D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Now this thread makes me sad. I try to make useful but not overpowered characters. My Human Invoker/Adroit Explorer has Rain of Blood x2. I renamed it "Hail Storm" since I have a winter theme going with background and worshiping Raven Queen. I was feeling this was a good way to help everyone out. Is this really too powerful? Should I just happen to "forget" the attack bonus is there, or maybe nerf it to half my con bonus (which would be a 2)?
The per encounter vulnerability didn't feel that much out of line with people who have lasting frost for nearly every attack. And with everyone being mobile and combat typically running all over the place, I don't think I get more that 2 allies in the burst unless it's a close quarters fight. And even when I hit multiple enemies, everyone just focuses on one, to take one down, so the vulnerability on the other enemies kind of goes to waste. And the allies in the AoE can be dazed, immobilized, stunned, etc, and unable to get full benefits. When they do it's great, but even the best laid plans seem to have a way of going awry once initiative is rolled.
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
eh - for the attack bonus you've got to get some of your allies in it as well. how often will you have all your allies bunched up with the enemies?
i don't see the attack bonus as much an issue (but then again, our group rarely is well coordinated since chaos quickly ensues and we end up doing our own thing half the time ).
__________________ If you're bored and like to follow links provided by random strangers, check out my ENWorld Blog http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/fba827/
It will have campaign logs and random thoughts...
Blackbrrd - I still disagree almost entirely with you on the balance of the invoker, since it's actually the first controller whose encounter powers made me say that it was worth having one over a striker like the sorcerer or defender like the swordmage instead...
But why don't you just not allow Covenant of Wrath in your game if that one ability bothers you so much?
Actually it isn't the Covenant of Wrath that bothers me, I think it's a very nice class feature and I wished the Wizard/Druid had something similar.
What I don't like is the easy access to ENEMY only 7x7, 3x3, 5x5 area Encounter powers at level 1, 3 and 7. Especially the ones at level 1 and 3. Together with the at-will powers that targets 2 or 3 enemies with 1d4+wis or 1d6+wis damage from the start. This makes the damage output of the Invoker really high compared to the rest of the party at low levels. In addition, many of his powers target will which is really low.
I am quite sure that if I compare the Invokers DPR to any other character in the party he will be 25% higher when not using action point and 75% higher when using an action point.
At the same time, I am not really bothered, the differences in 3.5 was MUCH larger.
I suppose it would have helped if the OP would have qualified his qualms with this power from the get-go, rather than just throw it out and leave us to divine what he doesn't like about it. It's evident that we have people on different pages here. Some are locking on to the attack bonus for allies. However, his follow-up comments primarily take issue with the vulnerability 5 that it imposes on all targets.
Effectively giving all allies +5 damage on every attack is certainly nothing I see very often--not from controllers, not from leaders--and definitely not against such a (potentially) large group of targets, which as has already been mentioned, stacks with other area-affecting powers in a manner that's sort of kee-razy.
So yeah, I could see calling it overpowered. In general, the invoker seems to be pretty capable at co-opting the leader role in a party. Hell, most of their powers would make a bard feel greeny with envy.
Last edited by Felon; 7th November 2009 at 09:26 PM..
It targets Fortitude. That is a significnt factor. If it targetted reflex or will it might be overpowered, but since it target fort I think it is fine.
It targets Fortitude. That is a significnt factor. If it targetted reflex or will it might be overpowered, but since it target fort I think it is fine.
Lord, why do people keep trying to pull this?
That it targets Fortitude is irrelevant. You might see a fair number of high-Fort monsters in the MM, but it's still not useful as any kind of reliable metric towards what you can expect in a given encounter.
Now this thread makes me sad. I try to make useful but not overpowered characters. My Human Invoker/Adroit Explorer has Rain of Blood x2. I renamed it "Hail Storm" since I have a winter theme going with background and worshiping Raven Queen. I was feeling this was a good way to help everyone out. Is this really too powerful? Should I just happen to "forget" the attack bonus is there, or maybe nerf it to half my con bonus (which would be a 2)?
It's the vulnerability imposition that's uber. The attack bonus is just icing on the cake.
Quote:
The per encounter vulnerability didn't feel that much out of line with people who have lasting frost for nearly every attack
Making someone vulnerable to all damage is a heck of a lot more powerful than making someone vulnerable to cold. No comparison really--unless you have a party of cold-dealers.
Quote:
And with everyone being mobile and combat typically running all over the place, I don't think I get more that 2 allies in the burst unless it's a close quarters fight. And even when I hit multiple enemies, everyone just focuses on one, to take one down, so the vulnerability on the other enemies kind of goes to waste.
Assuming that no other AoE attacks go off in that round, then sure.
Quote:
And the allies in the AoE can be dazed, immobilized, stunned, etc, and unable to get full benefits. When they do it's great, but even the best laid plans seem to have a way of going awry once initiative is rolled.
If I had that pessimistic rationale, then I'd be building the most broken character I could get away with. You picked an overpowered power, buddy. I say just learn to live with it and enjoy your godliness. You may even find that building the best possible invoker you can will lead to combats dragging on less.
For what it's worth, I still think I prefer Written in Fire.
Last edited by Felon; 8th November 2009 at 08:26 AM..
That it targets Fortitude is irrelevant. You might see a fair number of high-Fort monsters in the MM, but it's still not useful as any kind of reliable metric towards what you can expect in a given encounter.
It is, however. It may not have been explicitly called out in the DMG, but the fact is that the average fortitude defense is 1 to 2 points higher than ref or will. Particularly close-combat brutes - with whom this power is a likely choice due to the likeliness of their being in melee with the party.
A +1/+2 to attack (and quite possibly more for most common cases) is pretty significant. Course, as more monster manual's are written, this advantage may fade; it's already less significant with the release of MM2, but it's not irrelevant.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
Well, we cannot evaluate what it will be like in the future. I do think it is a pretty awesome power RIGHT NOW. Assuming the party has some reasonable degree of coordination I can see a rogue, a fighter, and an invoker putting together some pretty nasty setups this way. Rogue and Fighter move into combat together (normal procedure anyway). Fighter triggers Come and Get It, then the Invoker drops Rain of Blood on the whole wad. Worst case you have 2 PCs buffed and 3 target monsters of which on average you'll hit 2. Even without using an AP the rogue and the fighter are now going to get +5 damage and probably at least +3 to-hit next round. With a bit of action readying and AP use I can see 8 attacks getting those bonuses and we haven't even gotten to the rest of the party...
Of course the more extreme cases are going to be some pretty advanced players, but still, powers shouldn't be THAT far out of line regardless of who's using them. It really could easily be justified as a daily power. Maybe its not old RoB+cheese level broken but it is a good bit above the norm.
I know what you mean about "Enemy Only" AoEs too. Personally I think it was a design mistake for such powers (that do damage anyway) to exist at all. They are just too "no think" and that really isn't 4e. They should definitely at the very least be a lot weaker in damage output than AoEs that hit everything, yet that doesn't always seem to be the case, like here.
It is, however. It may not have been explicitly called out in the DMG, but the fact is that the average fortitude defense is 1 to 2 points higher than ref or will. Particularly close-combat brutes - with whom this power is a likely choice due to the likeliness of their being in melee with the party.
A +1/+2 to attack (and quite possibly more for most common cases) is pretty significant. Course, as more monster manual's are written, this advantage may fade; it's already less significant with the release of MM2, but it's not irrelevant.
I'm just repeating myself now, but the preponderance of high-Fort creatures in the MM doesn't translate directly into a preponderance of high-Fort creatures in actual encounters. The logic just doesn't follow. Just because there are more soldiers than artillery monsters in the MM doesn't mean the DM will have use fewer artillery than soldiers in his encounter design.
For what it's worth, the DMG does actually suggest using a concentration of creatures that are higher in brutes and soldiers than any other type. Look at how it advocates doing a random dungeon, for instance.
Also, if you plan on hitting your allies with this as well that often means you'll be hitting the enemy's melee along with your own, which further slides it towards Fort.
All that said, I find it a tiny detail that it targets Fort, not particularly important compared to the rest of what the spell can do.
I tried to pay a little extra attention to how much mileage I got out of my two Rain of Blood's per encounter when we played.
In 4 encounters, I used the power 6 times total. We were often fighting large creatures, so I had some trouble getting multiple enemies in it. Here is what was effected in each use:
The last use was right after using Astral step, and I was able to position most my allies where I needed them, so I could affect as many as possible.
This power synergizes extremely well with our stormwarden ranger, since he does damage 3 times a round easy, and 4-5 times if he wants to put the extra effort. It also combos well with the warlock when she has Armor of Agathys up, and the fighter when he has Rain of Steel up.
One crazy thing that happened was a round where I used Rain of Blood, our Bard/Warchanter used an action point, and the Ranger and Warlock were doing pretty fancy damage with their attacks. It was a very potent round of attacks with a +8 attack bonus, +4 damage bonus, with one creature on the board suffering vulnerable 5.
I can see why this power is considered overpowered. It does good damage, has a great status effect, and helps allies. But it's also a good "party combo" power, so I'd hate to lose it. I suppose I'd be happy with just the vulnerability even without the attack bonus, or if the area was shrunk down to burst 1.
In our party, since everyone has such different jobs, I don't feel like my Rain of Blood is stepping on anyone's toes, and while it's up, our bard can make it even better by giving someone else an extra attack, or boosting our damage. For now I'll stick with it as keterys suggested. Our DM in that game doesn't mind us killing his monsters faster. I wouldn't mind allowing it as is in my game either, if there was an invoker.
Having said that, if there is errata down the road I probably won't complain though.
On a side not about the attacking fortitude problem, all my encounter powers and 2 of my 3 dailies target fortitude. This has not been a problem for me yet. Almost all of these also benefit from Coordinated Explosion, so if I was losing out two points by not attacking Reflex, I'm making up one from Coordinated Explosion. I have not felt handicapped by my prominently fortitude targeting attacks.
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
I'm just repeating myself now, but the preponderance of high-Fort creatures in the MM doesn't translate directly into a preponderance of high-Fort creatures in actual encounters. The logic just doesn't follow. Just because there are more soldiers than artillery monsters in the MM doesn't mean the DM will have use fewer artillery than soldiers in his encounter design.
I suppose it is possible for a DM to cherrypick the monsters with a low fort from MM1, but it's not something likely to occur by chance. In MM2, this is certainly more reasonable.
In short, it doesn't follow necessarily, but it does follow with huge likelihood.
I think Mengu's conclusion on this one makes sense: it's not a problematic power because, after all, it won't disturb intra-party balance (since it's a buff). It is powerful, however, and an errata wouldn't be a bad idea - it's just that overall balance matters less than intra-party balance.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
