Proposal: Things to be nerfed

covaithe · Jun 13, 2009

I can't speak for Sacrifice to Caiphon. I don't recall the reasoning on that off the top of my head, and I'm not interested in looking at it again unless someone proposes changing it.

I voted against reaper's touch not because I thought it was unbalanced -- it's clearly not -- but because I thought it made the game less fun, by reducing the diversity of characters. If any ranged caster can get a powerful basic melee attack just for the price of one feat, I think there's a likelihood of it becoming a must-have feat, like implement expertise. Which reduces player choice and produces homogenous characters, and makes this whole thing less fun.

I'm sorry you disagree, but at some point someone has to make a decision, and for my sins, part of that task has fallen to me. I'm doing my best to make the right decision as I see it. If you think I'm doing a terrible job, well... we've got a stack of character reviews that need doing, and we'll have even more when PHB2 comes live. It's no coincidence that people who help out with character reviews for a while often find themselves on the judge list.

Atanatotatos · Jun 13, 2009

Incidentally, I agree with Cov on reaper's touch for the exact same reasons, it's not a problem of power in that case. I think it's simply a badly-thought feat.

And let's be grateful that we've had and have covaithe as a judge. We can agree to disagree, but I doubt anybody ever thought you've done a bad job, cov!

renau1g · Jun 13, 2009

covaithe said:
I can't speak for Sacrifice to Caiphon. I don't recall the reasoning on that off the top of my head, and I'm not interested in looking at it again unless someone proposes changing it.

I voted against reaper's touch not because I thought it was unbalanced -- it's clearly not -- but because I thought it made the game less fun, by reducing the diversity of characters. If any ranged caster can get a powerful basic melee attack just for the price of one feat, I think there's a likelihood of it becoming a must-have feat, like implement expertise. Which reduces player choice and produces homogenous characters, and makes this whole thing less fun.

I guess my thinking is you still have to burn a feat to get a melee basic attack and most ranged PC's shouldn't be using it all that often anyways unless the defenders aren't doing their jobs. We should also nerf intelligent blademaster from FRCS then as well. Same thing for that class. You make STR your drop stat, pump up INT and take that feat. It's a must-have for 95% of swordmages.

Atanatotatos said:
Incidentally, I agree with Cov on reaper's touch for the exact same reasons, it's not a problem of power in that case. I think it's simply a badly-thought feat.

And let's be grateful that we've had and have covaithe as a judge. We can agree to disagree, but I doubt anybody ever thought you've done a bad job, cov!

I second this covaithe. I don't think you're doing a poor job or even an average job. Note, I was running a high fever when I was up earlier today, my apologies if it came across as vitriolic. I'm not calling for your head or anything, as that would be a huge negative impact for L4W.

Thanks for your work.

Moon_Goddess · Jun 13, 2009

But a swordmage is a defender, a swordmage is supposed to be making melee basic attacks

Your warlock is a striker, OA's are not your job. you say so yourself.

renau1g · Jun 13, 2009

I'm just saying it's irrelevent, it's following the must have feat line of thinking and your point pushes my point even more so. Therefore from a flavour POV it's the same as Reaper's Touch (or at least along the same vein) and from a power-level point of view it's actually significantly more powerful than Reaper's Touch as you will use it many many more times as a defender.

That being said I will respect covaithe's decision as he has stated his reasoning and I don't disagree too much, just want it balanced across the board.

JoeNotCharles · Jun 14, 2009

Who's talking about banning Reaper's Touch? We're talking about making it Shadar-Kai only, like the rest of the death-themed feats in the Shadar-Kai article which is about options for Shadar-Kai.

CaBaNa · Jun 14, 2009

Warlocks (as strikers) have just as much reason to have a nice OA as any defender or striker.

try this on
Every character gets a free feat tax feat at first level
chosen from this list: (i didn't make a list)

as well as the normal feat.

Atanatotatos · Jun 14, 2009

Oh c'mon! they're ranged strikers! They really don't *need* that. If they want an additional option, they pay for it with feats and items.
And as a side note, warlocks are at low-end of the scale for strikers only if you just look at DPR. I know that strikers are mostly about damage, but a glass canno that can't survive a tough combat, or a one-trick pony that cannot adapt to situations are useless.
Warlocks have great survivability and many controller-like powers. They're just less straight-forward than the other strikers, they need a slightly more tactical approach. But that doesn't mean they're weaker.

CaBaNa · Jun 14, 2009

Before launching into this I want to say Ata is awesome, and a pillar of the community. Secondly, I'll never be playing a warlock, take the rest of this with those two things in mind.

Atanatotatos said:
Oh c'mon! they're ranged strikers! They really don't *need* that. If they want an additional option, they pay for it with feats and items.

Like reaper's touch...

Atanatotatos said:
And as a side note, warlocks are at low-end of the scale for strikers only if you just look at DPR.

Forgive my ignorance, but what attacks do warlocks have that outshine the ranger, damage wise? Warlocks are behind on DPR, and nova damage, as far as I know. But I don't play either so I may be ignorant.

Atanatotatos said:
I know that strikers are mostly about damage, but a glass canno that can't survive a tough combat, or a one-trick pony that cannot adapt to situations are useless.

Warlocks have great survivability and many controller-like powers. They're just less straight-forward than the other strikers, they need a slightly more tactical approach. But that doesn't mean they're weaker.

I agree, glass cannons who can't survive are annoying. I also think one trick ponies are useless. That is why I don't think Warlocks should be the only striker with a pony that does only one trick (ranged striking).

Warlocks have decent survivability and a few controller-like powers, little area/close burst/blast, and some nice single target status conditions. Just like every other striker.
They are supposed to be on par with other strikers, and are forced instead to carefully plan every detail of their character in order to do so. Tactical approaches are for every class, especially strikers. Not just the Warlock.

Yes, they are weaker... except that they target NADs, and even that is little condolence due to having little opportunity for a flanking bonus.

[sblock=Sidenote]

Warlocks don't *need* to be viable at melee range, however Kamotz would really appreciate it. So would other strength based Clerics, and Warlords.

[/sblock]

Atanatotatos · Jun 15, 2009

*Uhm*
Well, first of all thanks Cabana. Nice as ever

Then. I disagree.
Reaper's touch is not equivalent to paying "with feats and items". Paying with feats and items means taking martial training, buying a level-appropriate weapon, and probably some more feats to be more efficient with those melee basic attacks. Mo, reaper's touch is a single feat, and then you're good to go with just the warlock-is stuff you'd take anyway.

Aside from that. Yes, Warlocks fall behind in damage relatively to the other strikers. I did say that: warlocks are the weakest strikers if you only mind DPR(dmg per round).
But it's wrong to assume that only them are limited to one range (melee or ranged).
Rangers are split into two categories, and rigid ones: you are either a melee ranger or a ranged ranger, despite most powers being usable in both ways, you won't be able to do both.
Barbarians are only melee. Avengers can do both, but they can only really shine in melee (because of their oath). Rogues can efficiently do both, but their striker bonus to damage is somewhat situational: it's easier to gain in melee (flanking), but roges are rather frail, and at range it's more tricky. So I'd say all the strikers are somewhat limited in their choices.
Also, yeah, warlocks are not the only ones that get some single-target control. But they're only comparable, in that respect, with rogues, that, like them, fall behind in damage after the first few levels. And, like rogues, have a lot of utility to make up for that.

All characters in 4e have to be played with some tactics in mind, true, but warlocks more than most, due to their unique mechanics. Their curse, their pact boon, their shadow walk, and, last but not least, their prime strike feature certainly make them more challenging to successfully play than, say, a ranger or a barbarian. But they'll certainly make them live longer.

And finally, one month after PHB2, Arcane Power will be eligible to be approved, and that should bring quite a few new options for you (and I think you won't be disappointed!)

IMHO,
Ata