Proposal: Things to be nerfed

Oni · Jun 12, 2009

Just to clarify what I just posted. That all together isn't meant to be a proposal per say. I think we'd be better off if things where voted up or down one item at a time rather than as a package.

Some thoughts on approach. If we're to alter rules, simplicity is something to keep in mind. The more rules changes you make that have to be kept in mind the more cumbersome it becomes. So I think in most cases it's just easier to completely remove something than try to fix it. Somethings have an interesting enough flavor that they're worth preserving in some fashion (for instance I like the idea of Bloodclaw weapons enough to want to fix them rather than get rid of them).

So in regards to my own changes it may in fact just be easier to ban Bloodclaw and RoB than altering them since we're dealing with a large pool of players rather than a few people at a home game where the changes don't effect so many people so as to create headaches in character creation and approval.

renau1g · Jun 12, 2009

Just curious why it's voted no to correct this obviously overpowered power, but not to allow the full Sacrifice to Caiphon feat because its too powerful? I mean c'mon you're ok with a feat that allows auto-crit, essentially you're saying here's a feat that 1/encounter gives you +30 damage (give or take), but not one that will allow you to damage yourself to regain a missed encounter power that might to 2w? Can you please explain the rationale? Thank you.

Atanatotatos · Jun 12, 2009

I'm with ren here. We banned the Vigor class feature from MP, but I'll assure you that some of these things bundled together break the game way more than that one.

JoeNotCharles · Jun 12, 2009

Rather than banning Righteous Rage of Tempus outright, I'd rather limit it, like we did with Sacriphice to Caiphon. How about, "Your next attack becomes an automatic critical, and you are dazed until the end of your next turn"?

Atanatotatos · Jun 12, 2009

Thinking about it, there are a few more powers that were never mentioned, but deserve some thought IMO. Off the top of my head, no-one sees anything wrong in Guileful switch? (MP,warlord utility 6)

covaithe · Jun 12, 2009

Maybe we shouldn't have banned Vigor, then. I'm not going to stay up past my bedtime just to go and check, but I'm pretty sure I never got around to voting on that proposal.

Ata, you of all people should know that I'm aware of what RoB can do in the hands of a capable optimizer; I've been on the receiving end of it. And I still think it's not game-breaking in normal, players-vs.-monsters play.

L4W isn't an MMORPG. 4e has some superficial similarities to the kind of balance systems used in those games, but the differences are huge. For one thing, there's no PvP here. The speed of leveling is mostly determined by factors that have very little to do with combat. And, for my money, most of the fun comes from the story, in a way that MMORPGs can never match. Having a power that's better than other powers, even a lot better, just isn't the kind of problem for us that it is for World of Warcraft.

Now, if we get a year down the road and find that, say, Oni's characters are making the game less fun for everyone because he's just romping through encounters with ease and DMs can't come up with an appropriate challenge for him, well, I'll be willing to reconsider. But I honestly don't think this will happen. It's really, really easy for DMs to adjust the difficulty of 4e encounters. It's easy for DMs to work around things like RoB. Better yet, it's easy for DMs to let players get away with the kind of spectacular splatter-kills that you can get with RoB, and still provide a fun and challenging encounter. Do you really think KenHood's origami rat encounter wouldn't be any fun if, say, Vaunea did 30 damage instead of 15 damage on one of her turns? I don't buy it.

nerdytenor · Jun 12, 2009

I'm mostly with KenHood, too.

I think the battlerager vigor decision was the right one, because it is sufficiently broken that you would expect the brokenness to occur _multiple_ times in _every_ single encounter. Working around that as a DM would require some major heroics.

But in general, I think it is a mistake to try and fix things before they come a problem unless it is _highly_ likely they will become a _major_, _consistent_ problem.

I'll also reiterate that there appears to be quite a bit less munchkinism on the boards than in some other settings anyway.

FWIW (not a lot),
nerdytenor, _too_ _enamored_ _with_ _underbars_ _today_

Atanatotatos · Jun 13, 2009

Well, honestly I agree with you, cov. I mean, I don't even play MMO, so I don't even have that kind of mentality.
But. This kind of proposal, for me, isn't meant to tone down powerful characters. 'Cause a powerful character is fun. It's meant to prevent blatant abuses that can get to ridiculous results. What I mean is something like an alarm. If the community is ok with the possibility that some characters might go overboard with perfectly legal builds, then ok.
(but, in that case, battlerage vigor should be recosidered, IMO)

renau1g · Jun 13, 2009

Sooo.....if there's no issue with any powers being over-powered or whatever and we're fine with stronger than average powers, why the house rule on Sacrifice to Caiphon? Why the ban of Reaper's Touch? I'm sorry.... but it really feels like certain desired powers are allowed as written then others get willy-nilly banned/nerfed/not approved.

There's no basis or rationale for it. Maybe that needs to be looked into.

I almost think we need to either take WOTC as written, or we should listen to the large majority of players involved in the game...