you have to keep the 'worse' result, I still think it'll be very good.
> 
> Basically once per encounter you have a chance to really save someones bacon, big time (or your own), that's a pretty solid ability to have imo, especially EVERY encounter and as a immediate action..




Except that as written, it doesn't do that.

As written (based on what we know so far):

1) It can make a result worse. Instead of rolling 19, an opponent can roll 20. If there is a "take the better of the two rolls if an ally forces this, take the worse of the two rolls if an enemy forces this" type of general rule, then this is not an issue. But, we do not know that yet.

2) People are drastically over stating how powerful a single re-roll within an entire combat is. Sure, it might stop one daily or per encounter ability. It might not. It might not do anything. Possibly (as opposed to definitely) changing a single die roll in an encounter out of the 10 to 30 enemy attack rolls (5 to 15 hits at a 50% hit chance) within a single encounter is not really that powerful. Also, the caster has to decide when to use it. If he chooses poorly or uses it too early in an encounter, that particular spell didn't help much at all.

This is probably not very good in practice. There are probably many per encounter powers at lower levels that are a lot more capable of affecting the outcome of an encounter than this.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 26, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> I do hope that 4e does spell this out, just to be sure. However, you shouldn't be attacking the confusion caused by this interaction before actually reading the book, don't you think? If they have a "rerolls in combat" section, your attack will look sorta silly once the book comes out.




My comments are hardly an attack, and I don't think they will look silly at all. 

I'm merely commenting that as it stands there is a lot of potential for interaction of re-rolls which is likely to complicate matters. Even in your attempted explanation you admit confusion! The issue is that the "exception based information" doesn't seem to contain enough information about how it interacts with other similar powers or effects.

I, like you, hope that there is adequate explanation in the book. My examples are purely to point out how complicated a situation may be that they have to adjudicate.

They may go for the simple route and say "No more than one reroll on attacks. Defensive rerolls happen after final attack number is resolved and there can be no more than one reroll forced by defence". Who knows though?

I freely admit that I'm picking on corner cases which are not likely to come up in regular gaming, but that is the point of testing...

Cheers


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It might not do anything. Possibly (as opposed to definitely) changing a single die roll in an encounter out of the 10 to 30 enemy attack rolls (5 to 15 hits at a 50% hit chance) within a single encounter is not really that powerful. Also, the caster has to decide when to use it. If he chooses poorly or uses it too early in an encounter, that particular spell didn't help much at all.




True words, but lets look at the other side of the coin. As an immediate action, I never have to waste time in combat to cast it. Further, I might even be able to put it up when I get ambushed (considering I killed my party's pregen wizard on a surprise round, I consider that useful). Further, a single attack in 4e often does more than just damage. It seems to put on a host of conditions that could be very bad for the wizard.

I definitely think its weaker than its 3.5 counterpart, but lets not call it dead in the water yet.


----------



## Lacyon (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is probably not very good in practice. There are probably many per encounter powers at lower levels that are a lot more capable of affecting the outcome of an encounter than this.




There are almost certainly many encounter powers at lower levels that take a standard action to activate that are a lot more capable of affecting the outcome of an encounter than this.

There probably aren't that many other immediate reactions that are better, though. Just a hunch.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Except that as written, it doesn't do that.
> 
> As written (based on what we know so far):
> 
> 1) It can make a result worse. Instead of rolling 19, an opponent can roll 20.




This is an outlier, however; there's only a 5% chance that this happens.  I don't think this has a big enough impact to worry about.  Under all other circumstances--or if the roll was a 20 to begin with--the result is the same or better.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is probably not very good in practice. There are probably many per encounter powers at lower levels that are a lot more capable of affecting the outcome of an encounter than this.




...Probably?  What is this "probably?"  Do you have any basis for this statement?


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Mar 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> I think that while displacement might look at bit shabby at first glance, it'll probably be really good in practice. Immediate action that forces a reroll.. Forcing a reroll was an exceptionally rare ability in 3e for a reason (off the top of my head I can only think of the fatespinner and some of the stuff in Bo9S is reminiscent).




Luck domain, Swashbuckler class ability, a good chunk of the Complete Scoundrel feats (and PrC's) that allowed for a half dozen rerolls on virtually any type of roll, and possibly others I might have missed.  In 3.5 at least, rerolling wasn't considered all that powerful.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> This is an outlier, however; there's only a 5% chance that this happens.  I don't think this has a big enough impact to worry about.  Under all other circumstances--or if the roll was a 20 to begin with--the result is the same or better.




However, that's a 5% chance to have a much more powerful effect on you, an effect the wizard did NOT want on him in the first place, else he wouldn't have used his reroll.

For example, let's say the wizard is facing an npc fighter. The fighter uses brutal strike (3d10+5 damage, more of course at 16th level but lets just work with what we've got) and hits. The wizard decides that's way too close to death for him, so he forces a reroll. The fighter rolls a 20 and does 35 damage...which knocks the wizard way into negatives, possibly kills him.

I do agree with Karinsdad and Plane Sailing on this point, a reroll that allows a crit seems wrong.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 26, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Luck domain, Swashbuckler class ability, a good chunk of the Complete Scoundrel feats (and PrC's) that allowed for a half dozen rerolls on virtually any type of roll, and possibly others I might have missed.  In 3.5 at least, rerolling wasn't considered all that powerful.



Rerolls aren't all that powerful or at least not so much as some are making them out to be.  On the other hand they're the one mechanical device absolutely ban, and I allow CharOp boards PC builds.  If there's anything White Wolf taught me it's that reroll mechanics must die, they eat up game time causing disjunction and delay as actions are retconned and the changes trickle down the board causing everybody else to take longer adjusting their own turns to fit the new chain of events.  And this is without the Gordian knot of multiple re-roll powers used on both attacking and defending side of the turn.  Once the attacker can re-roll, then the defender can respond by forcing another re-roll it just gets far out of hand.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> This is an outlier, however; there's only a 5% chance that this happens.  I don't think this has a big enough impact to worry about.  Under all other circumstances--or if the roll was a 20 to begin with--the result is the same or better.




True. But, the fact that a worse result can occur does not make for a well designed defensive power.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> ...Probably?  What is this "probably?"  Do you have any basis for this statement?




I used the word probably because we do not yet have all of the rules.

However, one example based on what we do have:

Paladin's Shielding Smite. Per Encounter power.

1) This power does actual extra damage if it hits (nearly double).

2) This power gives a +3 AC bonus to an ally, even if the attack misses. +3 AC is similar in potency to re-roll (e.g. 50% chance to hit on a re-roll versus 35% chance to hit in the first place, the odds favor Displacement here somewhat). But, the +3 is for all attacks until the end of the Paladin's next turn, not just one attack. So, the odds could easily favor Shielding Smite more, situation depending.

This is a 1st level Per Encounter Power as compared to a 16th level one. They are not directly comparable (Displacement might help against attacks that do not target AC), but Shielding Smite does do more. It's not just a single re-roll. It's possible that Shielding Smite will bloody or kill an opponent and help save an ally from multiple attacks all at the same time. Displacement at best stops one attack. At worse, it makes the attack more deadly.

And, Shielding Smite can be used for the first 15 levels of encounters whereas Displacement cannot. All in all, Shielding Smite is vastly more capable of affecting the outcome of encounters than Displacement is. And, this is just one example.


----------



## keterys (Mar 26, 2008)

And shielding smite isn't an immediate interrupt.


----------



## Voss (Mar 26, 2008)

I think a better, but similar defensive power would be this (which is admittedly a little rough, but this is off the top of my head):

_Stay the Hand_
encounter
Int vs Will
immediate action when an opponent attacks you or an ally.
(and whatever else I'm forgetting off the top of my head)
You mess with the mind of a foe, disrupting his attack.

Hit: the attack is negated.  Powers are still considered to be used.
Miss: attacker takes a -[INT mod] to his attack roll


The miss may be too good and push it into daily territory.  Needs a clause for bursts, so it only protects one target.  But it isn't an outright negate (there is a chance you can fail), but at the same time, you never make it worse for yourself or your buddy.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> However, one example based on what we do have:
> 
> Paladin's Shielding Smite. Per Encounter power.
> 
> ...




But Displacement can be used in response to a specific attack.  With Shielding Smite, the ball is in the enemy's court; he can hold off on using his own per-encounter powers until the Smite effect has worn off, or he can pick a different target.  With Displacement, you can wait until the enemy busts out his big once-per-encounter move, then counter it.  Or you can negate a crit (which Shielding Smite can _never_ do).

The advantage to being able to pick your target like this is huge.

Furthermore, Displacement does not cost a standard action.  If you want to compare these two, you need to include a 16th-level at-will attack power on the Displacement side.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 1) This power does actual extra damage if it hits (nearly double).
> 
> 2) This power gives a +3 AC bonus to an ally, even if the attack misses. +3 AC is similar in potency to re-roll (e.g. 50% chance to hit on a re-roll versus 35% chance to hit in the first place, the odds favor Displacement here somewhat). But, the +3 is for all attacks until the end of the Paladin's next turn, not just one attack. So, the odds could easily favor Shielding Smite more, situation depending.
> 
> ...




Your comparison with shielding smite leaves out a few crucial differences.

* Displacement is an immediate action, which means the wizard can throw something beefy in the same round- say scorching burst or magic missile.  Thus, the fact that displacement doesn't have a damage component is somewhat immaterial- the wizard can complement it with a damaging attack.  

* Displacement will always activate, while Shielding smite does nothing if the paladin misses the attack.

* Displacement will work for any attack, while Shielding Smite only covers attacks against Armor Class.

* Displacement will definitely be used at a beneficial time.  Shielding Smite will go unused if the subject of the protection is not attacked.  This is useful to deter attacks, probably, but if more than one target of value exists, the smite will be compromised in usefulness.

* The paladin must actually make an attack for shielding smite to work at all, which brings up problems of opportunity, where the paladin cannot make an attack and thus cannot provide the protective aura- if he is slowed or immobilized, for example.

Overall, I judge displacement to be a better power.  Just how much better is a different matter- I simply have no idea, since I've played with neither.  I will say that displacement does seem to be overleveled, but by how much remains to be seen.


----------



## JosephK (Mar 26, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Luck domain, Swashbuckler class ability, a good chunk of the Complete Scoundrel feats (and PrC's) that allowed for a half dozen rerolls on virtually any type of roll, and possibly others I might have missed.  In 3.5 at least, rerolling wasn't considered all that powerful.





Well, I'm not talking about rerolls in general, I'm talking about forcing your opponent to make a reroll.. It's a vastly different thing in practice, especially if you can do it after you know the result. Both the luck domain granted power and the swashbuckler power, only affect the stuff they themselves do.. Which is not even close to being as handy as forcing someone else to reroll.  I havent seen complete scoundrel, but if you say they added alot of forced rerolls in there, I'll take your word for it. Point still stands though, in 3e (and 3.5) forcing rerolls have been exceptionally rare (fatespinner only gets it once per day), and for a good reason, I think. Imo it -is- a very good ability (though not game-breaking or anything, just plain good). 

I still think that it's one of those abilities that doesnt look that good on paper (unlike a high AC build or whatever), but really can be a game-winner in practice... Mainly, as i said previously, because it's the player that controls when it kicks in. This also means it can be vasted of course. Like if the one attacking is almost sure to hit, or if it's used on a willy-nilly attack, but saving it for when someone is critting your friend (or yourself) or for when the BBEG unleashes his 'dastardly deadly attack of dooooooom'(tm), it can (possibly) make a real difference. I also think that people are forgetting that almost everything is based on attack rolls in 4e, that alone makes it more useful that the reroll abilities we know from 3e.


----------



## Imban (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand the Greater Invisibility entry.  Does sustaining the ability with a minor action mean that attacking no longer causes it to end?  Because if that's the case, we now have our rules for how we get invisible stabby rogues.




As I read it, it lasts until the first of:
1) The target attacks.
2) The caster stops sustaining the power.

Which, er... I'm trying to figure out what the heck *not*-Greater Invisibility, given that 4e Greater is in essentially all ways worse than previous editions' normal Invisibility, and a Daily power to boot.

That leaves what for normal Invisibility, again? 1 round max? Sustain standard? Making you "kind of blurry, I guess"?


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Your comparison with shielding smite leaves out a few crucial differences.
> 
> * Displacement is an immediate action, which means the wizard can throw something beefy in the same round- say scorching burst or magic missile.  Thus, the fact that displacement doesn't have a damage component is somewhat immaterial- the wizard can complement it with a damaging attack.




Like I said, they are not directly comparable. However, Shield Smite gives a defense without using up an immediate action, hence, allowing the Paladin to still use an immediate action in that round.

Shielding Smite is like using up an attack action plus gaining defensive benefits without using up an Immediate action to gain the defensive benefits.



			
				Puggins said:
			
		

> * Displacement will always activate, while Shielding smite does nothing if the paladin misses the attack.




Not necessarily true. The Effect portion of Shielding Smite is not in the Hit section, hence, it implies that the AC bonus always occurs.

Also, Displacement activating is not a guarantee of success. It might help, it might not, it might makes things worse. The AC bonus does not ever make things worse.



			
				Puggins said:
			
		

> * Displacement will work for any attack, while Shielding Smite only covers attacks against Armor Class.




Yes, I did mention that. Advantage Displacement.



			
				Puggins said:
			
		

> * Displacement will definitely be used at a beneficial time.  Shielding Smite will go unused if the subject of the protection is not attacked.  This is useful to deter attacks, probably, but if more than one target of value exists, the smite will be compromised in usefulness.




Again, not necessarily true. For a 16th level Wizard with 50 hit points, using Displacement to stop 5 points of damage might NOT be a beneficial use. Or, stopping 5 points of damage on the Fighter might not affect the combat at all. The power states that Displacement can be used after the attack roll hits, not after the effects are specified.

Plus, Shielding Smite has the advantage that it can be used as a deterent. "Protect the Wizard Paladin!".

Just like Displacement is attempted to be used at beneficial times, so would the AC bonus of Shielding Smite.



			
				Puggins said:
			
		

> * The paladin must actually make an attack for shielding smite to work at all, which brings up problems of opportunity, where the paladin cannot make an attack and thus cannot provide the protective aura- if he is slowed or immobilized, for example.




Not necessarily always true based on what we know so far. Can immediate actions be done, even if someone is immobilized?



			
				Puggins said:
			
		

> Overall, I judge displacement to be a better power.  Just how much better is a different matter- I simply have no idea, since I've played with neither.  I will say that displacement does seem to be overleveled, but by how much remains to be seen.




Well yes, you skewed the information in Displacement's favor a bit before making that assessment.

We are making a bit of an apples and oranges comparison here, but the apple appears to have as many advantages as the orange. Not that the orange does not have different advantages, but not enough or powerful enough to be clearly better and significantly so. And definitely not 16th level better.

As far as we can tell, Shielding Smite grants a defensive benefit more often than Displacement. The difference between standard action and immediate action is mostly offset by the additional offensive capability of Shielding Smite. From an overall probability POV, Shielding Smite will be used more often and be effective more often.

And, that is just one example. Even if the general consensus is that Displacement is more useful than Shielding Smite, it does not mean that there are not other Per Encounter lower level powers that are as or more useful than Displacement.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

You can't directly compare Shielding Smite with Displacement.  The most simple reason is that they are different action types that happen to be compatible within the same turn.

What makes it awesome that Shielding Smite doesn't use up your immediate action?  Well, the fact that you can now save your immediate action so that you can use effects like Displacement.

What makes it awesome that Displacement is an immediate action?  The fact that you can save your regular actions so that you can use stuff like Shielding Smite.

That means that what you SHOULD compare is what you can get in a single round while expending a single per encounter ability.

If you use Shielding Smite, thats your per encounter ability.  You probably don't have any at will immediate actions, I'm guessing, so that's pretty much all you get to compare, barring unusual circumstances.

If you use Displacement, that's a per encounter ability that costs an immediate action.  You also get to use a regular At Will ability.

How do these measure up?  Well, Shielding Smite deals damage, and gives +3 AC.  Displacement + At Will Ability X gives you the benefit of the at will ability (probably damage) and a reroll.

Odds are the damage of Shielding Smite will beat your typical at will attack power.  But, a reroll is vastly superior to +3 ac.*

So I'm calling it a wash.  There are some further complexities related to how you can or cannot combine the different abilities with other daily, per encounter, at will, and item generated abilities, but overall I'm going to call it a wash.**

*Why vastly superior?  Because the mathematical point where +3 AC is of about the same or better defensive value as a rerolled attack is if the target is presently being struck on approximately a 4+ or below, and that's WITHOUT the fact that you can choose whether to use displacement after you know whether your ally was hit, whether he got a critical, and what ability your foe chose to use for his attack.  The value of Shielding Smite comes from its damage, not the AC boost.

**I agree that Displacement could have been made available at a lower level.  Given that it is an auto scaling ability with a power level that automatically scales to match your foes, it technically could be made available at level 1.  I'm just not much bothered by this.  With a sufficiently robust scaling system, almost every power could be made available at level 1.  But for better or worse that's not the system D&D uses.


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Mar 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not talking about rerolls in general, I'm talking about forcing your opponent to make a reroll.. It's a vastly different thing in practice, especially if you can do it after you know the result. Both the luck domain granted power and the swashbuckler power, only affect the stuff they themselves do.. Which is not even close to being as handy as forcing someone else to reroll.  I havent seen complete scoundrel, but if you say they added alot of forced rerolls in there, I'll take your word for it. Point still stands though, in 3e (and 3.5) forcing rerolls have been exceptionally rare (fatespinner only gets it once per day), and for a good reason, I think. Imo it -is- a very good ability (though not game-breaking or anything, just plain good).
> 
> I still think that it's one of those abilities that doesnt look that good on paper (unlike a high AC build or whatever), but really can be a game-winner in practice... Mainly, as i said previously, because it's the player that controls when it kicks in. This also means it can be vasted of course. Like if the one attacking is almost sure to hit, or if it's used on a willy-nilly attack, but saving it for when someone is critting your friend (or yourself) or for when the BBEG unleashes his 'dastardly deadly attack of dooooooom'(tm), it can (possibly) make a real difference. I also think that people are forgetting that almost everything is based on attack rolls in 4e, that alone makes it more useful that the reroll abilities we know from 3e.




I agree with you that forcing rerolls is better than rerolling your own rolls.  C.Sc does allow exactly that, several times a day (and fairly early on in level).  The 4E Displacement power is obtained at 16th level, fully half-way through a PC's career.  It stands to reason that it should be more powerful than something obtained several levels earlier.  Just comparing the Paladin's different smites we see this incremental increase in power.  The Displacement power seems like it could easily be worked as a first-level power; it's wholly unimpressive.

Good point about the multiple defenses.  It means that rerolls can be made on spells and whatnot (though given the nerfed nature of spells it remains to be seen whether this is all that great)


----------



## Khaim (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Like I said, they are not directly comparable. However, Shield Smite gives a defense without using up an immediate action, hence, allowing the Paladin to still use an immediate action in that round.



To do _what_, exactly? I don't think the pregen had any use for immediate actions. And even if he does, I think a standard action is much, much more valuable than an immediate action.


----------



## Khaim (Mar 26, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> It stands to reason that it should be more powerful than something obtained several levels earlier.  Just comparing the Paladin's different smites we see this incremental increase in power.  The Displacement power seems like it could easily be worked as a first-level power; it's wholly unimpressive.



My impression of the power curve is that it starts higher than in 3e, but has a much lower slope. In other words, gaining a level will always make you better, but not by a whole lot.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Just like Displacement is attempted to be used at beneficial times, so would the AC bonus of Shielding Smite.




This seems disingenuous.  Obviously everybody wants to use their defensive abilities at beneficial times, but how is the paladin supposed to know when a "big gun power" is about to be unleashed, let alone whom it's going to be unleashed at?  All he can do is smite, throw his defensive boost on whoever looks like eating a lot of attacks next round, and hope for the best.  The wizard can wait until he actually sees an incoming Horrific Spell of Doom--not only that, he can even wait until he knows the spell is going to hit--and only then expend his Displacement power.

Yeah, the HSoD might only do 5 points of damage, but much more likely it's going to do something a whole lot nastier.

This is a HUGE advantage to Displacement.  Mobile defense trumps fixed defense by a mile, and that's what we're comparing here.  Shielding Smite is very easy to bypass; pick a different target or wait 1 round.  Displacement cannot be bypassed, ever.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> As far as we can tell, Shielding Smite grants a defensive benefit more often than Displacement. The difference between standard action and immediate action is mostly offset by the additional offensive capability of Shielding Smite.




Somehow I think a 16th-level wizard attack power will do rather more damage than Shielding Smite.  With Shielding Smite, the defensive power is inextricably tied to the offensive.  Displacement can accompany any attack power at any level.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And, that is just one example. Even if the general consensus is that Displacement is more useful than Shielding Smite, it does not mean that there are not other Per Encounter lower level powers that are as or more useful than Displacement.




It doesn't mean there are such powers, either.  Can you produce one?


----------



## Puggins (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Like I said, they are not directly comparable. However, Shield Smite gives a defense without using up an immediate action, hence, allowing the Paladin to still use an immediate action in that round.
> 
> Shielding Smite is like using up an attack action plus gaining defensive benefits without using up an Immediate action to gain the defensive benefits.



You're making the odd assumption that having an immediate action available is more important than having a standard action available.  While I'm sure there a plenty of cases where this is true, you should acknowledge that having the freedom to take whatever standard action is most helpful (maneuver, attack, use a skill) is a far more common situation.  Displacement gives you this flexibility.



> Not necessarily true. The Effect portion of Shielding Smite is not in the Hit section, hence, it implies that the AC bonus always occurs.



True enough.  In fact, after reviewing, I'm willing to say that this implies that it is indeed independent of the hit.  I'll remove this point.



> Also, Displacement activating is not a guarantee of success. It might help, it might not, it might makes things worse. The AC bonus does not ever make things worse.



Well, the AC bonus is not a a guarntee of success, either.  An extremely good die roll will bypass the bonus altogether, just as a good second roll bypasses displacement.

Let me add something else which I chose to leave out due to mathematical rigor- in a situation where the number needed to hit is somewhere between 5 and 20, displacement is far more effective.

2+ needed to hit:
shielding smite takes chance of hit from 95% to 80%
Displacement takes chance of hit from 95% to 90%

5+ needed to hit: 
shielding smite takes chance of hit from 80% to 65%
Displacement takes chance of hit from 80% to 64%

10+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite takes chance of hit from 55% to 40%
Displacement takes the chance of hit from 55% to 30%

15+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite takes chance of hit from 30% to 15%
Displacement takes the chance of hit from 30% to 9%

19+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite takes chance of hit from 10% to 5%
Displacement takes chance of hit from 10% to 1%

Only in the most lopsided case does shielding smite benefit you more, and at that point the increase in your protection is really not significant- the number of times you are hit out of 100 goes down by 16%.  In the case of a 10+ attack, the numebr of times you are hit every 100 attacks goes down by 45%, versus Shielding Smite's 27%.



> Again, not necessarily true. For a 16th level Wizard with 50 hit points, using Displacement to stop 5 points of damage might NOT be a beneficial use. Or, stopping 5 points of damage on the Fighter might not affect the combat at all. The power states that Displacement can be used after the attack roll hits, not after the effects are specified.



But altering an attack that is a critical would probably be extremely useful- something that displacement is almost designed to do.  Displacement seems to be best used to avert disastrous effects.  In a 30+ round combat with a dragon, trying to avert a single claw attack seems to be a suboptimal use of displacement, and is an option that won't be used often.



> Plus, Shielding Smite has the advantage that it can be used as a deterent. "Protect the Wizard Paladin!".



Yeah, I agree, the deterrent is nice, but hinges on  #1 the wizard being close enough to be a target and #2 actually being the target.  if, instead, the dragon has to choose between the paladin and the fighter for his attacks, shielding smite becomes far less useful.  I'll say the deterrent more than offsets this, but not by much.



> Not necessarily always true based on what we know so far. Can immediate actions be done, even if someone is immobilized?



Via the summary sheet, immobilization prevents you from moving, not from acting.  I imagine that there will be plenty of times where the paladin just won't be able to maneuver into position for a shielding smite.



> Well yes, you skewed the information in Displacement's favor a bit before making that assessment.



You skewed the benefits of shielding smite at least as much.  I didn't include the much-better performance in the scaling region and the ability to almost always negate critical hits.



> We are making a bit of an apples and oranges comparison here, but the apple appears to have as many advantages as the orange. Not that the orange does not have different advantages, but not enough or powerful enough to be clearly better and significantly so. And definitely not 16th level better.



The issue I have here is the "definitely" that you're attaching to your judgment.  Seeing as how no one has played with displacement and very few have played with shielding smite, it's hard to stick that label there.  There are lots of abilities and effects that are drastically misjudged in advance- 3e haste actually made it past playtests.  Tarmogoyf was judged one of the worst cards in Future Sight (sorry, I can't help it- I'm a Magic Player).  The Soviet Union was going to be a pushover for the Wehrmacht.  Let's see it in practice.  I'm with you on level 16 PROBABLY being too high, but actual play will be the final judge.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> *Why vastly superior?  Because the mathematical point where +3 AC is of about the same or better defensive value as a rerolled attack is if the target is presently being struck on approximately a 4+ or below, and that's WITHOUT the fact that you can choose whether to use displacement after you know whether your ally was hit, whether he got a critical, and what ability your foe chose to use for his attack.  The value of Shielding Smite comes from its damage, not the AC boost.




Except for the fact that the +3 AC boost can be against 2 or 5 or more attack rolls by various opponents. With a game system where certain PCs roles try to hold the line and take all of the attacks, +3 for an entire round versus many attacks is mathematically huge compared to a single re-roll versus one attack.


Something else you did not consider:

Displacement cannot be used on the Wizard's turn (i.e. immediate actions can only be done on other creature's turns). For example, using it to prevent an opportunity attack or a different immediate action.

Some special powers (like some of the special dragon attacks) will often be done as either opportunity attacks or immediate actions.

Shielding Smite can be used against those powers if they require an AC to hit.

Displacement cannot be used at all against those types of powers or attacks.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The actual wizard character is actually doing something, right *after* the attack, using up his one immediate action for the round ... Displacement actively restructures the game world- and is a very meta-game spell.  Its either rolling back time, or its always on (effecting everyone!), but irrelevant except for once an encounter, or its cast in negative time in order to save a party memeber.



Well, that depends on when during an attack the dice get rolled.  You seem to think there's no time between rolling an attack and the attacker making contact with their target.

It's just as valid to think of the "to hit" roll happening just as you begin an attack--the slight pause when you finish pulling a sword back and start swinging it forward, or the moment when your bow string is completely taut, or the moment when the magical energy stops tingling at the tip of your finger and starts surging forward.

A lot of the reroll abilities make a lot more sense if you think about them this way.  The ogre raises his club high in the air.  Just as it starts to fall, the wizard mutters an arcane syllable.  The rogue seems to shift a foot to the left, and the ogre is forced to adjust his aim midswing.  The elven ranger pulls back on her bow, aiming at the ogre's eye.  At the last possible instant she notices a subtle shift in the wind, and corrects for it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Let me add something else which I chose to leave out due to mathematical rigor- in a situation where the number needed to hit is somewhere between 5 and 20, displacement is far more effective.
> 
> 2+ needed to hit:
> shielding smite takes chance of hit from 95% to 80%
> ...




Actually, I have to call mathematical foul on this one. The advantages you list range from 1% to 10% advantage for a single attack. That's hardly overwhelming.

Let's look at two attacks against an opponent in a single round for both:

2+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite 80% plus 80%
Displacement 90% plus 95%

5+ needed to hit: 
Shielding Smite 65% plus 65%
Displacement 64% plus 80%

10+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite 40% plus 40%
Displacement 30% plus 55%

15+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite 15% plus 15%
Displacement 9% plus 30%

19+ needed to hit:
Shielding Smite 5% plus 5%
Displacement 1% plus 10%

In every single case of two attacks against the defender, Shielding Smite averages less damage. Displacement is only better versus the first attack and is then 15% worse against all subsequent attacks. What if there are 5 attacks against the target? Displacement is hardly a blip in that case.

In a game system with opportunity attacks, immediate attacks, and PC roles where a given PC is designed to be the tank in front, +3 AC against multiple attacks is stronger than a single re-roll.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 26, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I do agree with Karinsdad and Plane Sailing on this point, a reroll that allows a crit seems wrong.



Eh.  It gives the power a drawback, which makes it more interesting, not less.

I figure if a kobold's about to graze your left side and the wizard makes you suddenly appear a foot to the right, the kobold could correct into where your stomach _actually_ is.  Yell at the wizard, and hope the next time she makes you shift left.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that the +3 AC boost can be against 2 or 5 or more attack rolls by various opponents. With a game system where certain PCs roles try to hold the line and take all of the attacks, +3 for an entire round versus many attacks is mathematically huge compared to a single re-roll versus one attack.



That _might_ be true, with a sufficient number of incoming attacks.  See previous posts about when +3 AC is worth the same as a reroll.

Lets say your opponents are about to attack you, and somehow, magically, you know what their attacks will be.  They will attack once for 3d10+3 damage, which will hit on an 11+, and four times at 1d8+1 damage, which will hit on a 13+.  Apparently the first attack is a daily power like the pregen Fighter's or something.

Overall, your expected damage that you suffer is 9.75 for the first attack, and 2.2 for each other, for a total expected damage of 18.55.  Not a good round for your character (for simplicity I ignored critical hits, they don't change things much).

If you have +3 AC on you from Shielding Smite, this shifts the odds.  Now you suffer expected damage of 12.325.

What if, instead, you have a Wizard ready and willing to cast Displacement on you?  Well, that makes things a bit tougher, because lets say the Wizard isn't going to waste his per encounter Displacement on you for a measly 1d8+1 damage.  But if you get hit with the big attack, he'll use it then.

Your expected damage is a little more complex to calculate, because there are some conditions involved, but the net result is 13.675, _with a 50% chance that your wizard ally never had to use up his Displacement power because the big attack missed on its own before he decided whether to expend his ability._  In my view, the latter piece of information makes Displacement win the comparison, even though a slight edge goes to Shielding Smite in terms of damage prevented.  Maybe it doesn't to you, but it does to me.

Now, I can construct examples that make this change.  I could have all of the attackers attack versus Reflex, rendering Shielding Smite useless.  I could have one gigantic attack and no little attacks, making Displacement better.  I could have 10 ranged attacking minions try to pepper the character all at once, making Displacement useless.  I could do a lot of different things.

But I chose this example essentially at random.  The 3d10+3 ability is about what I remember the pregen Fighter as having for a daily, so it served as a benchmark, and 1d8+1 seemed a fair "generic average hit" type number.  It seems fair.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In a game system with opportunity attacks, immediate attacks, and PC roles where a given PC is designed to be the tank in front, +3 AC against multiple attacks is stronger than a single re-roll.



I'm a little confused as to what you're arguing here.  Clearly, _Shielding Smite_ is useful at all levels (i.e., you don't "outgrow" it).  And _Displacement_ is useful at all levels (i.e., you never "outgrow" _it_).  But they both have different advantages and drawbacks--whether they require a hit to work, whether it's an immediate or standard action to activate, whether they work against multiple attacks, whether they work against all defenses or just AC--which means each is useful in different situations.

I think the ability to choose what attack to use _Displacement_ against is pretty powerful stuff, as well as the fact it's guaranteed to force a reroll.  After all, you've no guarantee any creatures are even going to attack the person you shielded--not a problem with _Displacement_.  But even so, the crux of your argument seems to basically be complaining that there's a level 1 power which doesn't totally suck at level 16.  In my mind, that's a testament to how well the powers are designed, not how badly they're designed.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What if, instead, you have a Wizard ready and willing to cast Displacement on you?  Well, that makes things a bit tougher, because lets say the Wizard isn't going to waste his per encounter Displacement on you for a measly 1d8+1 damage.  But if you get hit with the big attack, he'll use it then.




This has a big gaping hole assumption in it.

It assumes the DM says "The BBEG uses his big 3d10+3 daily attack against you".

We do not know the rules for attack type perception in the game, but your example has a pretty big assumption that the Wizard not only has an immediate action available (i.e. he could have used a different immediate action this round when Displacement is needed), but that he knows exactly when to use it (i.e. he knows a daily power is being used).


And as shown in Puggins math above, the advantage gained is only in the 1% to 10% range (depending on chance to hit) compared with a single Shielding Smite defended attack. Even for the 3D10+3, that's a small percentage of average damage less done on that one attack versus 15% more average done on each of the 3 D8+1 attacks.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Now, I can construct examples that make this change. I could have all of the attackers attack versus Reflex, rendering Shielding Smite useless. I could have one gigantic attack and no little attacks, making Displacement better. I could have 10 ranged attacking minions try to pepper the character all at once, making Displacement useless. I could do a lot of different things.




Precisely. All factors cannot be considered. But, the fact that you are not actually proving that Displacement is signficantly better tends to illustrate that it is at best only slightly better.

PS's and my point is not that Displacement is useless, it's that it's lame for a 16th level power. I suspect that when we compare it to other 16th level and lower level similar powers in June, this opinion of ours might be supported.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 26, 2008)

catsclaw said:
			
		

> I think the ability to choose what attack to use _Displacement_ against is pretty powerful stuff, as well as the fact it's guaranteed to force a reroll.  After all, you've no guarantee any creatures are even going to attack the person you shielded--not a problem with _Displacement_.




A 16th level ability that might not be able to be used, that may or may not protect against a single attack (or might make it worse), is not 16th level potent.

The real issue here is that Displacement is a high level power which has a fair chance of failing. 1 encounter out of 2 (or more often against BBEGs), it probably won't do a darn thing.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, I have to call mathematical foul on this one. The advantages you list range from 1% to 10% advantage for a single attack. That's hardly overwhelming.
> 
> Let's look at two attacks against an opponent in a single round for both:




Sure, let's do that.  Your method is statistically inaccurate, since you're assuming that the displacement will always be needed on one of the rolls.

If you don't mind, I'm going to use an 11+ to hit, since it gives us a nice, even 50% for calculations' sake.

Shielding Smite:

42.25% of the time (.65x.65), both attacks will miss, yielding no hits.
12.25% of the time (.35x.35), both attacks will hit, yielding two hits.  Average hits yielded = 2 x 0.1225 = 0.2450
45.50% of the time (1-.4225-.1225), one attack will hit, yielding one hit. Average hits yielded = 1 x 0.4550 = 0.4550

Average Number of hits over all probabilities = 0.2450 + 0.4550 = 0.7 hits

Displacement:

Displacement will negate half of one hit, since that hit will then have a 50% chance to miss.

25% of the time (.5x.5), both attacks will miss, yielding no hits.
25% of the time (.5x.5), both attacks will hit, yielding 1.5 hits.  Average hits yielded = 1.5 x 0.25 = 0.375
50% of the time (1-.25-.25), one attack will hit, yielding one hit. Average hits yielded = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25

Average Number of hits over all probabilities = 0.625, 11% less than Shielding Smite

It gets worse as the odds of hitting go above 11+.  With two attacks, the break-even point is around a 7+ to hit.  Above that, Displacement is better.  Of course, as the number of attacks increase, the break-even point will start rising quite a bit.  Still, displacement is clearly better until at least 3 attacks start coming in.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This has a big gaping hole assumption in it.
> 
> It assumes the DM says "The BBEG uses his big 3d10+3 daily attack against you".
> 
> We do not know the rules for attack type perception in the game, but your example has a pretty big assumption that the Wizard not only has an immediate action available (i.e. he could have used a different immediate action this round when Displacement is needed), but that he knows exactly when to use it (i.e. he knows a daily power is being used).



First, yeah, I assume the Wizard has an immediate action available (I also assume that the Paladin has a standard action available...)  I think that's a fair assumption.  Now its possible that the Wizard is going to be loaded down with immediate action abilities, and the availability of an immediate action will be an uncertain thing at any given moment.  But I don't believe that.  Historically that has not been the case in D&D.  We haven't seen a plethora of immediate action abilities that would make the availability of an immediate action a concern.  Do you, in sincerity, believe this will likely be an issue?

Second, yes, I am making an assumption about whether you can perceive the nature of incoming attacks, but its one that historically has been built into D&D.  Its built right into the counterspelling system in 3e, for one, and for two, if you describe enemy attacks, it happens automatically.  When a Bodak stares at you and you feel your inner strength begin to give out (ie, you roll a fortitude save), it shouldn't take more than one Bodak fight for you to figure out what's going on.


> And as shown in Puggins math above, the advantage gained is only in the 1% to 10% range (depending on chance to hit) compared with a single Shielding Smite defended attack. Even for the 3D10+3, that's a small percentage of average damage less done on that one attack versus 15% more average done on each of the 3 D8+1 attacks.



The Puggins math showed that the advantage that a reroll has over +3 AC is about 10% or better for attacks which hit between 10+ and 15+ on a d20.  Between that and the fact that Displacement happens on YOUR terms rather than the terms your opponent dictates to you, it seems like this is a nice support for my position.


> PS's and my point is not that Displacement is useless, it's that it's lame for a 16th level power. I suspect that when we compare it to other 16th level and lower level similar powers in June, this opinion of ours might be supported.



There are other 16th level spells available for our review right now.  Go take a look at a few.  I have, and I still like Displacement.  I do think it could have been made available at earlier levels, since it auto-scales.  But that's not the same as saying that its weak at level 16.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The real issue here is that Displacement is a high level power which has a fair chance of failing. 1 encounter out of 2 (or more often against BBEGs), it probably won't do a darn thing.



Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is true of every single attack power we've seen in all of 4e, at least up to this point.  And it is also true of every single defensive power we've seen in all of 4e, except for the ones that confer energy resistance.  Sometimes, in spite of all the bonuses you pile on, attacks miss.  Sometimes, in spite of all the bonuses you pile on, enemies hit you anyways.  Its a dice game.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 26, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A 16th level ability that might not be able to be used, that may or may not protect against a single attack (or might make it worse), is not 16th level potent.



According to what, exactly?  Since we've only seen a handful of other powers at those levels, you saying it "is not 16th level potent" means absolutely nothing.  You have no idea if it's balanced, because you don't know what it's balanced against.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The real issue here is that Displacement is a high level power which has a fair chance of failing. 1 encounter out of 2 (or more often against BBEGs), it probably won't do a darn thing.



Or, if you only use it when something crits, you'll virtually _always_ improve things.

Are you arguing it's too weak compared to the other 16th level powers we haven't seen?  Or that if you were designing a game, you'd make 16th level powers more powerful?


----------



## Lacyon (Mar 26, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Sure, let's do that.  Your method is statistically inaccurate, since you're assuming that the displacement will always be needed on one of the rolls.
> 
> If you don't mind, I'm going to use an 11+ to hit, since it gives us a nice, even 50% for calculations' sake.
> 
> ...




Even better than that, you still have a 25% chance of still having your Displacement left.

Because of this fact, my math says Displacement's on average better against 3 incoming attacks this turn if you're going to be targeted by at least one attack next turn (albeit by a pretty small margin).


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You are missing the point. Every attack that rolls a 1 misses wildly and destroys an image. How does that make sense?
> 
> It would make sense if (and only if) an image was destroyed on either a hit or a miss by the amount of current protection you are recieving or SOMETHING like that.



The image does not have the defences of the mage. It's AC is going to be around 10 or so. Since it is a 16th level power, most foes will be hitting AC 10 no matter what gets rolled.  but on that subject...







			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Destroying an image by an attack that rolls a 1? Doesn't work logically, doesn't work mechanically.



Ruling the image stays if the attacker rolls a natural one seems fine and fair.


----------



## Lacyon (Mar 26, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Destroying an image by an attack that rolls a 1? Doesn't work logically, doesn't work mechanically.




I beg to differ. It works perfectly fine mechanically: Did an attack targeting you miss? If yes, the bonus provided by this power decreases.

And the spell never worked logically in the first place. There's no logical reason why an image that got hit by an attack should be destroyed at all, only the magical reason that the rule text says so.

Logically, if the rationale for why an image disappears is that it's a shadow construction and hence partially real, subject to real damage, why doesn't a fireball in the area destroy all your images? Logically, if the rationale for why an image disappears when hit is that an opponent then realizes it's a fake image, why doesn't the "While moving, you can merge with and split off from figments so that enemies who have learned which image is real are again confounded" text apply?

Logically, the only rationale for why images disappear under some circumstances and not others is "Because it's magic," under which interpretation the 4E effect works fine.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 26, 2008)

I'm amused that it was pointed out the page beforehand that Displacement works against all defenses, but People only used AC in their math anyway. And people have gone all "oh, but what if you get attacked 3 times", ignoring the possibility that monsters may not have been going to attack that character anyway. Personally I expect to see Displacement used as a crit negation power, but but YMMV.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 27, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Personally I expect to see Displacement used as a crit negation power, but but YMMV.




That would certainly seem to be the most rational use of this power, and what I'd expect to see most often.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 27, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> It gets worse as the odds of hitting go above 11+.  With two attacks, the break-even point is around a 7+ to hit.  Above that, Displacement is better.  Of course, as the number of attacks increase, the break-even point will start rising quite a bit.  Still, displacement is clearly better until at least 3 attacks start coming in.




My bad on the math. That’s what happens when I try to do this at work when I have only a few minutes.

I put your equations into a spreadsheet. For 2 attacks, it comes out to 9 to 16 needed on the die advantage Displacement, 8 is more or less a tie (the break even point), and 17+ and 7- are advantage Shielding Smite.

The highest percentage advantage was about 19% (less average damage) for a 14 or a 15 needed to roll (for an attack that does 10 points, this means 8 points instead of 10 on average, not a huge gain).

In other words, Displacement gives the highest advantage over mooks where damage and the chance to hit is typically low. So, the Displacement advantage you are talking about will not be seen too often in the game since a Wizard will tend to not protect against single mook attacks with Displacement too often. Also, mook attacks tend to not be encounter breaking.


Against BBEGs where the chance to hit a PC is often greater than 50%, where the number of attacks per round is sometimes greater than one, and where the damage is typically greater, the percentage advantage for 2 attacks based on what number is needed to be rolled is:

10 7% in favor of Disp 
9 4% in favor of Disp
8 <1% in favor of Disp, nearly a tie
7 2% in favor of SS
6 5% in favor of SS

The odds against BBEGs does not heavily favor Displacement here.

Remember, it's not too difficult to get to 2 or more attacks with a single BBEG when one considers Immediate Attacks, Opportunity Attacks, plus special powers (such as Double Attack).


One other note on this using your math:

Shielding Smite:

42.25% of the time, both attacks will miss
45.50% of the time, one attack will hit
12.25% of the time, both attacks will hit

Displacement:

50% of the time, both attacks will miss (25% outright and 25% due to Displacement)
31.25% of the time, one attack will hit
18.75% of the time, both attacks will hit

Although Displacement averages less damage (by 11%) against 2 attacks, it also results in both hits actually hitting more often by a factor of more than 3 to 2. Shielding Smite might average slightly more damage, but the big double hit (which can be encounter breaking) occurs less often with it.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 27, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I put your equations into a spreadsheet. For 2 attacks, it comes out to 9 to 16 needed on the die advantage Displacement, 8 is more or less a tie (the break even point), and 17+ and 7- are advantage Shielding Smite.
> 
> The highest percentage advantage was about 19% (less average damage) for a 14 or a 15 needed to roll (for an attack that does 10 points, this means 8 points instead of 10 on average, not a huge gain).




An important note is that since 4e has supposedly "fixed" the math, then in an average fight most monsters will need around a 9 to 16 to hit the party members (I believe the 55%-60% mark was noted in some designers comments). So considering that, displacement will have the advantage more often than shielding smite.

However, KarinsDad's point about being hit twice is an important one. In many cases, a wizard might survive one hit, its getting hit twice in one round that can be a killer.

Finally, consider when we are discussing the difference between displacement and shielding smite, we are talking about one class which is a "defender", a holy class designed to guard, vs a "controller", designed to effect and influence the battlefield. Even if shielding smite compares to a much higher level spell, that's an important distinction.


----------



## Wiman (Mar 27, 2008)

Displacement and I'm sure it has been stated several times before allows a 95% chance of negating a critical strike within 5 squares of the caster as an immediate interupt. Maybe calling it another name would make people happier but it still has a great effect. 

As for someone rolling a 19, and on the second roll a 20.....it makes sense from a fluff perspective as you are somewhere slightly different from where your image actually is....and brother/sister it just isn't your day.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 27, 2008)

Too late: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080319a


----------



## drjones (Mar 27, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> As KarinsDad says at the top of this thread - come June there is likely to be a whole load of "what the heck?!?" posts about powers coming....




Yeah there will be tons of them and they will be 95% waste of bandwidth.  Nerds + Internet + Change = whinge city.

There is no point in comparing any power/class/race etc. 4th v. 3rd.  The basic economy of power has been changed.  The only way to tell how good the power is is to use it playing the full 4th edition rules and find out.

Unless you just want to shoot the breeze that is.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 27, 2008)

Keep in mind that displacement is only used when an attack HITS.  This is really important.  Essentially you are giving the attack a miss chance that happens to be equal to the enemies chance to hit with that attack(with the minor chance that it causes it to crit).

So, monster hits on an 11+, it rolls a 17 and hits.  Basically there are 3 outcomes of a displacement:

45% chance of no change
50% of negating the attack
5% chance of causing it to do max damage.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 27, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> An important note is that since 4e has supposedly "fixed" the math, then in an average fight most monsters will need around a 9 to 16 to hit the party members (I believe the 55%-60% mark was noted in some designers comments). So considering that, displacement will have the advantage more often than shielding smite.




I'm not yet convinced that the math is fixed. We are seeing a lot of +2 for combat advantage, +2 or -2 for marked, +6 for Mirror Image, +2 for Fox's Cunning, -4 for Witchfire, +2 for Lance of Faith, etc. which indicates that the base math might be fixed, but the plethora of stackable bonuses and/or penalties (some of them quite hefty) might not be. Course, some of these are once or a few rounds per encounter or per day (and some might not stack), but with the proper synergies, that might be often enough. Even low level magic items are also often looking like +5 for a round. Sure, it's only a round, but +5 is pretty hefty, enough to often shake off a spell effect with a save more often than not.

We are also seeing things like Cleave or Divine Challenge where I do not care what your AC is, I can often arrange for you to take damage regardless (with no saving throw or other defense shy of somehow changing the situation that allows for it and in that case, the NPC would have to know what to do to change the situation).

Even with just core rules, it might become possible for experienced players to get very hefty bonuses which upset the math applecart.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 27, 2008)

Yes, those spells do indeed appear to be so deflated that they don't match up to some 1st level abilities ....


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 27, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> There is no point in comparing any power/class/race etc. 4th v. 3rd.  The basic economy of power has been changed.  The only way to tell how good the power is is to use it playing the full 4th edition rules and find out.




RANT WARNING

I am becoming sick of this little gem.  There is every point in comparison between 3e and 4e if for no other reason than to determine whether you prefer one edition to the other.  And we have enough info to make that 3e vs 4e comparison to judge the two side by side.  If you like the changes fine, but I'm sick of hearing every time an issue is brought up that comparison is pointless or counterproductive.  
I have enough info to look at this spell and say that my expectation from D&D magic are that a spell you get halfway to the top should be better than this, it should be better than the pathetic nerfs that are _Fly_ and _Greater Invisibility_ in 4e too.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 27, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> There is no point in comparing any power/class/race etc. 4th v. 3rd.  The basic economy of power has been changed.  The only way to tell how good the power is is to use it playing the full 4th edition rules and find out.



Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.

I think 4E Displacement sucks. I just don't like it. It's not exciting.
3E Displacement is much COOLER. 

4E Mirror Image is also just bleh. I know the order for 4E is Fast Combat, but 3E Mirror Image simply delivers more fun.

Maybe those spells are useful and powerfull when we see the full 4E rules, but IMO they will still look boring.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 27, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> RANT WARNING
> 
> I am becoming sick of this little gem.  There is every point in comparison between 3e and 4e if for no other reason than to determine whether you prefer one edition to the other.  And we have enough info to make that 3e vs 4e comparison to judge the two side by side.  If you like the changes fine, but I'm sick of hearing every time an issue is brought up that comparison is pointless or counterproductive.
> I have enough info to look at this spell and say that my expectation from D&D magic are that a spell you get halfway to the top should be better than this, it should be better than the pathetic nerfs that are _Fly_ and _Greater Invisibility_ in 4e too.



This is not the "4e Wizards/spellcasting are under powered" Thread, this is the "4e Displacement and Mirror Image are underpowered" Thread, as such, comparing them to anything but other 4e powers is off-topic and not helpful to the conversation. If you want to create a "4e Spellcasting is overly nerfed" go make one.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> /snip
> 
> Displacement cannot be used on the Wizard's turn (i.e. immediate actions can only be done on other creature's turns). For example, using it to prevent an opportunity attack or a different immediate action./snip




It was my understanding that immediete actions could be used any time, including other people's turns.  Am I wrong in that?


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 27, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> There is every point in comparison between 3e and 4e if for no other reason than to determine whether you prefer one edition to the other ... I have enough info to look at this spell and say that my expectation from D&D magic are that a spell you get halfway to the top should be better than this, it should be better than the pathetic nerfs that are _Fly_ and _Greater Invisibility_ in 4e too.



You're welcome to home-rule that the wizard class can take abilities that are within twice their class level, while all other classes have to take abilities that are within their class level.  That should power up wizards just fine.

Please understand for a lot of us, that's one of the things that _sucks_ about 3.5.  The effective rule for 3.5 for wizards, druids, and clerics _is_ they get to pick abilities that are twice as powerful as any other class.  Coming out here and complaining about how underpowered wizards are in 4e isn't going to earn you any sympathy.


----------



## keterys (Mar 27, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.
> 
> I think 4E Displacement sucks. I just don't like it. It's not exciting.
> 3E Displacement is much COOLER.
> ...




Just so we're clear... do you mean for the caster, or for the opponents of the caster?

Cause from the perspective of a character attacking someone with those spells, 4e looks categorically more fun, instead of the pure unadulterated 'Neener' of 3rd's version of them.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 27, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.
> 
> I think 4E Displacement sucks. I just don't like it. It's not exciting.
> 3E Displacement is much COOLER.
> ...



I invoke Robin Laws player types.

It's a tactition/buttkicker divide. To a Tactition, 3.x is better because there's this huge planning payoff of casting the 3-4 spells beforehand which make you mostly immune to physical attacks, to a buttkicker, this isn't fun you have to time it properly, it's slow and fiddly and there's no immediate reward. To a Tactition, there's nothing interesting in 4e displacement, there's no planning, especially just in writing, there's nothing there, it's only tactical in the way it interacts with other powers, to a buttkicker, all they see is that one time when the Dragon crits the Fighter fo 80 dmg, and the Wizard goes HAH, DISPLACEMENT! ROLL AGAIN, SALAMANDER! (or whatever).

Thing is, I enjoy making Batman Wizards, and there's a lot less to support that kind of character creation system mastery in 4e, but I don't really enjoy playing them that much, I see 4e Displacement in particular being more fun in play, Mirror Image however works pretty much how Improved Mirror Image does in 3.x, just nerfed, I don't really see how it's more or less fun.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 27, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It was my understanding that immediete actions could be used any time, including other people's turns.  Am I wrong in that?



Thing is, you can ONLY use them on other people's turns. Or at least, from what we've read, you can't use them on your own turn (although this is possibly different in the actual books), so a Wizard apparently can't use Displacement to re-roll and OA she gets from moving past someone.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 27, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.
> 
> I think 4E Displacement sucks. I just don't like it. It's not exciting.
> 3E Displacement is much COOLER.
> ...



I really can't say much about this except to say the scale is definitely different.

In 3e, as a wizard you started off just out of wizard school.  You could change the color of something maybe twice per day and you might be able to throw a magic missile at someone once and make them sore but likely not kill them.

You ended up being able to kill everyone in an entire village with a single wave of your hands while flying and completely invisible after having teleported from one side of the planet to the other 6 seconds ago.  Even if someone could find you and see you, you'd be immune to almost anything they could do to you for minutes if not hours.

In 4e, you start off as a competent wizard who can move things around at will, shoot missiles whenever you want to and kill most people with a single hit.  You are capable of single-handedly defeating a couple of dangerous creatures.  Given some time you can do some amazing things.

By the end, you are an amazingly powerful wizard who can do things no one else would even consider possible.  Turn invisible?  Fly up to the roof of a building with a wave of your hand?  Make an illusion of someone a couple feet away from where they actually are in order to confuse an enemy attacking them?  Your spells are powerful enough to take down dragons, giants, and even demons.  However, you still walk places, use doors, ask people politely to do things for you, sleep for 6-8 hours per night, eat food, live in a house, and so on.  You are still mortal and still have to deal with the realities of normal life.

I just don't ever see a time in 4e where the wizard says "They are storing all the treasure in the vault in the middle of the castle?  Yawn.  I put up stone skin, improved invisibility, displacement, greater mage armor, shield, mirror image, energy immunity to all 5 energy types, and fly, then for the next couple of minutes virtually nothing can hurt me.  I scry and telport into the vault with enough time to load the entire treasure into a portable hole and teleport out.  If they have the vault warded against teleport somehow I'll just have to use passwalls, disintegrates, or dimension doors to get in."


----------



## Campbell (Mar 27, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> It's a tactition/buttkicker divide. To a Tactition, 3.x is better because there's this huge planning payoff of casting the 3-4 spells beforehand which make you mostly immune to physical attacks, to a buttkicker, this isn't fun you have to time it properly, it's slow and fiddly and there's no immediate reward. To a Tactition, there's nothing interesting in 4e displacement, there's no planning, especially just in writing, there's nothing there, it's only tactical in the way it interacts with other powers, to a buttkicker, all they see is that one time when the Dragon crits the Fighter fo 80 dmg, and the Wizard goes HAH, DISPLACEMENT! ROLL AGAIN, SALAMANDER! (or whatever).




This is not true for all values of Tactician. Personally, I find being able to prepare your way out of a paper bag dreadfully boring from a tactical standpoint. Knowing that a fight is over before it starts robs me of the ability to adjust to changing dynamics and the ability to be challenged during game play instead of in the preparation minigame, particularly in those instances where a victory lies entirely on my shoulders. I despise "I win" combos that can only be disrupted by dispelling.

To address the question of Displacement here is what I foresee liking about it from a tactical standpoint.

You cannot load up on the spell. You have one chance to use it in any given encounter.
It's not a personal spell.
It works against all attacks, expanding the number of decision points available.
It has a fairly limited range which forces a wizard to wisely consider his movement if he plans to use it to assist others.
If there are a number of Wizard powers that use immediate actions it has a round by round cost that is nontrivial. This is a fairly significant caveat.

With all that being said, it's entirely possible they might have screwed the pooch here in a number of ways.

I'd also like to say that I'm not a fan of the new mirror image spell for a different reason than most - I don't like that it only affects attacks made against AC.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 27, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> This is not true for all values of Tactician.



Yeah, okay. Maybe I'm not using the term properly. Actually, thinking about it, I know I'm not using the term properly. Reworded, I feel that the 4e version loses "system mastery" fun to gain "in play" fun, and I think that's totally worth it.


			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> I'd also like to say that I'm not a fan of the new mirror image spell for a different reason than most - I don't like that it only affects attacks made against AC.



Same. I've said several times on this board that I think it should world against all ranged and melee attacks, not attacks vs AC.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 27, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> 4E Mirror Image is also just bleh. I know the order for 4E is Fast Combat, but 3E Mirror Image simply delivers more fun.




It also delivers more incredible overpoweredness for its spell level in 3E.



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> It's a tactition/buttkicker divide. To a Tactition, 3.x is better because there's this huge planning payoff of casting the 3-4 spells beforehand which make you mostly immune to physical attacks,




As much as I hate bringing Robin Laws into this, I consider myself a pretty hardcore Tactician/Storyteller, and I don't find 3E's better. I agree 110% with what was said by Campbell: Outplaying and outmanuevering an opponent is fun: Pressing the IWIN button 3-4 times in rapid succession isn't.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 27, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Yeah, okay. Maybe I'm not using the term properly. Actually, thinking about it, I know I'm not using the term properly. Reworded, I feel that the 4e version loses "system mastery" fun to gain "in play" fun, and I think that's totally worth it.




I think your using the term correctly. There are multiple forms of Tactician. There is bound to be some confusion because Robin Law's Tactician Player Archetype encompasses those who prefer both strategic play (spell preparation and adventuring logistics) and tactical play (situational dynamics, ability synergy, responding to enemy actions). I just happen to find the latter more exciting than the former, and the designers of 4e apparently agree since they sacrificed elements of strategic play that have existed for a long time in order to ensure that tactical play was more exciting.  



			
				small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Same. I've said several times on this board that I think it should world against all ranged and melee attacks, not attacks vs AC.




Agreed.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Thing is, you can ONLY use them on other people's turns. Or at least, from what we've read, you can't use them on your own turn (although this is possibly different in the actual books), so a Wizard apparently can't use Displacement to re-roll and OA she gets from moving past someone.




Is this an official change?  New Mini's handbook maybe?  (Haven't read that) Cos, in 3.5, immediate actions could be taken on your turn.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 27, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> Yeah there will be tons of them and they will be 95% waste of bandwidth.  Nerds + Internet + Change = whinge city.
> 
> There is no point in comparing any power/class/race etc. 4th v. 3rd.  The basic economy of power has been changed.  The only way to tell how good the power is is to use it playing the full 4th edition rules and find out.
> 
> Unless you just want to shoot the breeze that is.




Oh gosh, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. 

I suppose we'd better shut down the 4e forum until the product launches then.

...no, wait


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 27, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I just don't ever see a time in 4e where the wizard says "They are storing all the treasure in the vault in the middle of the castle?  Yawn.  I put up stone skin, improved invisibility, displacement, greater mage armor, shield, mirror image, energy immunity to all 5 energy types, and fly, then for the next couple of minutes virtually nothing can hurt me.  I scry and telport into the vault with enough time to load the entire treasure into a portable hole and teleport out.  If they have the vault warded against teleport somehow I'll just have to use passwalls, disintegrates, or dimension doors to get in."




Maybe you're right.  I think the designers (and maybe the majority of gamers they used feedback from?) were tired of this style of gameplay in 3e (and to an extent 2e).  But it still might be possible at high, high level, certainly by Epic level. And for my preferences, the godlike ability to step into a magically warded vault in 6 seconds and steal everything SHOULD be reserved for someone with godlike powers.


----------



## Simon Marks (Mar 27, 2008)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> And for my preferences, the godlike ability to step into a magically warded vault in 6 seconds and steal everything SHOULD be reserved for someone with godlike powers.




That's an epic rogue, though - not an epic wizard surely?


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 27, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> That's an epic rogue, though - not an epic wizard surely?




Either I suppose, wizards like the five fingered discount as much as anyone. A thieving, snivelling, cowardly wizard is a nice character.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 27, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is this an official change?  New Mini's handbook maybe?  (Haven't read that) Cos, in 3.5, immediate actions could be taken on your turn.




Do we even know that you only get one immediate action per round?



			
				catsclaw said:
			
		

> You're welcome to home-rule that the wizard class can take abilities that are within twice their class level, while all other classes have to take abilities that are within their class level. That should power up wizards just fine.
> 
> Please understand for a lot of us, that's one of the things that sucks about 3.5. The effective rule for 3.5 for wizards, druids, and clerics is they get to pick abilities that are twice as powerful as any other class. Coming out here and complaining about how underpowered wizards are in 4e isn't going to earn you any sympathy.




Damn straight.  I'm a wizard player from away back, I love the arcane casters, but even I'm heartily sick of the way they dominate everything at high levels.  I hate feeling like I have to gimp my own character so as to not overshadow the non-casters.

And as for the "feel" of magic--yes, it's changing, and I'm quite happy with the changes.  4E magic feels a lot more organic than 3E; if I know Mage Hand, I don't have to ration out my castings per day for a freakin' cantrip, I can just _do it_.  The magic is at my character's fingertips, always ready.  I'll gladly accept a nerfing, particularly given how badly the class needed it, in exchange for never again having to prepare a spell*.

*Okay, yeah, I still have to prepare the daily, but I can live with that.  I'd rather see Vancian casting axed altogether, but I suppose that will have to wait for 5E.


----------



## ferratus (Mar 27, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> *Okay, yeah, I still have to prepare the daily, but I can live with that.  I'd rather see Vancian casting axed altogether, but I suppose that will have to wait for 5E.




I was as glad as anyone when Vancian casting was axed, but I have to admit I do like my wizard to carry around a spellbook.  You could leave it for rituals I suppose...


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 27, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> And as for the "feel" of magic--yes, it's changing, and I'm quite happy with the changes.  4E magic feels a lot more organic than 3E; if I know Mage Hand, I don't have to ration out my castings per day for a freakin' cantrip, I can just _do it_.  The magic is at my character's fingertips, always ready.  I'll gladly accept a nerfing, particularly given how badly the class needed it, in exchange for never again having to prepare a spell*.
> 
> *Okay, yeah, I still have to prepare the daily, but I can live with that.  I'd rather see Vancian casting axed altogether, but I suppose that will have to wait for 5E.




This is my favourite change in 4e so far, the fact a wizard can cast light at will or Mage Hand. Wizards actually feel like real wizards to me now. 

I've never been happy with the wizards, the sorcerer came closest before the 4e wizard.

Oh an rituals, cant forget about those rituals.


----------



## catsclaw (Mar 27, 2008)

ferratus said:
			
		

> I was as glad as anyone when Vancian casting was axed, but I have to admit I do like my wizard to carry around a spellbook.



IIRC, they've said wizards still carry spellbooks in 4e.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 27, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Is this an official change?  New Mini's handbook maybe?  (Haven't read that) Cos, in 3.5, immediate actions could be taken on your turn.



I couldn't link to it. I think it was the handout at DDXP, perhaps the GM's one? The other difference was that Immediate and Minor actions aren't tied together anymore, using you Immediate doesn't use up your minor for the next round.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 27, 2008)

ferratus said:
			
		

> I was as glad as anyone when Vancian casting was axed, but I have to admit I do like my wizard to carry around a spellbook.  You could leave it for rituals I suppose...



As Dausuul said, they still prepare their Dailys, one would assume this involves a spellbook, although it will likely be one half empty spellbook as opposed to 15 full ones.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 27, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> I just happen to find the latter more exciting than the former, and the designers of 4e apparently agree since they sacrificed elements of strategic play that have existed for a long time in order to ensure that tactical play was more exciting.




This presumes a motivation on the part of WotC that we have not been told. We know they wanted it to be a faster game, but less strategy more tactics might be a byproduct of how they designed rituals or something (e.g. long duration spells might now be rituals), not necessarily their primary motivating factor. We cannot really say without having sat in on the design meetings.

One thing that we have not seen so far which I will be a bit bummed if they have none of it is the Once Per Day or Once Per Encounter all encounter Buff. Sometimes, it is fun to buff yourself up mid-combat. There's a lot of one round type buffs that we have seen so far for 4E, the mechanics of which I find problematic at best (e.g. "I get +2 because of the Paladin." "No you don't, you got that last round and it ended" "No I didn't" "Yes you did, you just did not use it, you Second Winded instead" "Oh yeah").

With the sheer number of bonus abilities that last for a single turn, there will be confusion at some tables over it. I would have preferred more methods of giving an ally a buff for the rest of the encounter and fewer single round (or single attack) buffs (or penalties) where not only does it need to be kept track of (like a entire encounter buff), but when it ends also needs to be kept track of (which does not happen with an entire encounter buff and means more bookkeeping).

The amount of bookkeeping in the game due to Marks, Single Round Buffs, Synergies, Combat Advantage, Bloodied, Effects on various powers, etc. are going to become problematic for many tables, especially at higher levels.

One advantage of strategic over tactical is that it's easier to have bonuses written down ahead of time. By adding more short duration (i.e. one or few rounds) tactics to the game, it also added more in combat bookkeeping which will take some getting used to for many players.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 27, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Do we even know that you only get one immediate action per round?




Yes. One Immediate Action per round not on your turn. Multiple Opportunity Actions per round, one max on each opponent's turn.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 27, 2008)

If I would house rules those two spells with a minimum of changes in order to keep the 4e essence and power level, I'd do the following:

Displacement
Effect: The attacker must reroll the attack roll. The lower of the two rolls applies.
(it prevents the spell from giving another chance for your attacker to crit you)

MIrror Image
Effect: Three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. Each time an attack roll misses you-by being higher than your unmodified AC but lower than yout new AC-or hits you, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2. 
(when you cast this spell, note down your new AC right next to your normal AC)


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 27, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes. One Immediate Action per round not on your turn. Multiple Opportunity Actions per round, one max on each opponent's turn.




Not saying you're wrong, but what's the source for this?


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 27, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I just don't ever see a time in 4e where the wizard says "They are storing all the treasure in the vault in the middle of the castle?  Yawn.  I put up stone skin, improved invisibility, displacement, greater mage armor, shield, mirror image, energy immunity to all 5 energy types, and fly, then for the next couple of minutes virtually nothing can hurt me.  I scry and telport into the vault with enough time to load the entire treasure into a portable hole and teleport out.  If they have the vault warded against teleport somehow I'll just have to use passwalls, disintegrates, or dimension doors to get in."



Best feature of 4E.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 27, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> If I would house rules those two spells with a minimum of changes in order to keep the 4e essence and power level, I'd do the following:
> 
> Displacement
> Effect: The attacker must reroll the attack roll. The lower of the two rolls applies.
> (it prevents the spell from giving another chance for your attacker to crit you)




Meh.  I think people are making far too much of this crit possibility.  One time in twenty you'll get a really bad result.  Big deal- that happens all the time, even in 3.5e.  Ever have your fatespinner decide to reroll that Will save of 17 because the die roll was a 2 and he wanted to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he passed the save, only to roll a 1 and later find out the DC was a 16?

Bad luck happens, even in real life.  Things that are supposed to protect you sometimes wind up being the things that harm you.  If you want to minimize this then hold displacement back for an honest-to-God emergency, like against a will attack that controls your character like Sleep (where a crit is meaningless) or against an actual Crit that has already been rolled.



> MIrror Image
> Effect: Three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC. Each time an attack roll misses you-by being higher than your unmodified AC but lower than yout new AC-or hits you, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2.
> (when you cast this spell, note down your new AC right next to your normal AC)




Far too fiddly.  Even in 3.5e, the images had a dirt-poor AC that was trivial to hit by the time the wizard hit 5th level.  I WOULD change this, because not protecting against reflex attacks makes no sense, but the rest of the spell sounds fine to me.  Less powerful than 3.5e, yes, but that's not a reason to change it.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 27, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> Far too fiddly.  Even in 3.5e, the images had a dirt-poor AC that was trivial to hit by the time the wizard hit 5th level.  I WOULD change this, because not protecting against reflex attacks makes no sense, but the rest of the spell sounds fine to me.  Less powerful than 3.5e, yes, but that's not a reason to change it.



The reflex thing has to interact well with both specifically targeted attacks, like the Rogue attack that is dex v reflex, but also with area of effects.  I'm ok with Mirror Image not interacting with attacks against reflex because if it does interact with them, then logically an area of effect explosion should pop all your mirror images.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The reflex thing has to interact well with both specifically targeted attacks, like the Rogue attack that is dex v reflex, but also with area of effects.  I'm ok with Mirror Image not interacting with attacks against reflex because if it does interact with them, then logically an area of effect explosion should pop all your mirror images.




That's why I said would change it, but didn't mention any specific change- I'd LOVE to find an elegant distinction to those two.  The closest I have is "any reflex attack that targets a singe creature," which is passable, I suppose.


----------



## Henry (Mar 27, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Not saying you're wrong, but what's the source for this?




The five-page rules glossover that came from the D&D Experience, which got released on the boards in early March. I had to go look at my downloaded copy myself to double check, but apparently this is different from 3e. I don't knwo where the link is, though.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 27, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> That's why I said would change it, but didn't mention any specific change- I'd LOVE to find an elegant distinction to those two.  The closest I have is "any reflex attack that targets a singe creature," which is passable, I suppose.




It will be interesting to see if they have a clear distinction between "targeted attacks" and "attacks" in that while a magic missile would be a targeted attack against your Reflex defence, an arrow would be a targeted attack against your AC defence, a fierey burst spell would be just an attack against your reflex defence.

i.e. distinguish between being specifically targetted and "just in the area of effect of".

If they did, then something like mirror image (and indeed, displacement) could be nicely defined as protecting against anything that specifically targeted someone, rather than area affect 'attacks'.

Cheers


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 28, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see if they have a clear distinction between "targeted attacks" and "attacks" in that while a magic missile would be a targeted attack against your Reflex defence, an arrow would be a targeted attack against your AC defence, a fierey burst spell would be just an attack against your reflex defence.
> 
> i.e. distinguish between being specifically targetted and "just in the area of effect of".
> 
> If they did, then something like mirror image (and indeed, displacement) could be nicely defined as protecting against anything that specifically targeted someone, rather than area affect 'attacks'.




Agreed. It'd be quite silly (IMHO) for Mirror Image to protect against thigs like fireball.


----------



## hong (Mar 28, 2008)

Mirror image has always caused problems. Witness the irregular threads that pop(ped) up in the Rules forum on how to handle it. Just ban it and create a new defensive spell in its stead, I say.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Mar 28, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Mirror image has always caused problems. Witness the irregular threads that pop(ped) up in the Rules forum on how to handle it. Just ban it and create a new defensive spell in its stead, I say.





*Mirror Image* Wizard Utility 10
_Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions perfectly and confusing your enemies._
*Daily * Arcane, Illusion
Minor Action* Personal
*Effect:* Three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space, and you gain a +6 power bonus to AC and Reflex defense. This bonus does not apply to area attacks. Each time a non-area attack misses your AC or Reflex defense (but would have hit you without the power bonus from this spell), one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2. When the bonus reaches 0, all your images are gone and the power ends. Otherwise, the effect lasts for 1 hour.

There, fixed. That wasn't so hard.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 28, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Mirror image has always caused problems. Witness the irregular threads that pop(ped) up in the Rules forum on how to handle it. Just ban it and create a new defensive spell in its stead, I say.




Mirror Image was not a problem until 3E came out with it's plethora of rules for every situation.

In 1E/2E, the only problem with Mirror Image was that the spell did not state what the AC of the images were (everyone just assumed it was the same as the caster).


----------



## Campbell (Mar 28, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see if they have a clear distinction between "targeted attacks" and "attacks" in that while a magic missile would be a targeted attack against your Reflex defence, an arrow would be a targeted attack against your AC defence, a fierey burst spell would be just an attack against your reflex defence.
> 
> i.e. distinguish between being specifically targetted and "just in the area of effect of".
> 
> ...




It looks like that's exactly what the language on Displacement does.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 28, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see if they have a clear distinction between "targeted attacks" and "attacks" in that while a magic missile would be a targeted attack against your Reflex defence, an arrow would be a targeted attack against your AC defence, a fierey burst spell would be just an attack against your reflex defence.
> 
> i.e. distinguish between being specifically targetted and "just in the area of effect of".
> 
> ...



If you look at the Minis rules, it specifically gives names and symbols for melee, ranged, close and whatever fireball is. The monsters use those symbols, and the powers (eg, Displacement) we've seen use those terms. The mechanics already exist, they just chose not to use them.


----------



## keterys (Mar 28, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> *Mirror Image* Wizard Utility 10
> _Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions perfectly and confusing your enemies._
> *Daily * Arcane, Illusion
> Minor Action* Personal
> ...




Area is a game term, but so are 'close' effects like bursts and blasts. Further, a perfectly decent attack for mirror image to work against might go against Fortitude or Will.

Your version is much more powerful than the one in the book and requires more tracking (would it have hit me without)... so, I'm not sure that I'd consider that fixed.

Personally, I'd have gone for:

Effect: You gain a +6 power bonus to all defenses against melee and ranged attacks. After each melee or ranged attack made against you, decrease this bonus by 1. When the bonus reaches 0, all your images are gone and the power ends. Otherwise, the effect lasts for 1 hour.

And tweaked the number (maybe +5 is better...) until it was right for its level.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 28, 2008)

I wonder how MIrror Image works when an attack targets the Wizards Reflex Defense instead of his AC. What if a Warlock attacks the Wizards with an Eldritch Bolt, how does MIrror Image help the Wizard?  What if the Warlock uses Ray of Frost, against the Wizard's Fortitude defense?

If AC is the "armored' version of Reflex, how can holograms increase AC?


----------



## Imban (Mar 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> If AC is the "armored' version of Reflex, how can holograms increase AC?




It's not. It's possible to have a higher Reflex than AC, from previews we've seen. Defenses, and attacking a defense, are just random numbers that don't really correspond to any specific game reality.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 28, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> It's not. It's possible to have a higher Reflex than AC, from previews we've seen. Defenses, and attacking a defense, are just random numbers that don't really correspond to any specific game reality.



Agreed, I saw it coming.
So howcome a mirror image makes your AC higher? How does it make harder for the attacker to hit you, since it's just basically a hologram?


----------



## Imban (Mar 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Agreed, I saw it coming.
> So howcome a mirror image makes your AC higher? How does it make harder for the attacker to hit you, since it's just basically a hologram?




Because it's got "+6 to AC" written in its description.
Because it gives you +6 AC.

EDIT: To be clear, I hate the new Mirror Image, but it works because it's written that it does. It makes no less or more sense than if it gave you +6 to Will defense.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Mar 28, 2008)

I think it makes sense.  It gives you a higher AC for the same reason DEX, INT, and Armor give you a higher AC - because it makes you harder to hit.  

Compare to 3.5:  Enemy rolls to hit, then rolls to see if they hit you or your hologram.  Wait, so my hologram has an AC?  it's a hologram. . . 

In 4e, they decided to roll all of the effects into one roll so it plays faster and is more in line with a 1st lvl spell.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 28, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> I think it makes sense.  It gives you a higher AC for the same reason DEX, INT, and Armor give you a higher AC - because it makes you harder to hit.



YEs, buy if it makes harder for an arrow to hit the wizard, why doesn't it make harder also for an Eldritch Bolt to hit the wizard? Or any other non-magical attack that targets the Wizards Reflex.

What if the attackeris blind? Based on the spell description, it also works against blinded characters. So the images are actually physical. It's like conjuring 3 large shields around you.



> Compare to 3.5:  Enemy rolls to hit, then rolls to see if they hit you or your hologram.  Wait, so my hologram has an AC?  it's a hologram. . .



But the hologram there has an AC that is 10 + size mod + DEX. No armor included. It clearly lets us understand the Image is a hologram, that is there to confound the enemy, and the enemy needs to "hit" the image in order to see it's just an illusion.

The way 4E Mirror Image works it could be just called Magic Shield. Just weaker, since it starts to break appart everytime someone swings a weapon near you, or throws a rock at you but hit the ceilling, or if someone throws a bag of rabid rats on you...


----------



## keterys (Mar 28, 2008)

I'll note that the 3.5 version pretty much disintegrates under rabid rat attack as well.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> The way 4E Mirror Image works it could be just called Magic Shield. Just weaker, since it starts to break appart everytime someone swings a weapon near you, or throws a rock at you but hit the ceilling, or if someone throws a bag of rabid rats on you...




A bag of rats is a suboptimal attack strategy. Better to save them for healing or teleports.


----------



## Puggins (Mar 28, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> *Mirror Image* Wizard Utility 10
> _Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions perfectly and confusing your enemies._
> *Daily * Arcane, Illusion
> Minor Action* Personal
> ...




Ahem...

Check out Force Orb and acid arrow.  Not as easy as it sounds, unfortunately.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Mar 28, 2008)

The print of Mirror Image is far too exploitable by bad players and DMs. Here's how I'd impliment it.


Mirror Image Wizard Utility 10
Three duplicate images of you appear, imitating your actions perfectly and confusing your enemies.
Daily * Arcane, Illusion
Minor Action Personal
Effect: Three duplicate images of yourself appear in your space. You gain a +6 power bonus to AC and Reflex defense. This bonus does not apply to area attacks. *Each time a non-area attack hits your AC or Reflex*, one of your duplicate images disappears and the bonus granted by this power decreases by 2. When the bonus reaches 0, all your images are gone and the power ends. Otherwise, the effect lasts for 1 hour.


----------



## HeinorNY (Mar 28, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> I'll note that the 3.5 version pretty much disintegrates under rabid rat attack as well.



No. The rats would need to bypass your image's AC. In 4E, all the rats need to do is to open and close their mouths near you.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> A bag of rats is a suboptimal attack strategy. Better to save them for healing or teleports.



I have to agree. It's better to just wave your sword like crazy near the wizard to scare his images away.
Save the rats for some buffings and cleavings.


----------

