General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
View Poll Results: Which 4E class do you want to vote off the list?
Invoker is so far the only class in 4e that actually disappointed me. I like their concept, their fluff, their place on the source-role grid... but the execution is so bland. A divine wizard, big deal.
You can clearly tell apart the powers from a fighter and a swordmage. Ditto for a cleric and a shaman. Even the druid has his own thing with the shapeshifting. But after you strip away the flavor text, what's so special about an invoker? There's really nothing new or unique about it. I can barely believe that such a superfluous class even made it this far.
__________________ Belphanior
"This is a cool sig."
Could you make one more column to include the power sources?
I think I'm sensing a pattern here...
The only other pattern I'm sensing, apart from Leader-hate, is new-class hate. With the exception of the Bard and Cleric (Leaders) all the other classes voted off so far were introduced late in 3e (Shaman, Artificer, Warlock) or in 4e (Warlord, Warden).
Since we are all nature-boys here, let me explain why I dislike the Ranger :P
1) Simplicity is not always good
: The ranger is "simply" effective and "simply" fun because he's "easily" overpowering and overshadowing other classs
> The "rogue" is boring because he does 1d4 + DEX damage in some rounds
> The "wizard" is boring because his ranged attack damage sux
So the ranger is a direct downfall for several other classes
2) Cool abilities don't make the class fun either
> Quarry is a 3.5 sacred cow, adding more damage to already overpowered class
> The warlock has a near identical curse, and warlock is voted off of "Survivor"
So I've seen that the Ranger has both:
: Stayed the same-bland-nature-boy of 3.5
: Stolen the thunder of several intriguing and fun classes from 4e, rendering them "sub-optimal"
So yea the ranger needs to be next to disappear.
As does the avenger.
: Stolen the thunder of several intriguing and fun classes from 4e, rendering them "sub-optimal"
Exactly how? Your post does not really support this view at all.
Sure, Rangers can be overpowered, but that is mostly thanks to WOTC neglecting to adequately fix the stacking rules in 4E (Thanks WOTC) STacking was crazy in 3.5, and in 4E is is jsut about as bad with feats that do not give feat bonuses, and magical items taht mostly stack with each other. When you can laugh off the +6 or +7 dex bonus on your bow as unimportant you know you have a problem. (Or str for melee)
Ranger is a poster child for non-stacking rule clarifications, like sayting all magic item bonuses do not stack, and all feat bonuses are feat bonuses. That would hslp a lot.
But htey are not a bad class, though I would probably not play one.
The only real flaw I see in the ranger is that they didn't make Prime Shot a big enough deal until paragon tier. People tend to ignore it completely.
This tends to be true for the warlock as well.
I'm not sure why people keep arguing that the Avenger is overpowered in terms of damage. Rerolling your attack is very different from the ranger's dual attack system, and generates almost uniformly lower damage. Yes, its incredibly accurate, and leads to a nearly 100% hit rate. But that's not the same as broken. An Avenger rolling twice to deal 2[W]+Wis is nice, but a Ranger rolling for two attacks, each of which deal 1[W]+Dex, is going to be far higher, particularly once the Ranger player figures out to start stacking static damage bonuses.
Although pseudo-banning Bloodclaw and similar weapons in my game has made a significant difference in terms of keeping the Ranger fair.
Well, with at-wills the avenger is not so special, but with any encounters and especially dailies they are a lot nicer. Yes, Twin-strike basically auto hits with one arrow every turn, but the Avenger nearly auto-hits with every pwoer he or she has.
They will be my next to vote off.
And yes, a few magical items being banned does wonders for the chincery in 4E stacking.
And yes, a few magical items being banned does wonders for the chincery in 4E stacking.
For what it's worth, I would rather tweak items than ban them, either by limiting the frequency of use (e.g. allowing the bloodclaw property to be used 1/round or 1/encounter) or tinkering with the numerical bonuses (e.g. take 1 damage for +2/+3 damage with heroic-tier +1/+2 weapons, take 2 damage for +4/+6 damage with paragon-tier +3/+4 weapons, and take 3 damage for +6/+9 damage with epic-tier +5/+6 weapons).
I would only ban game elements that I had a fundamental conceptual problem with (and so far, I can't think of anything that I would ban offhand). For everything else, it is simply a matter of adjusting the mechanical expression to something that I am comfortable with. As an aside and IMO, one of the key improvements introduced by 4e is making the 1/encounter frequency so pervasive in the game. This has made balancing the game much easier because the benefits that are not significant enough to be restricted to a 1/day usage but which are too good to be used at-will (or, even if there are multiple uses in a day, too good if they are used two or three times in a single encounter) can be made into 1/encounter abilities.
I agree, and it is the easiest to make thematic also. Fire Sorc, Lightning and Thunder sorc, etc. With a few Arcane admixtures, some at-wills get pretty sick.
Like my swordmage with sword burst. I added Thunder to it and with resounding thunder and enlarge spell, it was a clsoe burst 3 that targeted only enemies, doing force and thunder (good luck resisting that!!) and did 1d6-2 +mods damage. It was pretty good, especially for killing minions and masses of enemies.
Don't forget the Ring of Dragonborn Emporer if you try this.
Yes, it is not a sorc, but similar things can be done with the sorc's close blast at-will, Burning Spray
I have always like sorcerors, but I like the 4E version best. Especially with four very different themes through its class features.
__________________ Have dice, will travel
Formerly known as Marshaldwm, Eyeonthemountain
954 posts in previous incarnations
A non-DDI 4E DM.
Last edited by Dice4Hire; 5th October 2009 at 05:09 AM..
Reason: I like editing
Well, with at-wills the avenger is not so special, but with any encounters and especially dailies they are a lot nicer. Yes, Twin-strike basically auto hits with one arrow every turn, but the Avenger nearly auto-hits with every pwoer he or she has.
You'd be amazed how far that doesn't go.
The Ranger's heroic tier encounter powers are generally around two attacks, each for 1[W]+Str/Dex, with an additional 1d6 if he hits with at least one.
The Avenger's tend to be around 2[W]+Wis, but with the ability to roll twice and choose the better roll.
The Ranger is far, far better. As in its not really even a fair comparison. If the Ranger hits with just one attack, he gets 1[W]+Str/Dex + 1d6, which is going to be awfully close to the Avenger's 2[W]+Wis, and has the same chance of happening. And then the Ranger gets an additional chance to hit twice, dealing vastly more damage.
Here's a good way to look at most Ranger powers- as if they said, "Make two attack rolls, and choose the best. If both attack rolls hit, deal some extra damage." Basically, the Avenger gets the damage expression of a defender, with an accuracy bonus. The Ranger gets the damage expression of a striker, with the same accuracy bonus.
The comparison just gets worse with daily attacks, where the Ranger exceeds pretty much everyone in the game.
Really, its almost unfair comparing the Avenger to the Ranger's damage. His accuracy might be great, but even adjusted for accuracy the Avenger tends to be the low end of the melee Striker damage pool. He makes up for it with control and durability, and the occasional (generally rare) bonus damage from Pursuit or Retribution, but if you're worried about Striker damage that's unfairly high, the Avenger just isn't the guy to worry about.
Here's a good way to look at most Ranger powers- as if they said, "Make two attack rolls, and choose the best. If both attack rolls hit, deal some extra damage."
And in many cases, "extra" means "double". I'm starting to think that the assassin approach to powers with multiple attacks against a single target - where each additional successful attack just deals more dice of damage (+x[W] or + xdy) without doubling up or more on the static bonuses - should be the way to handle single-target, multiple attack powers.
More so than any other defender class? Or any other divine class? Or is there something about the intersection between the defender role and the divine power source that I'm just not seeing?
I'm not saying it's not personal preference. I just hate Paladins. They're the Clerics dumber older brother who likes to beat up/outright kill things that are different.
I'm not saying it's not personal preference. I just hate Paladins. They're the Clerics dumber older brother who likes to beat up/outright kill things that are different.
As long as we're clear that you're just prejudiced and your statements should not be taken as objective facts.
The only other pattern I'm sensing, apart from Leader-hate, is new-class hate. With the exception of the Bard and Cleric (Leaders) all the other classes voted off so far were introduced late in 3e (Shaman, Artificer, Warlock) or in 4e (Warlord, Warden).
Well, there's also the FR hate, which is why I've been voting for the Swordmage from the beginning... die already, damnit!
Yeah, he bores the living heck out of any player over 7 or anyone who understands tactical gaming at all. He's caffeine's #1 salesman and if he weren't fictitious we'd see him hawking that "5-Hour Energy" stuff on late night infomercials.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
