Top 5 Encounter Powers That Need Fixing in 4e

[Pickles JG]

Originally Posted by cdrcjsn

Make no mistake, I love the fact that the number of things that are unbalanced are so few that I cut off the list of encounter powers at 5 because I couldn't think of 10. I could add a couple more to that list, but not 5 more.

If it was 50 things it might not be an issue at all - it might just mean there were a lot of sub par powers.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Elder-Basilisk

It's probably a lot more accurate to say that "system mastery" is how the marketers of 4th edition decided to tell the designers to retroactively characterize the 3.x design philosophy. The designers fed us a lot of nonsense that no thinking person has any business believing in the early days of the runup to 4th edition.

Here is the relevant article from Monte Cook:
Ivory Tower Game Design

---

Of course, most systems will have an "emergent" system mastery. Sometimes, certain game abilities and combination of game abilities turn out stronger than others. But that's not the same as a "planned" system mastery, where there are abitilies that are deliberately weaker than other abilities you could choose.

[blargney the second]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Here is the relevant article from Monte Cook:
Ivory Tower Game Design

---

Of course, most systems will have an "emergent" system mastery. Sometimes, certain game abilities and combination of game abilities turn out stronger than others. But that's not the same as a "planned" system mastery, where there are abitilies that are deliberately weaker than other abilities you could choose.

That's a neat article - thanks for the link.

My favourite games all promote emergent system mastery to greater or lesser degrees. I enjoy figuring out good combos about as much as I enjoy putting them into play.

Planned mastery I don't like as much unless there's some randomizing effect that determines access to various components.

[Elder-Basilisk]

Originally Posted by Saeviomagy

Prior to expansion books, the difference between the two at low levels(at least) is fractions of a point of damage per round across some of the range of possible target acs.

Not really.

Level 1 ranger. 18 dex. Longbow. Weapon Focus.

If we assume a 50% base chance to hit, you get:

Twin strike: DPR 9.81875
Careful Strike: DPR 6.35

So, in the range where the game is designed to generally occur, Twin strike does more than 50% more damage.

"But wait," you say. "Twin Strike is supposed to be better when it's relatively easy to hit. The time you want to use careful strike is when you are have trouble hitting.

So let's compare the two:
Attack number you need in order to hit Twin Strike DPR Careful Attack DPR
13 8.13375 5.35
14 7.265 4.85
15 6.37875 4.35
16 5.475 3.85
17 4.55375 3.35
18 3.615 2.85
19 2.65875 2.35
20 1.685 1.85
21 0.99125 1.35
22 0.99125 0.85

Looking at these numbers, you will notice that careful attack is more than 1 point of DPR behind twin strike until you would ordinarily need an 18 to hit, and only pulls ahead if you would ordinarily need a 20 or 21 to hit--and even then, is only ahead by a fraction of a point of damage per round.

So, careful attack is straight-up worse than twin strike in nearly every situation--even in the situations that it is designed to make you think it might be a good idea. The very few situations where it is better:
A. Don't come up very often (how often do you only hit on a 20 with twin strike)?
B. It is only ahead by that fraction of a point of DPR that you mentioned
C. You should probably be doing something other than attacking anyway. It's time to think about running away or using aid other or something like that.

The idea that system mastery was designed out of even the initial core books is abject nonsense.

Also note that while the Monte Cook article does mention system mastery, it does not say that it was a conscious design decision in 3.x to encourage it; rather he says, "mostly, we just made sure we didn't design it away."

So we're told that system mastery was a conscious 3rd edition design philosophy--as though the designers had gone out of their way to make sure that the game was hard to understand and that was one of their primary goals when designing the system. And we're told that 4th edition designed away system mastery. I suppose one could get more disingenous, but it would be difficult.

[Flipguarder]

Maybe Im not understanding your numbers correctly. But how can twin strike do any damage at all if you are required to roll a 21 or 22 on an attack. In that scenario isn't careful strike the only ranger power that can hit? (unless of course you crit.)

[keterys]

You can always hit on a 20, even if it's not a crit if a 20 would normally miss.

[Elder-Basilisk]

Originally Posted by keterys

You can always hit on a 20, even if it's not a crit if a 20 would normally miss.

Exactly. That's why the twin strike numbers are exactly the same for 21 and 22 but lower than they were at 20.

If you need a 20 to hit, any hit crits.
If you only hit on a 20 because it's a 20 (and 20's always hit), you don't crit. It doesn't matter how high the defense gets after that, you still hit exactly the same amount of the time.

[Saeviomagy]

Originally Posted by Elder-Basilisk

So, careful attack is straight-up worse than twin strike in nearly every situation.

Yes. It is. I never disputed the fact. Now run the numbers with some of the previewed possibilities: full damage mod, +4 to hit etc. The power fluctuated wildly leading up to release.

The simple fact of the matter is that because twin strike and careful attack fill the exact same niche, one of them will always be better. There is no room in the game for both at once without a major overhaul. I don't think the designers ever got that, thus we end up with one bad and one good power.

[keterys]

Given that Twin Strike allows you to attack two targets and has twice the chance to crit, I imagine Careful Attack _could_ fill the same rough niche but be slightly better against a single target.

It's a little boring, though, all told, but hey.

For reference, before Careful Attack was +4 it was apparently roll twice and take the better. I find that amusing to think about for a second.

[Regicide]

Originally Posted by blargney the second

That's a neat article - thanks for the link.

Yes, it made me realize something. The 4E designers think they got rid of system mastery by writing up the little blurbs at the start of the class write ups. In a sense they have, if you restrict your view of how the system will be used to be exclusively for 1st level disposable characters used at game day events.

Unfortunately we have a system which rewards system mastery far more than 3E ever did with more feats to choose from, more feats to choose, more critical stat choices and power and magic item interactions which require immense amounts of system analysis to winnow out and math far more complicated. And it's different for each class.

[Saeviomagy]

Originally Posted by Regicide

Yes, it made me realize something. The 4E designers think they got rid of system mastery by writing up the little blurbs at the start of the class write ups. In a sense they have, if you restrict your view of how the system will be used to be exclusively for 1st level disposable characters used at game day events.

In my opinion, the builds presented in those sections only worsen system mastery issues, because half of them suck. And there's nothing worse for a novice than bad advice.

[blargney the second]

Originally Posted by Regicide

The 4E designers think they got rid of system mastery by writing up the little blurbs at the start of the class write ups.

What's your source for that?

Anyways, they had the exact same things in the 3e PHB.
-blarg

[Storminator]

I actually think that system mastery was greatly reduced by the breaking up of feat trees and PrC requirements.

In 3e to make a strong 10th level PC, you have to start planning level 10 choices by 2nd or 3rd level, and sometimes at 1st. In 4e you can make a pretty solid PC without planning a single level in advance.

PS

[Regicide]

Originally Posted by Storminator

In 3e to make a strong 10th level PC, you have to start planning level 10 choices by 2nd or 3rd level, and sometimes at 1st. In 4e you can make a pretty solid PC without planning a single level in advance.

I would say exactly the reverse. In fact in 4E it rewards system mastery so much that you're rewarded for considering powers feats and magic items YOUR PARTY takes as well when you're picking yours.

[keterys]

I lose track sometimes, but wouldn't whichever way cast 4e in a worse light be your current operating theory, Regicide?

Retraining every level is extremely helpful for avoiding the 'oh I didn't figure my character out six levels in advance' issue. With a few exceptions powers and feats and even classes and such are _much_ closer in terms of balance.

I'm not sure that parties can achieve greater synergy in 4e, so much as that it's more desirable and/or required. I'm pretty sure that when I had a character that made the entire party immune to all energies and death effects and gave everyone +6 to a couple stats in 3e that was a pretty solid example of party synergy and planning... I can't imagine there's anything really stronger in 4e than that level of buffing.

[Regicide]

Originally Posted by keterys

I lose track sometimes, but wouldn't whichever way cast 4e in a worse light be your current operating theory, Regicide?

I haven't stated either way that system mastery is good or bad. I'm pretty unimpressed with game devs that state they're going to get rid of it then end up with this however.

Originally Posted by keterys

Retraining every level is extremely helpful for avoiding the 'oh I didn't figure my character out six levels in advance' issue. With a few exceptions powers and feats and even classes and such are _much_ closer in terms of balance.

Yes, it's a good thing they didn't drop 3E's retraining.

Originally Posted by keterys

I'm not sure that parties can achieve greater synergy in 4e, so much as that it's more desirable and/or required.

I am. It's now possible, in an average party, for every party member to stun, or debuff a particular stat and stack those debuffs, not to mention setting up zones for pushes and pulls. It is dramatically different the power level of a party that works together in combat and one that doesn't, and for the exact same reason it's dramatically different in power level for a party to pick powers together than not.

Originally Posted by keterys

I'm pretty sure that when I had a character that made the entire party immune to all energies and death effects and gave everyone +6 to a couple stats in 3e that was a pretty solid example of party synergy and planning... I can't imagine there's anything really stronger in 4e than that level of buffing.

Your cleric casting a couple buff spells is what you consider synergizing?

[keterys]

You don't think a single character making the rest of the party, say, twice as effective is a synergy, but _do_ think people just alternating who stuns someone is? Interesting.

Like I said - it wasn't necessary - instead of someone being stunned every round, they just died when someone did a full attack with power attack or a save or die effect. You _could_ pile on those effects, though. Someone could give someone a -10 to a save, then follow it up with a save or die. Or you could just kill them. Poof.

[keterys]

Fwiw, I'm very much not a fan of system mastery. I'd like all the choices to be reasonable and for there to be a lot of pretty balanced variance amongst people taking a class, race, etc.

I think ability scores are overemphasized, hit bonuses too important, certain status effects misbalanced, and feats just make me sad for what they could be vs. what they generally are.

[cdrcjsn]

Originally Posted by Regicide

I haven't stated either way that system mastery is good or bad. I'm pretty unimpressed with game devs that state they're going to get rid of it then end up with this however.

I'm impressed. Out of hundreds of encounter powers, I could only find less than 10 that I would consider broken in terms of their relative power level. And some of those (the multi-attack ones) need several other supporting items or powers to make them really overpowered.

4e has changed the definition of broken from "this character can end this encounter by himself" to "this character can kill this one monster by himself with the aid of party members" which is a huge step in the direction of reducing power imbalances between party members due to system mastery.

The system still isn't perfect (stunlocking Solos in particular need to be addressed), but by and large, they succeeded in their goal of reducing system mastery. You CAN play without bothering to plan your character out for 20 levels, and won't have your character be greatly overshadowed by another person who meticulously plan their feats, powers and items. The other person will still have a slight advantage, but it won't be a glaring one.

[Storminator]

Originally Posted by cdrcjsn

You CAN play without bothering to plan your character out for 20 levels, and won't have your character be greatly overshadowed by another person who meticulously plan their feats, powers and items. The other person will still have a slight advantage, but it won't be a glaring one.

I would say that the meticulously planned character will be overshadowed if the unplanned PC's player makes consistently better decisions during the combat. I consider that a plus, but then I tend to do quite well deciding in the heat of the moment. Perhaps it's just that 4e system effects match well to my play style.

PS