(Think audible glamer to "accompany" the inn's minstrel, while loudly clapping and whistling along, much to the annoyance of the minstrel and the patrons alike. Of course, he was oblivious to the fact he was annoying people.)I don't see gnomes or illusionists in 4e, at least as of yet. Do I have any options to come close?
Just getting back into things.
Its not a whole lot, but it might help you feel more like a true illusionist. I would recommend doing a re-fluff job on other powers in addition to these to get a real illusion-y feel.
I'm used to using illusions to trick the bad guys into walking into traps or misdirection, not directly doing damage. Is direct damage pretty much the game mechanic in 4e?
Mechanics-wise just change the type keyword (fire, ice, necrotic) to "psychic"
I think the consensus for an actual Illusionist class won't happen untill the "Shadow" power source makes it's debut.
Mage Hand
Prestidigitation
Ghost Sound
Light
With these you can have quite a lot of fun screwing with enemies heads and tricking them. However, it is true that some of the more powerful illusions don't exist anymore. The attack powers are all pretty much straight damage, but the utilities are a bit more interesting. As a DM, I usually let players use Arcana checks in conjunction with their cantrips or utilities to create more powerful effects, but that probably doesn't help you very much unless you can talk your DM into doing the same thing.
Hopefully a new class will come out to fill this character concept, or Arcane Power will expand the wizard in this direction.
There's also a few illusion rituals.
Fey pact warlocks get more tricksy powers, including illusions and enchantments. You could multiclass into warlock to get access to more illusions.
One of the design goals of 4e was to even out the power curve, and illusions run counter to that.
And it is a shame, since I used to like illusions. Didn't use them much, but I liked them.
I don't see gnomes or illusionists in 4e, at least as of yet. Do I have any options to come close?
Gnomes have much fewer options than the PHB races, but they are around. Gnome fey-pact warlock probably comes closer than anything else to date.
Thanks for the article.
I'm used to using illusions to trick the bad guys into walking into traps or misdirection, not directly doing damage. Is direct damage pretty much the game mechanic in 4e?
Yessir, it is. Can I ask how long it's been since you played D&D?
If you missed the 3.5 era, it's worth looking at. It's a very rich and complex system, with lots of support, and illusions work the way you're describing.
Yessir, it is. Can I ask how long it's been since you played D&D?
If you missed the 3.5 era, it's worth looking at. It's a very rich and complex system, with lots of support, and illusions work the way you're describing.
RE: How long have I been playing: Let me put it this way; the picture that is now on the DM guide as a tribute was on my original PHB...
But there is a long gap in between my last serious play and now. I did miss the 3.5 era. It sounds like the type of gnome I want is close to fruition. In the meantime, I have an Elf Ranger in mind who uses his tracking skills to capture fugitives for a profit.
But there is a long gap in between my last serious play and now. I did miss the 3.5 era. It sounds like the type of gnome I want is close to fruition. In the meantime, I have an Elf Ranger in mind who uses his tracking skills to capture fugitives for a profit.
That ranger idea works in either edition, but do take a look at 3.5 for the gnomish illusionist. Gnomes made superb illusionists, and actually gained a +1 bonus with illusion spells. More importantly, while some illusions could kill you if you believed them, most functioned the way you're envisioning, and dealt no damage whatsoever. There's a very, very long list of illusion magic in 3.5. The inability to use spells as creatively as previous editions encouraged is one of 4.0's deepest flaws, unfortunately.
That ranger idea works in either edition, but do take a look at 3.5 for the gnomish illusionist. Gnomes made superb illusionists, and actually gained a +1 bonus with illusion spells. More importantly, while some illusions could kill you if you believed them, most functioned the way you're envisioning, and dealt no damage whatsoever. There's a very, very long list of illusion magic in 3.5. The inability to use spells as creatively as previous editions encouraged is one of 4.0's deepest flaws, unfortunately.
3.5 is rules heavy though, a gnome fey or even dark lock in 4e is awsome. Rangers are really cool as well, Im currently playing a tiefling lock, and a darkelf beastmaster ranger. It all depends on what your group is playing, the guys I play with will mostly not touch 3.5 with the preverbial 10foot pole anymore, other groups are the opposite.
Also the Hallucinatory item, and hallucinatory creature rituals cover all out of combat uses of illusion take longer to cast but could still be used creativley.
I always thought D&D was supposed to GIVE me fluff that made me stay up all night thinking how cool my character is. Now it seems that D&D is a battle system and I am required to fluff up the generic powers. Sort of like the suggestion that to be a Necromancer I can just pretend that my powers shoot skulls.
Kind of a buzz kill. you know?
Refluff? Sigh.
I always thought D&D was supposed to GIVE me fluff that made me stay up all night thinking how cool my character is. Now it seems that D&D is a battle system and I am required to fluff up the generic powers. Sort of like the suggestion that to be a Necromancer I can just pretend that my powers shoot skulls.
Kind of a buzz kill. you know?
I'm inclined to agree. I won't DM 4.0 for this reason, among one or two others. When Incarnum came out I had a similar feeling, despite loving the mechanics, and again with some of the 'schools' in the Tome of Battle.
Refluff? Sigh.
I always thought D&D was supposed to GIVE me fluff that made me stay up all night thinking how cool my character is.
Welcome to the part of D&D that isn't a 2e elf.
Refluff? Sigh.
I always thought D&D was supposed to GIVE me fluff that made me stay up all night thinking how cool my character is. Now it seems that D&D is a battle system and I am required to fluff up the generic powers. Sort of like the suggestion that to be a Necromancer I can just pretend that my powers shoot skulls.
Kind of a buzz kill. you know?
?? Ive always refluffed, I like coming up with my own awsome ways of describing things rather than just going with whats in the book. The power system is awsome for that reason it allows people to use their imagination. My warlock even had our dragon born shaking with how I described twlight of the soul.
"Souls of the unquiet dead who hover between this world and the next part the veils and come forth, spend your wrath upon mine enemies and find peace." A howling sound rushes across the battle field a hundred shadowy forms rush towards the giant and enter his chest leaving blackened flesh in their wake.
I like how my dark elfs lizard companion can look like anything I want it to. To me 4e gives the freedom to do what I want how I want it gives me the tools that I need to make the character truly my own, unlike 3.5
I'm inclined to agree. I won't DM 4.0 for this reason, among one or two others. When Incarnum came out I had a similar feeling, despite loving the mechanics, and again with some of the 'schools' in the Tome of Battle.
Yeah, I haven't given up on 4.0 yet. But we are king of thinking that after this campaign we will go to Monte Cooke's Aracana Evolved/Pathfinder with a touch of 4.0 (after all they did a lot of cool stuff in 4e too).
I rarely play D&D (I usually DM), but when I do I have two characters that I usually make. The Jester, or the gnome illusionist, and I don't think either would be fun in 4E. Like those dragon powers were really interesting... but the way they read its like well, its just a hit, and roll the dice. I play a gnome illusionist to AVOID spells like this. Oh well, the 4E ranger is really cool on the other hand.
I rarely play D&D (I usually DM), but when I do I have two characters that I usually make. The Jester, or the gnome illusionist, and I don't think either would be fun in 4E.
Mm, yeah I think you just have to come to terms with the fact that you can't play as many different types of characters in 4.0. If you're going to roll up a character, he's going to be great at combat - one way or another. Well, that or good at nothing.
There really isn't room for a dedicated skill-monkey or a good-natured trickster illusionist, it just doesn't seem to be where the developers were going. On the other hand, I'm jealous of some of the maneuvers (even if I don't like others), as 4e gets pretty cinematic and tactical with combats. I've actually recently discovered that Star Wars SaGa has some reallllly neat, 3.5-compatible maneuvers that I can rip off, though!
There's one maneuver that's basically an all-out running dive, whereupon you gain a bonus to movement and are allowed to make a Spring-Attack-like attack in the middle of a charge, then you end up prone. It's that scene from every action movie ever where the good guy goes diving past an open doorway, guns blazing, then hits the ground and slides off-camera shoulder-first. Pretty awesome.
Mm, yeah I think you just have to come to terms with the fact that you can't play as many different types of characters in 4.0. If you're going to roll up a character, he's going to be great at combat - one way or another. Well, that or good at nothing.
There really isn't room for a dedicated skill-monkey or a good-natured trickster illusionist, it just doesn't seem to be where the developers were going. On the other hand, I'm jealous of some of the maneuvers (even if I don't like others), as 4e gets pretty cinematic and tactical with combats. I've actually recently discovered that Star Wars SaGa has some reallllly neat, 3.5-compatible maneuvers that I can rip off, though!
There's one maneuver that's basically an all-out running dive, whereupon you gain a bonus to movement and are allowed to make a Spring-Attack-like attack in the middle of a charge, then you end up prone. It's that scene from every action movie ever where the good guy goes diving past an open doorway, guns blazing, then hits the ground and slides off-camera shoulder-first. Pretty awesome.
You can still have a trickster, or skill monkey, skill training is a feat that anyone can take at any time its actually easier to build a skill monkey, its just now your skill monkey will also be useful in combat, same with the illusionist.
You can still have a trickster, or skill monkey, skill training is a feat that anyone can take at any time its actually easier to build a skill monkey, its just now your skill monkey will also be useful in combat, same with the illusionist.
You can be the best you can be at skills and the best you can be at combat, yes. But I might rather be able to trade skill expertise for combat-beasty-ness, because I prefer to survive on my wits and on clever and tricky skill use. It's not as easy to do that in the current edition, that's all. It's not really the point of 4.0.
You can be the best you can be at skills and the best you can be at combat, yes. But I might rather be able to trade skill expertise for combat-beasty-ness, because I prefer to survive on my wits and on clever and tricky skill use. It's not as easy to do that in the current edition, that's all. It's not really the point of 4.0.
Agreed, trading out of combat for in combat is a bad idea it leads to some people sitting around doing nothing while everyone else has fun. Surviving by wits is what the rogue does all of their powers key off of being sneaky and striking when they dont expect it. Just because you have combat powers does not mean that you fight the same as the fighter who bashes things.
Refluff? Sigh.
I always thought D&D was supposed to GIVE me fluff that made me stay up all night thinking how cool my character is.
No, DnD is supposed to give your rules to allow you to use your imagination in a way that's balanced with the other players'.
Agreed, trading out of combat for in combat is a bad idea it leads to some people sitting around doing nothing while everyone else has fun. Surviving by wits is what the rogue does all of their powers key off of being sneaky and striking when they dont expect it. Just because you have combat powers does not mean that you fight the same as the fighter who bashes things.
No, but the inability to make a character that isn't either combat-centric or unoptimized demonstrates that 4.0 is and must be a combat-centric game. Well, no. Let me take that back: I suppose you could run it as something else, but your range of options would be more narrow than if you played another version, or another tabletop altogether, with a broader focus.
Again, 4.0 does what it does well. Balanced, and user-friendly, with great tactical options for everyone. The development of 4.0 has been very good for the hobby in drawing new blood and balancing classes for class-versus-class combat. I'm just saying that you can create a less combat-oriented character with 3.5 with more options, and richer options. I don't think (most) gamers would claim that 4.0 has it all, and the OP has expressed an interest in a character concept that I think fits 3.5 a little better than it does 4.0 (as does the concept I described, above).
I'll go ahead and staple a big old 'in my opinion' to the end of all of this.
No, but the inability to make a character that isn't either combat-centric or unoptimized demonstrates that 4.0 is and must be a combat-centric game.
We have at least three threads between here and the Monster forum where people are crying tears of blood over the fact that you can make a character that doesn't get the same +1 bonus to a primary stat that another can.
So it's entirely possible to make a non-optimized character and it is destroying some people's lives.
We have at least three threads between here and the Monster forum where people are crying tears of blood over the fact that you can make a character that doesn't get the same +1 bonus to a primary stat that another can.
So it's entirely possible to make a non-optimized character and it is destroying some people's lives.
Right, that's what I said.
...a character that isn't either combat-centric or unoptimized...
You can make non-optimized characters, but aside from those, you're making combat-centric characters. Which is another way of saying that if you're playing the game, you're going to be making a character, one way or another, that is combat-centric. If you're not, it's because you're deliberately unoptimizing yourself, because short of that, all the classes and powers seem to me to be a lot more combat-centric than in the previous edition.
Compared to, say, [insert really hardcore-combat-centric tabletop here], I'm sure that I'm wrong, but compared to version 3.5, I think I'm spot on. The focus of 4.0 is significantly moreso on combat than was 3.5's more variable focus. This is not to say that any edition of D&D was not combat-centric, just that 4.0 is significantly moreso.
Again, I'd like to say that 4.0 does a fine job of producing a tactical combat engine, and I'm a little jealous of some of it's glamour, even if all in all, I prefer a more variable system.
Right, that's what I said.
Compared to, say, [insert really hardcore-combat-centric tabletop here], I'm sure that I'm wrong, but compared to version 3.5, I think I'm spot on. The focus of 4.0 is significantly moreso on combat than was 3.5's more variable focus. This is not to say that any edition of D&D was not combat-centric, just that 4.0 is significantly moreso.
Again, I'd like to say that 4.0 does a fine job of producing a tactical combat engine, and I'm a little jealous of some of it's glamour, even if all in all, I prefer a more variable system.
Yes. And I think if this combat engine was PART of 5e it would be welcome. But sometimes it feels like the combat engine is the dominant theme. I mean they took my beloved mirror image and made it a +6 to AC. What joy is there left for an illusionist?
Now I know why they did this. Because I DM'd a few illusionists and it wasn't EASY making them happy. I mean 80% of the time they did nothing. Undead, sorry. Golems, sorry. More intelligent high will save creatures, sorry. But every once in a while they would save the day, they would buypass a whole encounter (yes sometimes with a save or die, so what?) And they were fun to play.
Now your illusion does damage, so isn't everyone happy now that its balanced?
Right, that's what I said.
You can make non-optimized characters, but aside from those, you're making combat-centric characters. Which is another way of saying that if you're playing the game, you're going to be making a character, one way or another, that is combat-centric. If you're not, it's because you're deliberately unoptimizing yourself, because short of that, all the classes and powers seem to me to be a lot more combat-centric than in the previous edition.
Compared to, say, [insert really hardcore-combat-centric tabletop here], I'm sure that I'm wrong, but compared to version 3.5, I think I'm spot on. The focus of 4.0 is significantly moreso on combat than was 3.5's more variable focus. This is not to say that any edition of D&D was not combat-centric, just that 4.0 is significantly moreso.
Again, I'd like to say that 4.0 does a fine job of producing a tactical combat engine, and I'm a little jealous of some of it's glamour, even if all in all, I prefer a more variable system.
See with rituals and skills challenges +page 42 its a far more variable system than 3.5 could ever hope to be. The skill system in 3e made it impossible to have a true skill monkey not even the rogue got enough skill points to be a true skill monkey, I have seen more rp in 4e than I ever saw in 3.5. So I dont know what your complaining about if you can get the skills you want while having combat effectivness I dont see the problem. Why would you want to suck at a portion of the game?
See with rituals and skills challenges +page 42 its a far more variable system than 3.5 could ever hope to be. The skill system in 3e made it impossible to have a true skill monkey not even the rogue got enough skill points to be a true skill monkey, I have seen more rp in 4e than I ever saw in 3.5. So I dont know what your complaining about if you can get the skills you want while having combat effectivness I dont see the problem. Why would you want to suck at a portion of the game?
I'm not 'complaining', I just don't think 4.0 does everything better. I think the focus of 4.0 is more narrow, with less emphasis on abilities not related to combat. I also think 4.0 does what it does just fine, and I hope the next edition takes certian cues from it.
I'm not 'complaining', I just don't think 4.0 does everything better. I think the focus of 4.0 is more narrow, with less emphasis on abilities not related to combat. I also think 4.0 does what it does just fine, and I hope the next edition takes certian cues from it.
And I disagree. 3e too many classes were useless in both. Skills challenges provide a perfect method for handling out of combat situations, I dont see this "narrowed" focus at all.
And I disagree. 3e too many classes were useless in both. Skills challenges provide a perfect method for handling out of combat situations, I dont see this "narrowed" focus at all.
That's fine, man, I'm just stating my case. We can agree to disagree, I think I've given fair and descriptive reasons for feeling the way I do.
And I disagree. 3e too many classes were useless in both. Skills challenges provide a perfect method for handling out of combat situations, I dont see this "narrowed" focus at all.
I like skill challenges, but, don't they feel like they formalize the WHOLE point of the game? I mean, talking to NPC's, impressing the baron, searching for stuff, tripping the trap, raising the dead. Right? Or is this just a combat simulation?
I like skill challenges, but, don't they feel like they formalize the WHOLE point of the game? I mean, talking to NPC's, impressing the baron, searching for stuff, tripping the trap, raising the dead. Right? Or is this just a combat simulation?
Depends on how you do it. With our dms we tell him what we are doing act it out then roll whatever the dm says you need. Its at least better than making everything out of combat always depend on a single roll of the dice. To me its better.
You can make non-optimized characters, but aside from those, you're making combat-centric characters. Which is another way of saying that if you're playing the game, you're going to be making a character, one way or another, that is combat-centric. If you're not, it's because you're deliberately unoptimizing yourself, because short of that, all the classes and powers seem to me to be a lot more combat-centric than in the previous edition.
That's like saying Champions point-buy system is class-based, just because it shows the archetypes.
While Champions does not use "character classes" as some RPGs do, it does define common superhero archetypes as found in comic books, based on how they use their powers in combat. As listed in the Champions genre book, they are:
* the Brick - slower hand-to-hand fighter who relies more on raw strength and tougher defenses (Incredible Hulk / Colossus)
* the Energy Projector - primary combat ability is a ranged attack, which, despite the name, is not necessarily energy-based (Cyclops / Starfire)
* the Gadgeteer - abilities based on technological devices (Brainiac 5 / Tony Stark / Reed Richards)
* the Martial Artist (or martist for short) - lightly-armored hand-to-hand combatant who fights with skill, quickness, and agility (Daredevil / Wolverine)
* the Mentalist - abilities target the mind, not the physical foe (Professor X / Jean Grey)
* the Metamorph - abilities involving changes in shape and/or size (Plastic Man / Morph)
* the Mystic - trained in the use of magic, or with abilities or items with magical properties (Doctor Fate / Doctor Strange)
* the Patriot - an embodiment of his or her nation (Captain America / Vindicator / Captain Britain)
* the Powered Armor - a variant of a Gadgeteer, who uses an "all-in-one" gadget worn as armor (Iron Man)
* the Speedster - with abilities based around movement (Flash / Northstar)
* the Weaponmaster - with expertise at using a particular type of weapon (Green Arrow / Hawkeye)
That's like saying Champions point-buy system is class-based, just because it shows the archetypes.
Hm? I'm afraid I'm not clear on how.
Now you got, as I will demonstrate with what I have done with Skill Challenges stuff like this:
1) Diplomacy/Social Interaction.
Diplomacy begins with ordinary non-rule based roleplaying. With the player (speaking through his character) to an NPC (voiced by the DM). It continues like normal till it reaches the point where some wish to alter the circumstances begin, such as, "wooing the person", "agreeing to something", "lowering the price of something", etc. Your basic tenants of a diplomatic challenge.
This is where mechanics begin, while the player continues the discussion like normal a Skill Challenge begins. After a bout of conversation the player rolls a dice of their choosing, for example Insight. Upon a Insight roll the DM will give information or misinformation (depending on success) or failure that the character would notice. Such as, "you notice he is beginning to sweat", or "you notice nervousness in his voice", if the player wishes to act on this information it may help or hinder his cause. This Skill Challenge has no "failure limit" but does have a limit on the number of tries. This is determined by the DM to determine how long the conversation could last, ie; 10 Skill Challenge Attempts could constitute a carriage ride length of time. At the end it is still up to the Player to get the final result but the Skill Challenges can dramatically help or hinder.
If the DM wishes as well, he can go about doing his own Skill Challenge to do such things as determining the resolve of the person being talked too. Or being bolstered by others around him, this will directly effect how the NPC reacts/acts out toward the PC.
2) A chase or other physical contest.
This is a much more heavily mechanics based example then diplomacy. The example I will use is of a chase scene. While the chase is narrated jointly by the DM and the Players these narrations are influenced by the various Skill Challenges going on.
Each player rolls his own Skill Challenge using whichever Skill he feels is appropriate. At the sametime the DM is rolling his own Skill Challenge representing the NPC running away. Whoever manages to reach the "success" limit first either catches up or manages to run away. At the same time, a PC/NPC can forefeit their own Skill Challenge to give a bonus/or negative to another for their next roll. The amount either above or below the success determines how much of a bonus/negative.
3) A task that would fall under the old 3.5 terminology as "Profession", "Craft" or "Perfume".
The task I will showcase will be a person trying to construct a weapon. This is a almost entirely mechanics based situation. The Skills used in this are influenced by the type of weapon wished to be made. In this case lets make a magically-enchanted sword.
Once the resources are gathered to make the weapon, such as iron, a blacksmith forge, whatever magical property may be needed in that campaign world, etc. The work begins. The player goes through the process of making the weapon using the appropriate skills:
-Forging: Perception (one needs to be able to see changes in the metal)
-Hammering: Athletics (one needs the proper strength to shape the metal)
-Effort Involved: Endurance (it takes time and effort to forge a weapon)
-Knowledge Gained From: Religion, Arcana, History (the source one learnt to forge a weapon)
-Enchanting: Arcana (to know the method to enchant the weapon)
The level of difficulty involved depends on how powerful of a weapon is being crafted. This is a difficult Skill Challenge in general because there is no second-chances each Skill used must succeed. This gives it a slightly more realistic bent too it given how difficult it could be to forge weapons.
4) Investigation or Puzzle Solving.
The investigation example follows very closely to the model laid out in Diplomacy. It involves lots of player skill which is helped or hindered by the mechanics of the Skill Challenge resulting from the level of skill of the character.
The player goes about investigating the scene, item, body, etc. Per normal, asking what he sees, discussing with NPCs and other players ideas and such. Your general brainstorming. However the mechanics come in the form of Skill Challenges that gives clues (either correct or false) when investigating something. So they can be things such as, "the blood splatter suggests a blunt object was used", or "the foot prints are too small for an adult human", such things. The success of failure of a Skill Challenge determines whether or not a "eureka!" happens, essentially a very large clue if you succeed. Obviously if the players figure out things before the end of a Skill Challenge it doesn't happen. A Skill Challenge can happen again if they still wish to investigate more.
This was from a old thread, but fits nicely into this since demonstrates my Skill Challenges.
It is a pretty neat mechanic, though it's D&D origins can be found in 3.5. It's existence doesn't take the focus away from combat, however. For example, to my knowledge there are really no non-combat feats save for Skill Focus and Linguist, and there are virtually no non-combat powers.
So? Out of combat is what rituals and skills are for for the most part they seperated combat and out of combat. Thus you never have to trade one for the other. It allows everyone to participate in the entire game. The game is only as combat focused as the dm/group allows it to be. Also actual xp for quests and non combat encounters means that 4e is the first eddition to give actual hard rules for gaining levels without combat, so no I dont see what your point is.
And no skills challenges never showed up as a mechanic in 3.5
Hm? I'm afraid I'm not clear on how.
It's ok to build yourself for the middle of the ground. Sure, Linguist may mean you don't get +1 damage from weapon focus, but it means you speak to (and can intimidate, if you're built for it) over half the creatures in the game.
Likewise, there are only 2 skills that have absolutely no combat aplications-Diplomancy, and Streetwise. Some of it may be situational- nature check to know that you're fighing Werewolves, for instance- but it's still usable even if you arn't built for combat.
And no skills challenges never showed up as a mechanic in 3.5
Unearthed Arcana had rules similar to skill challenges I believe. But honestly, I've been running "skill challenges" way before 4e. So to me, 4e skill challenges are nothing new, or revolutionary. I find them too rigid to be honest.
No, if anything, that all characters are viable in combat is conductive to the idea that 4E is party-centric. Its focus, if any, is on allowing for as many players to take an active part in gameplay as much as possible. It's mechanically designed to work this way. Being able to gimp yourself in one field of play in favor of another pushes the idea that the game is played by 4-5 one-man teams, which naturally leads to most players being mere spectators most of the time, while they wait for their time to shine.
This said, going back to the question at hand, the closest things you have to the gnome illusionist is a gnome wizard, fey-pact warlock or bard. Heck, if you're a bard, you can actually get the best of the three as the bard is allowed to multiclass into more than one class and synergizes well with the Intelligence-based and Charisma-based powers and skills an illusionist will most likely be interested in.
There are non-combat elements to the game, to be sure, and some of them are quite good, but on the whole, 4.0 is significantly more combat-centric, and therefore less flexible in my opinion, than 3.5 is. Just my opinion.
I didn't say that 4.0 was combat-centric because every class is combat-viable. I said that it was combat-centric because every class must be combat-focused, and so must every feat and power.
There are non-combat elements to the game, to be sure, and some of them are quite good, but on the whole, 4.0 is significantly more combat-centric,
and therefore less flexible in my opinion, than 3.5 is. Just my opinion.
?? So because every character is good at combat its combat centric? Thats an odd thought. And 3e is less flexible at least if your not a caster non casters after level 10 get to do nothing interesting in 3.5, where as 4e actually makes every class interesting to play, so I really dont know why you think its less flexible if anything its more flexible as now you can be good out of combat and in combat.
?? So because every character is good at combat its combat centric? Thats an odd thought.
No. The 'why' of it is because every character is good at combat, every feat improves combat, and every power's use is for combat. There are exceptions, though.
And 3e is less flexible at least if your not a caster non casters after level 10 get to do nothing interesting in 3.5, where as 4e actually makes every class interesting to play, so I really dont know why you think its less flexible if anything its more flexible as now you can be good out of combat and in combat.
No, every class has to be good in and out of combat. In any case, I don't have a problem with it, it's just a different sort of game. I like the option of being able to sacrifice some of one for some of the other, but your tastes may vary. No biggie.
Also, I'm afraid you're not going to change my mind about 3.5 being this terrible, inflexible system, so you can save your keystrokes. I'm arguing 4.0's strengths and weaknesses, from where I stand. It's fine, it's just not my preference. I'm not looking to play 'make the other guy's game look bad' with you, dude.
No. The 'why' of it is because every character is good at combat, every feat improves combat, and every power's use is for combat. There are exceptions, though.
No, every class has to be good in and out of combat. In any case, I don't have a problem with it, it's just a different sort of game. I like the option of being able to sacrifice some of one for some of the other, but your tastes may vary. No biggie.
Also, I'm afraid you're not going to change my mind about 3.5 being this terrible, inflexible system, so you can save your keystrokes. I'm arguing 4.0's strengths and weaknesses, from where I stand. It's fine, it's just not my preference. I'm not looking to play 'make the other guy's game look bad' with you, dude.
Except your wrong on 4e and giving someone else bad advice. There is nothing limiting about 4e. What he wants is easily achievable with 4e.
Sadly since there is no easy button for combat in 4e you don't get to have one for out of combat situation either.
Now the paradigmn has shift. Out of combat encounter are CHALLENGES that you have to overcome and get rewarded when you do. If they're not challenging they shouldn't even be there in the first place (i.e. a random locked door before a battle encounter is pointless and should not be rolled for or even be there) as it bogs down the game.
Except your wrong on 4e and giving someone else bad advice. There is nothing limiting about 4e. What he wants is easily achievable with 4e.
Okay. Except that I am of the opinion that it's more easily attainable with 3.5. I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that there's nothing you can do about the fact that I don't agree that 3.5 is limited and sucky. Sorry man.
I didn't say that 4.0 was combat-centric because every class is combat-viable. I said that it was combat-centric because every class must be combat-focused, and so must every feat and power.
Care to prove this claim? I find it doubtful due to the following counter-examples:
1) Skills: every class comes with at least three trained ones.
2) Feats: Linguist, Skill Focus, Jack of all Trades, Ritual Caster, Skill Training, Durable (because healing surges are a versatile currency)
3) Powers (the ones that have obvious out of combat applications): Holy Lantern, Cloud Chariot, Astral Speech, One Heart One Mind, Angelic Rescue, Crucial Advice, Skilled Companion, Undaunted Stride, Longstrider, Forest Ghost, Fleeting Ghost, Great Leap, Master of Deceit, Quick Fingers, Chameleon, Mob Mentality, Nimble Climb, Certain Freedom, Shadow Stride, Foil the Lock, Hide in Plain Sight, Cloud Jump, Hide from the Light, Beguiling Tongue, Shadow Veil, Dark One's Own Luck, Spider Climb, Ambassador Imp, Shadow Form, Warlock's Leap, Cloak of Shadow, Eye of the Warlock, Infuriating Elusiveness, Raven's Glamor, Quick Step, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Feather Fall, Jump, Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate, Wall of Fog, Arcane Gate, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Mass Fly, Mordenkainen's Mansion
4) Rituals: pretty much all of them
If anything, 3E has been the most combat centric edition yet because it only offers a reward system based on challenge ratings, which are used in nearly all cases for combat encounters.
Traps are not necessarily combat encounter, but they do give XP based on their CR. However, I believe the DMG mentions XP rewards for non-combat encounters. Nothing was hard-coded, it was ad-hoc. It would be difficult to create XP rewards for every non-combat situation, for instance. So, it's not like it wasn't there.
Okay. Except that I am of the opinion that it's more easily attainable with 3.5. I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that there's nothing you can do about the fact that I don't agree that 3.5 is limited and sucky. Sorry man.
Rituals cover everything, tell me whats missing in 4e? Theres nothing thats in 3e, thats actually missed thats not in 4e.
Rituals cover everything, tell me whats missing in 4e? Theres nothing thats in 3e, thats actually missed thats not in 4e.
A summoner. :P I know my player miss it.
A summoner. :P I know my player miss it.
Well I dont think we will see full out and out summons, but the invoker gets summoner like powers. But summons could take a very long time to resolve actions for. But Ill concede that one point we had sorc who summoned badgers constantly it was funny. But in 4e I have seen more rp and out of combat things done then I ever saw in 3e because in 3e it was caster casts spell and situation solved, everytime. Very seldom was the rogue even allowed to roll hide, the wiz would just use invis same thing with every kind of out of combat situation so if thats what he misses more power to him.
A summoner. :P I know my player miss it.
The invoker is coming. It also bears mentioning that the Cleric has a few summons; the main difference being that they aren't in the ridiculous 'It takes 45 minutes for Steve to do his turns because he has his character, his followers, and half a dozen summoned creatures to manipulate'.
Care to prove this claim? I find it doubtful due to the following counter-examples:
1) Skills: every class comes with at least three trained ones.
2) Feats: Linguist, Skill Focus, Jack of all Trades, Ritual Caster, Skill Training, Durable (because healing surges are a versatile currency)
3) Powers (the ones that have obvious out of combat applications): Holy Lantern, Cloud Chariot, Astral Speech, One Heart One Mind, Angelic Rescue, Crucial Advice, Skilled Companion, Undaunted Stride, Longstrider, Forest Ghost, Fleeting Ghost, Great Leap, Master of Deceit, Quick Fingers, Chameleon, Mob Mentality, Nimble Climb, Certain Freedom, Shadow Stride, Foil the Lock, Hide in Plain Sight, Cloud Jump, Hide from the Light, Beguiling Tongue, Shadow Veil, Dark One's Own Luck, Spider Climb, Ambassador Imp, Shadow Form, Warlock's Leap, Cloak of Shadow, Eye of the Warlock, Infuriating Elusiveness, Raven's Glamor, Quick Step, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Feather Fall, Jump, Dimension Door, Disguise Self, Invisibility, Levitate, Wall of Fog, Arcane Gate, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Mass Fly, Mordenkainen's Mansion
4) Rituals: pretty much all of them
You know, you make it really hard to lie aobut the game when you do things like this.
GOOD JOB!
You know, you make it really hard to lie aobut the game when you do things like this.
Not that it'll stop Rake ...
Well I dont think we will see full out and out summons, but the invoker gets summoner like powers. But summons could take a very long time to resolve actions for. But Ill concede that one point we had sorc who summoned badgers constantly it was funny. But in 4e I have seen more rp and out of combat things done then I ever saw in 3e because in 3e it was caster casts spell and situation solved, everytime. Very seldom was the rogue even allowed to roll hide, the wiz would just use invis same thing with every kind of out of combat situation so if thats what he misses more power to him.
Wow, you just changed from summoners to "casters in 3e had all the options?" so quickly. I wasn't quite sure why you went a total 180 until the last sentence. You had me confused for a moment.
Traps are not necessarily combat encounter, but they do give XP based on their CR. However, I believe the DMG mentions XP rewards for non-combat encounters. Nothing was hard-coded, it was ad-hoc. It would be difficult to create XP rewards for every non-combat situation, for instance. So, it's not like it wasn't there.
This is why I was careful to use the word "nearly." I am well aware that traps do draw off the CR system, but your typical 3E adventure doesn't feature a majority (or even a significant number) of traps, as they're liable to only occupy a single character. Otherwise, as you said, any kind of rewards for non-CR encounters is essentially ad-hoc, and nowhere near as formalized as quests and skill challenges are. In layman's terms, making 3E mechanically rewarding without combat is a matter of winging it, whereas making 4E mechanically rewarding without combat is natural and a feature of the rule system.
Wow, you just changed from summoners to "casters in 3e had all the options?" so quickly. I wasn't quite sure why you went a total 180 until the last sentence. You had me confused for a moment.
I blame it on exhaustion. Sorry bout that
This is why I was careful to use the word "nearly." I am well aware that traps do draw off the CR system, but your typical 3E adventure doesn't feature a majority (or even a significant number) of traps, as they're liable to only occupy a single character. Otherwise, as you said, any kind of rewards for non-CR encounters is essentially ad-hoc, and nowhere near as formalized as quests and skill challenges are. In layman's terms, making 3E mechanically rewarding without combat is a matter of winging it, whereas making 4E mechanically rewarding without combat is natural and a feature of the rule system.
Well I hardly call skill challenges a natural part of the game. As I've said before, it's way too rigid for my tastes and I've been doing something to that effect for years. But that's just me. So in effect, I'm still winging it. :P But, at least now there are rules written that offer that as a feature, or as a guideline.
I blame it on exhaustion. Sorry bout that
No problem.
Care to prove this claim?
Well, no, because it's an objective point, not a provable fact. But I'll debate you! As I've said, I'm aware that there are a very few non-combat feats and powers, though I wouldn't classify many or most of the ones you listed as being 'non-combat'. I only propose that there is a higher percentage of fun-non-combat-options-for-players versus combat-options-for-players in 3.5, as compared to 4.0. If you'd like, you could build the most capable, viable, yet utility/non-combat-oriented character that you can imagine under the 4.0 ruleset, and I could built a 3.5 character with the same goal in mind. It'd be interesting to compare, provided we can remain not-jerks about it.
Originally Posted by Vaalingrade Ashland
You know, you make it really hard to lie aobut the game when you do things like this.
Not that it'll stop Rake ...
Man, you guys are the coolest. I wish I was as cool as you guys!
So? Out of combat is what rituals and skills are for...
That's right. What is the point that you're making here? I'm aware that rituals exist.
...for the most part they seperated combat and out of combat. Thus you never have to trade one for the other.
Right, I know you can. I enjoy being able to trade a little of one for a little of another. You prefer the opposite approach. No big deal, right?
And no skills challenges never showed up as a mechanic in 3.5
They did. Pretty good variant in the UA. Used it to good effect when making traps and getting past doors with multiple locks, and for doing certain wilderness things, like navigating / getting lost.
Because I DM'd a few illusionists and it wasn't EASY making them happy. I mean 80% of the time they did nothing. Undead, sorry.
Hate to derail, but I have to jump in here. 3.x undead are not immune to all illusions. Figments and Glamers work just fine against them.
Hate to derail, but I have to jump in here. 3.x undead are not immune to all illusions. Figments and Glamers work just fine against them.
Also true of constructs (and any sighted creature, generally speaking). But yeah, sorry. Back to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic discussion.
Well, no, because it's an objective point, not a provable fact. But I'll debate you! As I've said, I'm aware that there are a very few non-combat feats and powers, though I wouldn't classify many or most of the ones you listed as being 'non-combat'. I only propose that there is a higher percentage of fun-non-combat-options-for-players versus combat-options-for-players in 3.5, as compared to 4.0. If you'd like, you could build the most capable, viable, yet utility/non-combat-oriented character that you can imagine under the 4.0 ruleset, and I could built a 3.5 character with the same goal in mind. It'd be interesting to compare, provided we can remain not-jerks about it.
4.0 Bard. Definately.
Well I hardly call skill challenges a natural part of the game. As I've said before, it's way too rigid for my tastes and I've been doing something to that effect for years. But that's just me.
Be that as it may, your dislike of skill challenges doesn't make them an unnatural part of the game. I found little interest in traps in 3E (until Secrets of Xen'drik and Dungeonscape introduced encounter traps), and yet I still find them to be a natural part of the game. Rescue at Rivenroar, for example, features four of them (and two quests).
Well, no, because it's an objective point, not a provable fact. But I'll debate you! As I've said, I'm aware that there are a very few non-combat feats and powers, though I wouldn't classify many or most of the ones you listed as being 'non-combat'. I only propose that there is a higher percentage of fun-non-combat-options-for-players versus combat-options-for-players in 3.5, as compared to 4.0. If you'd like, you could build the most capable, viable, yet utility/non-combat-oriented character that you can imagine under the 4.0 ruleset, and I could built a 3.5 character with the same goal in mind. It'd be interesting to compare, provided we can remain not-jerks about it.
Regrettably, I will not get into such a comparison for a number of reasons:
1) I firmly believe this will lead to yet another edition war, and this thread will be closed.
2) It is incredibly off-topic for this discussion.
3) I also believe that there is no point in this comparison as it would do nothing to corroborate or outrule your would-be "objective point." If you want to argue about this impression of 4E being combat-centric that some players have, then focus on 4E mechanics and systems, rather than comparing to what is obviously a vastly different mechanical paradigm (i.e. 3E). If you truly must refer to 3E in any way, then do so in how it built expectations in its player base.
If I'm understanding correctly, there are a couple options currently that have some illusionist flavor, and I can get Gnome stats out of MM. I'm less clear on whether a better approximation or an actual illusionist class will be in PHB2. Any info on that?
Let's see how good of a job I did in preventing this thread from crashing into some parked rail cars...
There may be more illusion rituals, and there's a good chance that reflavoring the Invkoer with be your best shot at that in PHII.
right now, your best bet is playing a gnome wizard, using the dragon powers linked and the illusion rituals.
After reading through this thread, I find I'm still confused on how best to approximate a Gnome Illusionist in 4E. Whether other editions would serve this class better isn't really relevant, if the rest of my group is playing 4E, right?
Begin by selecting Gnome as your race :P
The way that seemsmost obvious to me would be to usethe Wizard class, and select light/deception/illusion themed spells found in the PHB and Class Acts article, which is available as a free PDF here. The Orb implement mastery feature should help increase the duration of any effects.
Wizards should get even more spells, feats, and rituals when the Arcane Power book is released, and even though one can build a capable spellcaster relying on illusion themed spells, I doubt you are likely to see a base class named Illusionist. Maybe a Paragon path? This may be a shtick being reserved for the Psionic classes.
Another way (and my personal favorite) is via a Warlock who focuses on taking Fey Pact powers. They have many powers that render you invisible to the enemy or causes them to imagine things. There are also powers that can increase your Bluff skill and facilitate sneaking about.
When the PHB2 comes out and gives us the Bard, which has lots of little deceptive and illusion themed powers, I'm sure that will be listed as one of the preferred classes of the Gnome. Illusions have already been mentioned as the Gnome's preferred method of dealing with enemies.
No matter what class you choose, I would suggest picking up ritual caster and getting all the Illusion rituals.
Also remember that HP doesn't necessarily mean physical damage. When reducing an enemy to 0, you can always choose to knock them out. In this way, most any of your powers that deal "damage" could be explained as "imagined pain" or sapping of one's will or desire to fight, until they eventually get worn out.