Out of the wizard book, I only found a few things I'm giving the pass - a couple of PPs, the rituals, and some of the items. Most everything else was either underpowered or overpowered (Metamagic feats and the cunning thrust power chain, I'm looking at you!). Unless you're a DM and REALLY want new wizard or options, and are willing to spend an entire day rebalancing the books, I'd not suggest it.
I'd pick 'em up for 5 dollars each on RPGNow, not the 18 they're asking for.
So, avoid those handbooks like you would avoid an ugly mate who also happens to carry the Black Death. Seriously.
Eh... I bought the wizard one a while back. They are NOT worth the asking price, unless you just want it for the fluff.
Out of the wizard book, I only found a few things I'm giving the pass - a couple of PPs, the rituals, and some of the items. Most everything else was either underpowered or overpowered (Metamagic feats and the cunning thrust power chain, I'm looking at you!). Unless you're a DM and REALLY want new wizard or options, and are willing to spend an entire day rebalancing the books, I'd not suggest it.
I'd pick 'em up for 5 dollars each on RPGNow, not the 18 they're asking for.
I liked some of the ideas like powers of every damage type, new implements that turn any stat into a secondary, the runes... but yeah its all over the place in term of power. At-Wills are too powerful and Dailies are ridiculously weak.
The only part of the book I'll probably put to use are the guidelines to build towers. Our group wants to rebuild the Keep on the Shadowfell and we don't really much in term of reference point for pricing.
I haven't viewed QF yet, but the Wizard book left me wincing. An area at will that slows, an entire chain of Weapon Prof v Will attacks...
Yeah the At-Will is RIDICULOUSLY accurate! INT+2 vs Will?! With Weapon Prof?! I don't mind the melee wizard idea (though that's what a Swordmage is for) but vs Will?!
Yeah the At-Will is RIDICULOUSLY accurate! INT+2 vs Will?! With Weapon Prof?! I don't mind the melee wizard idea (though that's what a Swordmage is for) but vs Will?!
Bearing in mind that the melee build does not come with commensurate armor proficiency or any greater ability to withstand damage, so unless your concept veers that way it's still a bad idea to attempt - it's just a bad idea because you're likely to get hit back, rather than being a bad idea beause you're likely to get hit back AND you'll almost certainly miss.
Bearing in mind that the melee build does not come with commensurate armor proficiency or any greater ability to withstand damage, so unless your concept veers that way it's still a bad idea to attempt - it's just a bad idea because you're likely to get hit back, rather than being a bad idea beause you're likely to get hit back AND you'll almost certainly miss.
Heh, Staff wizards can have AC comeserate to most fighters from the point of STaff of Defense and can pull better ACs without much investment for certain races.
(13 str, 16 con 18 int Wizards for instance).
not to mention Paragon Multiclassing...et cetra.
The entire chain is horrendously too powerful.
Heh, Staff wizards can have AC comeserate to most fighters from the point of STaff of Defense and can pull better ACs without much investment for certain races.
(13 str, 16 con 18 int Wizards for instance).
not to mention Paragon Multiclassing...et cetra.
The entire chain is horrendously too powerful.
Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. Using the example stats you gave, that attack is going to have a +4 to hit (+2 from staff prof and +2 from the power)compared with PH at-wills (and several of those are area attacks hitting multiple targets) and using the staff you described is going to do a d6 +1 damage compared to a d6 +4 if they used some other at-will that gets a damage boost from Int rather than Str. So it's an at-will that hits a bit more but does less damage or requires a lot more MAD. It should probably drop the +2 to hit built into the power but it's not exactly game-breaking there given that we're looking at an average hit of 4 points of damage if it does connect and a whopping 7 points on a crit.
If you want it to do more damage, then you have to take a weapon proficiency feat... and Quick Draw since you'll need to be able to switch between your weapon and implement quickly. That's two feats to get it to a d10 or d12 and you've lost the benefit of your implement while you're wielding your two-hander. And all of this requires that you be in melee range which means you'll provoke opportunity attacks as soon as you cast a ranged spell unless you can get back out of melee range.
Or you could take (right out of the PH) an at-will that is a ranged AoE, or that both damages and slows the target, or provides ranged AoE damage AND area denial... and all of those will do more damage straight up using your example stats than Cunning Thrust from QW. Could the quintessential books use some tweaking? Sure. But so could the books out of WoTC.
but overpowered and underpowered are in one point of view
overpowered, or not, haven't seen them.
but overpowered and underpowered are in one point of view
Not really. Balance, especially in 4e, is a function of math. Since math is objective rather than subjective, it's a straightforward process to see if something is balanced or not.
and not feel like a glorified archer.
anyway as I said, have not seen them, but I will try and go down to the gaming shop sometime and have a look
and my party wizard should be more powerful in the damage I can deal out.
and not feel like a glorified archer.
anyway as I said, have not seen them, but I will try and go down to the gaming shop sometime and have a look
I've never seen an archer explode a dozen minions in one action. What archers are YOU hanging out with?
Also includes some ranged power options for fighters, though not enough to in any way unseat rangers, and provides an interesting take on simple firearms (no proficiency bonus beyond a few squares' range, reduces enemy's AC on first crit).
Clearly the series aims to be experimental with the mechanics, so some things are going to be hit-and-miss, but new ways of looking at the rules (especially this early in the edition's lifetime) always bode well for their longevity.
Most people involved in the process weren't professionals and had little or no experience in game designing and in the 4e ruleset.
Yes, it's true. They are very inexperienced.
They doesn't have worked on Nephandum, Empyrea, MethyrFall, or on other handbook, or with the italian translator of D&D.
:P :P :P
I agreed that the QW need some errata, that I've listened will appear soon, but is inexact that they aren't professional.
They worked fast on a new set of rules, and the QF demonstrate their will to improve.
......Make up your bloody minds people!
I agreed that the QW need some errata, that I've listened will appear soon
Hi Xary!
The errata is already available, click here to get it:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/4equintwizerrata.pdf
Obviously, it revise all the problems that were highlighted during these months, like metamagic feats and so on.
Moreover, I know that QW was all but perfect, but I would like to assure you that QF is way better, as I believe that the future QR will be even better than both. Just give us the opportunity to demonstrate it.
Thanks for all of your feedback, read you soon!!
This topic makes my brain bleed. First people complain the wizard is underpowered, so Mongoose publishes a book to up it a little, then the same people argue that the book is OP'd?
......Make up your bloody minds people!
First of all the real problem isn't that the Wizard is underpowered, its that its role as controller isn't highlighted enough. Only people who think 'A Wizard has to be better than anybody else, its a wizard' think the Wizard is underpowered.
and second of all QW isn't overpowered, its uneven. Some options are more powerful than their PHB equivalent while others (like dailies) are too weak. It also feels a lot like 'Wizards deserve nice things because they are wizards' is in full effect on a lot of pages.
Ranged options are flat out.
Any cool paragon paths ideas?
I didn't look them over, a player brought it and with just glancing it felt way out of whack. When I get a chance at his place tomorrow I will look it over more carefully if you want.
Not really. Balance, especially in 4e, is a function of math. Since math is objective rather than subjective, it's a straightforward process to see if something is balanced or not.
For damage yes. But what's the mathematical equivalent of dazed or stunned?
I mean, 8 new classes, each with 2 builds, each with 2 power options over 22 levels.
That's 8x2x2 different "characters" to test, or 6 groups of 5-ish. And you want to test each power 2-3 times (once isn't enough because you miss roughly 45% of the time) likely against different types of monster (minion, standard, elite/solo, etc). So assuming you can test 2 powers per fight you still need 33 encounters per PC/group. Even at an hour per combat that's almost a full work week. 30 people spending a full week testing a single book.
Even then they're not going to catch all the abuses of powers.
And you still need to test the revisions of powers you notice are broken.
The amount of time required to test 4e classes is insane.
Dealing standard damage for an at will, if that doesn't leap out as BAD then there are serious issues, most of WotC's problems aren't really of that caliber and the only one that is, is the opal ring of remembrance. There is honest mistakes, then is just plain blatant disregard for balance.
Yes, it's true. They are very inexperienced.
They doesn't have worked on Nephandum, Empyrea, MethyrFall, or on other handbook, or with the italian translator of D&D.
:P :P :P
I didn't cross-check. However, I know for sure that most have been recruited through a forum and that the entire chapter on powers was written by one person.
I agreed that the QW need some errata, that I've listened will appear soon, but is inexact that they aren't professional.
They worked fast on a new set of rules, and the QF demonstrate their will to improve.
Yeah, I know those "errata". In fact, I actually made a lot of them when I had a long chat with the errata guy (yeah, that's singular. one person to revise the entire manual).
Any cool paragon paths ideas?
the whirling dervish and dragonborn myrmidon were about the only two decent pp is QF.
to me its not worth the money
The problem is Weapon+Int+2 v Will
In fact, this is one of the things that has been rewrote into the errata PDF. ;)
Sometimes a bad feedback is just a feedback to ignore, but when it reveal an error like this we cannot obviously act as if nothing had happened; that's why this errata. And, of course, we hope than every following errata could be smaller than the provious one.
