Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:
Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.

I disagree invisibility, teleportation, flight, transformation, lighting up rooms, making false sounds, etc can be used for non combat purposes.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.

I disagree invisibility, teleportation, flight, transformation, lighting up rooms, making false sounds, etc can be used for non combat purposes.

And plenty more are stuck as "rituals" with ridiculously high costs, stupidly long casting times, and other such restrictive nonsense. And even if you have those, again, every single wizard, without exception, is a battlemage in fourth edition.

 Melissia wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Meanwhile, I feel that non-combat options are neglected by 4e. Especially non-combat spells. Every wizard in 4e is just another battlemage, and nothing more.

I disagree invisibility, teleportation, flight, transformation, lighting up rooms, making false sounds, etc can be used for non combat purposes.

And plenty more are stuck as "rituals" with ridiculously high costs, stupidly long casting times, and other such restrictive nonsense. And even if you have those, again, every single wizard, without exception, is a battlemage in fourth edition.

What do you mean by battlemage? As I've already mentioned several way in which wizards can use there spells in non-combative ways.

Quite simply, every wizard in 4th edition is a combat spellcaster. No exception.

This is fine for the balance of 4th edition. But it isn't always what I'm looking for in a roleplaying character.

 Melissia wrote:
Quite simply, every wizard in 4th edition is a combat spellcaster. No exception.

This is fine for the balance of 4th edition. But it isn't always what I'm looking for in a roleplaying character.

What does 3.5 wizards do that distinguishes themselves as non-battlemages?

Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.

nomotog wrote:
Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.

Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.

If you want to make things more reasonable men should have a boost to Strength and if present Size stats without a corresponding advantage for women.

Yes you can get strong ladies, but if she were XY and worked out as much she would be stronger. The difference in genders is 10% on average. Those are the flat facts.

You have three ways to run with this information:

1. Ignore it. This works with PC stats but as the character profiles apply to everyone its a cop out.

2. Apply the +1 strength and settle the matter. This offends feminists and may cost sales.

3. Include the less well used balancing stats. Women are clearly advantaged in Mental Constitution (which isn't Wisdom, Willpower or Constitution) but refers to pain tolerance and stress tolerance.

 Cheesecat wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.

Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.

Some form. Your class list was 99% ways to kill people. Your feats where 99% ways to kill people. Your skills... Well skills where still noncombat if a little pared down. You can use the argument that you don't have to use your vast killy power, but it sure takes up the majority of your sheet and sends the message that it's your job to kill things.

Also the rules for non combat where quite crappy. At the start anyway. Did they every get better?

nomotog wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.

Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.

Some form. Your class list was 99% ways to kill people. Your feats where 99% ways to kill people. Your skills... Well skills where still noncombat if a little pared down. You can use the argument that you don't have to use your vast killy power, but it sure takes up the majority of your sheet and sends the message that it's your job to kill things.

Also the rules for non combat where quite crappy. At the start anyway. Did they every get better?

I don't see what was wrong with the rules outside combat just make sure you eat, sleep and drink regularly and most of the stuff outside combat it's just role playing anyways with a bit of dice rolling when using skills and abilities.

edit: spoilering this because it's sort of off topic.

 Melissia wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Quite simply, every wizard in 4th edition is a combat spellcaster. No exception.

This is fine for the balance of 4th edition. But it isn't always what I'm looking for in a roleplaying character.

What does 3.5 wizards do that distinguishes themselves as non-battlemages?

For example, I am currently playing a necromancer that has only a single directly damaging offensive spell (chill touch). At level six, she will obtain her first prestige class level, and from there, advance in a unique wizard path, taking necromancy within herself to become a Pale Master.

Looking through 4e.... there's no path for necromancers, or specialists at all, really. Animate dead is gone. As in, no longer exists. Neither does create or control undead, or even detect undead. Clerics don't get a single necromantic spell until level 27. Hell, there's barely even any path for utility mages. Comprehend language goes from taking a half-round action to cast, to taking ten minutes. Same with Knock, Detect Secret Doors, Detect Object, and tons other. Gentle Repose takes a full hour, as do many, many others. "Hey, our thief epically failed at picking the lock so we can get away, but don't worry, give me sixty rounds of combat and I'll get it open no sweat!" Some of them take up to eight hours to cast, and all of them have their price increased.

Wizards are just generic and samey now. They're all combat casters and battlemages, and basically useless in any sort of time-restricted mission. Hell even the non-combat spells that AREN'T rituals are fething useless now, and you can't specialize in them at all-- utility spells are something all wizards get and you can't get any more of them.

Don't get me wrong, I liked playing DnD 4e. But it's very restrictive and limiting.

Yeah, that's one thing that annoys me in 4e is there's no necromancer class or paragon path, especially considering it's a common RPG archetype I disagree that that non combat spells are useless invisibility, transformation, levitation and teleportation are very useful.

Most non-combat spells are rituals, and thus useless.

 Melissia wrote:
Most non-combat spells are rituals, and thus useless.

Those were utility powers, I'm going off memory as I haven't played DnD 4e in over a year so I maybe full of gak.

 Cheesecat wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Take evocation as a restricted school. It was fairly easy for you to make a non combative character in 3e. You could make a wizard and not take a single combat spell. You could also load up on skills like craft and gather up feats that did non combat things like let you buy a castle. In 4e everyone gets a large set of combat abilities as the core of their character. You have to play someone who can kill people in a verity of ways.

Well it is true that every character does have some from of lethal abilities in 4e that doesn't mean you have to play a character who uses lethal force.

Some form. Your class list was 99% ways to kill people. Your feats where 99% ways to kill people. Your skills... Well skills where still noncombat if a little pared down. You can use the argument that you don't have to use your vast killy power, but it sure takes up the majority of your sheet and sends the message that it's your job to kill things.

Also the rules for non combat where quite crappy. At the start anyway. Did they every get better?

I don't see what was wrong with the rules outside combat just make sure you eat, sleep and drink regularly and most of the stuff outside combat it's just role playing anyways with a bit of dice rolling when using skills and abilities.

Well they just don't have many rules. I mean they had zero guidelines for the diplomacy skill. I liked things in 3 where they had a ton of examples of DCs.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Most non-combat spells are rituals, and thus useless.

Those were utility powers, I'm going off memory as I haven't played DnD 4e in over a year so I maybe full of gak.

I know. THe ones I mentioned weren't.

Knock, for example, cost 150(ish?) gold coins to cast, and took 10 minutes to finish casting. In that time, you might as well just let the rogue take twenty-- it'll be faster. Most rituals are the exact same, they take so long theyr'e not worth using. In 3.5e, it costs nothing, and you cast it in half a round-- three seconds.

Even Invisibiltiy is less than it was before. You have to maintain it now instead of casting it and having it last for the duration, and that means drastically reduced actions. They made wizards less versatile in exchange for making wizards more hardy and more combat focused . Which is fine for a hack and slash like 4e, but it's not what I'm looking for when I want to play, say, a scholarly character.

I think the invisibility was a sustain major (maybe minor) which would means you could still use a movement and minor action plus it would a little OP if you could attack while invisible so it's not that limiting and it lasted till the end of the encounter.

 Cheesecat wrote:
there's no path for necromancers

Heroes of Shadow.

 Cheesecat wrote:
or specialists at all, really.

Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdom.


If you never used rituals you were doing it wrong. We use them all the time and they are immensely useful, especially at higher levels.

 Ahtman wrote:
We use them all the time and they are immensely useful, especially at higher levels.

And yet they're slow, clumsy, and weak, compared to what 3.5e utility mages can do.

 Melissia wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
We use them all the time and they are immensely useful, especially at higher levels.

And yet they're slow, clumsy, and weak, compared to what 3.5e utility mages can do.

But then 3.5 overall as a system is weak and clumsy. Really the complaint seems to be 'this isn't 3.5', which isn't really much of a complaint.

 Ahtman wrote:
Really the complaint seems to be 'this isn't 3.5'

No it's not. It does you a disservice to try to force yourself to perceive it that way. I rather clearly stated my complaints.

I also stated that 4th edition was fine, it just had its problems like every other system. Why do you get so defensive?

There's no such thing as a perfect RPG system. Just like there's no such thing as a perfect operating system

When your complaints are all I don't like x in 4e, it is like this in 3.5, it certainly seems that in the end your argument boils down to 4e not being 3.5. I'm not being defensive, I just find the argument that rituals are clumsy from someone that keeps bringing up 3.5 to be a bit disingenuous, as 3.5 is itself clumsy at it's core.

 Ahtman wrote:
When your complaints are all I don't like x in 4e, it is like this in 3.5,

I have a lot of complaints about 3.5e. I mean, despite my complaints about how wizards are hugely simplified in 4e.... they're also hugely simplified in 4e. Wizards don't have to pay ~350 gp, roll two tests (one of them rather hard), and spend two days doing nothing just to learn a new level two spell any more (and let's not even get started on higher level spells, the cost in time and money increases quite a bit), for example. At the same time, swordmages in 4e are quite possibly the best example of magical melee fighters in the game-- just an awesome and very well done class (it was in the Forgotten Realms supplement I think).

My complaints have more to do with the fact that, with the simplification, a huge amount of variety was also gotten rid of. It was somewhat unavoidable though, I guess, when you make such a huge change and attempt to balance everything out properly.

The difference between Wizards in 3.5e and 4e is really rather simple. Actually, the difference between the games is simple.

3.5 is more versatile and varied in what you can do. 4e is far more balanced. Wizards are indeed far more simplified and basic than the potential godmoding melon-fethers they were in 3.5. Their sheer versatility over the other classes made them numero uno for the munchkin player, with Clerics and Druids falling somewhat behind.

Personally, I prefer 3.5, but that is just me.

At the same time, the versatility was also far better for NON-munchkins as well.

I agree, that is why I liked it.

Balance IMO is less an issue is tabletop RPGs because it involves interacting with hopefully a group of peers, where you can all work to build characters that contribute to the game without one assclown making the rest of the party his own personal audience. The GM as well acts as a sort of all-powerful party balancer.

Still, I do envy some of 4th edition's changes. It was a breeze and quite fun to play through, even though it seemed to require a grid to play.

On the OP's question, I think you have to consider how much things like stats for gender and other things actually limit character design rather than improve it.

Basic reality of gaming is that people make choices to make their character effective. Maybe not goofball min-maxing (charisma is my dump stat) but they certainly pick different options with power in mind. Classic example is a Dark Heresy game I was in a while back, where the GM used special rules for different background stories - you get a special rule based on the background you pick. The rule for Gunmetal City was really nice for pistol wielding scum, so sure enough both scum characters in our party said they were from Gunmetal City. In the vast Imperium I guess it's possible, but when both Tech-Priests came from Tarsus (I think it was Tarsus)...

Can't blame them, they all wanted effective characters, but what was meant to be a cool little bonus ended up just ends narrowing the millions of possible character set ups to a narrow range of optimum builds.


If you give stat bonuses for gender, then characters will make gender just another part of the optimising process. If they need Str for their build, then they'll play a guy. If they need Dex for thievery then they'll play a girl. Parties will always have a guy fighter, and a girl thief.

And that's way less realistic than having girls that can be just as strong as boys.


The solution really is to de-couple background and fluff elements from character design. Let the player choose their background freely based on what's the most cool and exciting, and build an effective character in stats independant of that.

The other thing is to really think about why stats are even worth bothering with, in a game where class will so narrowly define which attributes you have to specialise in. I mean, what's the point when every D&D 4th ed character specialises in their key stat, puts enough points in their secondary stat, and then just dumps as little as possible in the rest? Every Ranger ends up statted playing like every other ranger, so why even have the stats at all?

That said, D&D 4th ed does do quite nicely with the bonuses given out for race. They stand aside from stats and basic character actions, so for instance every class can benefit from the Dwarf's ability to heal as a free action (some more than others, but all can benefit to enough of an extent that you are free to pick a Dwarf as any character class without feeling like you're being left behind in power level).

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The difference between Wizards in 3.5e and 4e is really rather simple. Actually, the difference between the games is simple.

3.5 is more versatile and varied in what you can do. 4e is far more balanced. Wizards are indeed far more simplified and basic than the potential godmoding melon-fethers they were in 3.5. Their sheer versatility over the other classes made them numero uno for the munchkin player, with Clerics and Druids falling somewhat behind.

Personally, I prefer 3.5, but that is just me.

Not just you.

Though, I'm finding next nice too.

[Mod Edit - "picture only" posts are considered Spam. "Picture only" posts with naughty words in them are 2x bad. Alpharius]