At-Will damage scaling too slow?

[keterys]

It is definitely a problem of 4e that items and feats have created a situation in which it is easy for two characters of the same class and race to deal drastically different damage. It's trivial to have one of the characters deal half (or less!) of the damage of the other.

There was a general premise that you'd be free to spend your feats without worry - it'll make a difference but not a drastic power difference - that's been broken by several feats. There was a promise that magic items would not make a drastic difference in power. That promise was thrown to the wind.

 

[Markn]

2d6 brutal 1 is effectively the same as 2d5+2, so the average is 8.

Mathematically, that may be more correct. Experience of rolling dice seems to show 9.

 

[keterys]

Heh. If I had to guess the experience rolling dice would actually trend a tiny bit lower than 8, since it's 8 mathematically _and sometimes the player screws up_... or just doesn't care about rerolling anymore.

Well, assuming non-cheating rolls. I do remember playing Earthdawn once with a guy who rolled a 70 something on a d4. No one could see his dice rolling, mind you, but I'm sure it came up a 4 the 18 times it needed to (open ended rolling). To be fair, his odds were better than 1 in 69 billion, it could have happened.

 

[Tai]

d4s are particularly prone to natural rolling (unconsciously rolling dice in such a way as to get desired results), because they have sharp corners, big angles, and they don't roll far. Particularly if you get into a rhythm with them, you can basically wind up picking the dice up and throwing them in the same way each time. As a rule, the fewer sides on the die, the easier it is to do. I used to be able to get heads on a coin about 80% of the time, for example...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is definitely a problem of 4e that items and feats have created a situation in which it is easy for two characters of the same class and race to deal drastically different damage. It's trivial to have one of the characters deal half (or less!) of the damage of the other.

There was a general premise that you'd be free to spend your feats without worry - it'll make a difference but not a drastic power difference - that's been broken by several feats. There was a promise that magic items would not make a drastic difference in power. That promise was thrown to the wind.

Not that this is untrue, but its hard to blame the 4e developers for this, or the system itself really. Inevitably if you're going to keep adding new and interesting feats to the game as well as new classes with new features, PPs, EDs, etc. then at some point certain combinations are going to pop up which are exceptionally good and as there are now 1400 feats overall in CB its pretty easy to see that there is no feasible amount of playtesting that will show up all the culprits either. Instead they show up after release when sooner or later someone tries out practically every combination. And that doesn't even account for all the different interpretations of various rules since almost any rule can be interpreted in a few ways if someone tries hard enough.

In terms of items I think the reason we have some extra powerful items is a combination of the same issue that exists with feats plus simple customer demand. Players WANT really powerful items. Its an easy and cheap way for them to pump up their character which usually doesn't require a lot of min/maxing and fooling around in CB to figure out how to do. The general feeling seems to have been that the PHB items were lacklustre and underpowered. Thus we ended up with reckless and bloodclaw and some of the nasty implements in AV.

I think WRT the the OP's issues with his party its an issue of the choices that group of players made. They seem to eschew the most powerful items and the more effective combat boosting feats. I think its just hard to feel sorry for them when they underperform on damage output.

While it is true that the game was intended to have a fairly narrow gap between optimized and non-optimized characters SOME gap is inevitable as long as there is any synergy at all between the various build choices you make or any variation at all between items. I think the players in the OP's case maybe need to unbend a bit and pick up a few more damage boosts. Retraining one feat each and maybe adding or replacing an item is probably going to crank their damage up a good bit. Probably more than dropping an extra [W] on their at-wills. They may also want to consider taking some of the more high damage powers. I suspect they've just gone too far in the direction of placing conditions and whatnot. Those are great, but as stated earlier, the best condition is dead.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is definitely a problem of 4e that items and feats have created a situation in which it is easy for two characters of the same class and race to deal drastically different damage. It's trivial to have one of the characters deal half (or less!) of the damage of the other.

There was a general premise that you'd be free to spend your feats without worry - it'll make a difference but not a drastic power difference - that's been broken by several feats. There was a promise that magic items would not make a drastic difference in power. That promise was thrown to the wind.

Actually, this might be intentional.

With the expertise math fixes and other adjustments in Monster Manual II, it's possible that WotC is introducing a feat and magic item damage math fix into the game as well.

I mean, seriously. BloodClaw is just crazy good, especially if the DM rules that the damage does not avoid temporary hit points for builds like BRV.

 

[keterys]

Actually, this might be intentional.

With the expertise math fixes and other adjustments in Monster Manual II, it's possible that WotC is introducing a feat and magic item damage math fix into the game as well.

I mean, seriously. BloodClaw is just crazy good, especially if the DM rules that the damage does not avoid temporary hit points for builds like BRV.

Oh, it might be intentional. It just marginalizes other choices and makes too big a difference between groups. Two characters otherwise the same, one does 1d6+9 and the other does 1d6+21, based on item 'picks', no real difference between the two in other areas (maybe the first can add a d8 damage once a day that the latter can't, frex). That's not a feature.

End of the day, my reaction is the same as it was to Expertise. Don't do a feat or item bandaid. Actually fix the problem. Otherwise you'll get some people going 'This game is way too slow at X level' while another person goes 'My group kills everything in two rounds, what do I do' when the DMs are running the same adventure.

 

[eamon]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect perfect balance. Some people just don't think very much about their build - and if you got some variety and synergy in your choices, that means less-than-optimal chars. Others might focus on particular routes that don't have the best mechanical support for flavor reasons.

Interesting character building choices that result in mechanically distinct PC's are always going to imply balance differences between parties with different gaming styles. By far the most options look as balanced as can be without being bland - and quite a few 4e feats and particularly items have limited in-game impact and risk being irrelevant.

That's not to say that there aren't a few problematic items and feats, but on the whole, they're really few and far between, and I still hope most will receive errata someday. (Except expertise, where the imbalance is obviously intentional - that's just a shame).

 

[Herschel]

One design decision I disagree with in 4e is that a good bulk of your damage is dependent on encounter and daily powers. This means that your damage tends to drop as the fight goes on.

I actually like that direction in 4E. People should be smart enough to do eveything in their power to make the dailies, even encounter powers hit. No more mindless swinging, but actually use tactics and work TOGETHER to get the bonus to hit. Get combat advantage, get a warlord's attack bonus, get the Warlock's defense nerf, whatever. No more "form a conga line, shift on your turn and swing." That's not the most advantageous method.

 

[Destil]

I've done the "Drop HP by 1/3, increase damage by 50%" trick on a few encounters, and I both like and dislike it. On the upside, battles can go more quickly. On the downside, battles with fewer rounds have fewer chances for status effects to matter. I have decided to use it for battles where pacing is critical, and ditch it for major encounters. I don't think I have to be consistent here.

I don't get this... in a 10 round fight a stun until end of turn removes 1/10th of the monster's actions, while in a 3 round fight it removes 1/3rd. Same deal for a -2 to attack (affects 1/10th vs 1/3rd of the creature's rounds). Ongoing damage is a little worse off, but only sometimes. And since most ongoing is save ends you need to get some pretty short fights (or be applying ongoing late in the fight) before it really starts to take a hit.