Forked Thread: what do you do when bloodclaw > artifact (& HR just doesn't cut it)

[GMforPowergamers]

I looked into this, and I don't think it technically works this way. Bloodclaw requires a free action to use, and only applies to the next attack you make. Storm of blows, and for that matter all other sequential hit powers, counts as multiple attacks. Unless you can break up your standard action, you'll only be able to get the bloodclaw bonus on one attack. Even if you can slip the free actions in, the definition of a free action specifically says the DM can restrict the number of free actions you can take in one turn.

I could be wrong on the action sandwich thing, but as a DM I would certainly rule on the number of free actions you can take.

I ruled (and I belive this was based eaither on my interp of a rule, or a desinger blog...) that you can not take one action in the middle of another.

Example: Move rat 7 minor action open door is fine, but move 3, minor action open door, then complete my move 4 more is not allowed....I am not entirley sure it is a house rule, although it may be. It also stops the above action...for instance a 2nd example free action blood claw, free action blood claw, then stand ard action twin srike is fine...but a two haned sword useing passing attack is free action bloodclaw, standar 1 att w/blood claw, 1w/out it...

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Again, you miss the very basic premise: taking damage can be bad if the DM makes them pay for taking extra damage.

And again, you miss the very basic premise: 20 damage to a level 13 barbarian is barely a drop in the bucket, especially when you're trading that 20 damage for the ability to kill BETWEEN ONE AND TWO monsters of your level.

Your Barbarian attack also is buffed.

If one feat is "buffed", then you are correct. In that case every single character ever is buffed at all times.

Well, make that 1 power, 1 weapon, a particular race and racial feat (though the racial feat is pretty much a must have), a particular build and stat distribution and it only works 1/2 encounters. That a possible example of a broken combo, as independently, its harder to argue that each thing is broken on its own.

Um...yeah, basically. I think Action Surge is the most powerful feat in the entire game. By flanking and using Action Surge, you create "dont' roll a 1" scenario with an optimized character. Throw in leader buffs, and you've created it for even non-optimized characters.

Even without the 5 attacks you can still inflict significantly more damage with this weapon than without it. But seriously. Just because you can only do something every other fight doesn't mean it's not broken. Because it is. I'm here to tell you that a level 13 striker taking out two fresh level 13 soldiers is kind of possibly not what was intended by the game.

He's a human. He does not need outside buffing; he gets +3 to attacks on an action point as a racial ability. (Okay, technically it's a racial bonus feat which is spent on Action Surge because any human in his/her right mind grabs Action Surge ASAP.)

And my experience with Bloodclaw is similar; two-handed Bloodclaw weapons are too good for the drawback. I house-rule that Bloodclaw does not get bonus damage for being wielded 2-handed, and that brings it down to an acceptable level - very powerful, but not a "gimme." People actually have to think about whether to use Bloodclaw, instead of just cranking it out on every attack.

Yeah...honestly Action Surge should have been the human racial power. If you don't take that feat, you:

-didn't know about it
-are stupid
-didn't take it on purpose to make the game more challenging for yourself

That's not a bad fix to Bloodclaw, either.

I looked into this, and I don't think it technically works this way. Bloodclaw requires a free action to use, and only applies to the next attack you make. Storm of blows, and for that matter all other sequential hit powers, counts as multiple attacks. Unless you can break up your standard action, you'll only be able to get the bloodclaw bonus on one attack. Even if you can slip the free actions in, the definition of a free action specifically says the DM can restrict the number of free actions you can take in one turn.

I could be wrong on the action sandwich thing, but as a DM I would certainly rule on the number of free actions you can take.

Yeah...but then you're limiting other people from taking a certain number of other free actions that are not unbalancing (I can't think of any examples, but I'm sure that some exist). Artificial limitations are just that. You don't limit number of free actions because one weapon screwed it all up. It's not that having that many free actions is powerful; it's that the action in question probably should have been a minor.

That said, this is not how the item works. You get to take this free action before each attack. It's not per action. It clearly states "per attack". That's why the item is so broken.

I ruled (and I belive this was based eaither on my interp of a rule, or a desinger blog...) that you can not take one action in the middle of another.

You can absolutely take one action in the middle of another. When someone walks past you, you can smack them with your sword. There's like 50 powers that do nothing except interrupt actions. And it's not because it has a special name. Dragons, when bloodied, immediately recharge their breath weapons and use them as free actions. You can free action even on someone else's turn, in the middle of their action. Why wouldn't you be able to free action in the middle of your own action?

So what you're telling me is that in your games, your players can't shout in the middle of an attack, because shouting is a free action, and that would be taking one action in the middle of another? Sounds kinda mechanical to me. =P

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You can absolutely take one action in the middle of another. When someone walks past you, you can smack them with your sword. There's like 50 powers that do nothing except interrupt actions.

those are exceptions that say interupt...or reaction....your weapon say neither...

And it's not because it has a special name. Dragons, when bloodied, immediately recharge their breath weapons and use them as free actions. You can free action even on someone else's turn, in the middle of their action. Why wouldn't you be able to free action in the middle of your own action?

it depends do you have a power that says you can...that dragon does...

So what you're telling me is that in your games, your players can't shout in the middle of an attack, because shouting is a free action, and that would be taking one action in the middle of another?

I guess...it never came up, normaly the player says something like I scream and attack...or I attack then scream, I have never herd an arguement for scream and att simo...

Sounds kinda mechanical to me.

so...so is I can only move 6 spaces...

Yeah...honestly Action Surge should have been the human racial power. If you don't take that feat, you:

-didn't know about it
-are stupid
-didn't take it on purpose to make the game more challenging for yourself

Since I have seen many humans not take it I disagree, however even if you go for max optimization I have a 4th reason...

-You have a tac lord in the party that already gives a bonus, so you want to take a feat that adds something else...

 

[SteveC]

If one feat is "buffed", then you are correct. In that case every single character ever is buffed at all times.

I just wanted to point out that if you're hitting AC 29 (average AC for many level 13 monsters I spot checked) you are definitely getting a serious buff. A typical barbarian would have around +17 to hit, or +20 with action surge at level 13. So he might have combat advantage and the help of a warlord buff, but otherwise he's not hitting on anything but a one.

Also as a human, in order to get Con 20 by level 13, he had to start with a value of 17 in Con. Did you tank the character's strength to get there?

Now I'm not saying you can't get those numbers, rather that they are a rather extreme example and not something you can get without other costs. And a barbarian that laughs off taking 18 damage a round that they inflict on themselves? I'm not sure about that one.

--Steve

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I really like it when people don't argue against your argument...they just try to call you out for maths and such.

I really doubt 29 was the "average". More like 29 is ultra high-end AC for a 13 baddie. What it looks like you did is browse the compendium at level 13, and conveniently forgot that all the monsters that came up first were ELITES.

The figure you (or rather, I) often target is much closer to 26. Also these are my level 14 figures, I forgot that I didn't get 5 attacks until this most recent level.

Fullblade: 3
Expertise: 1
Strength: 6
Half Level: 7
Enhancement: 3
Action Surge: 3
Flanking: 2

adds up to "Don't roll a 1" vs. 26 armor class. And that's with "tanked" strength. If we had a Taclord, I mean...wow. I'd be killing level 16 soldiers in one round, as long as I could avoid rolling a 1.

So 1 rage attack + 5 attacks from the encounter = lose 18 health, add 54 damage. Trading 18 health for 54 damage is REALLY GOOD (especially when you then gain 15 brand new temporary HP). That much damage BY ITSELF is going to bloody an equal leveled artillery or controller, and that's before you add in the other 8d12 + 114 or so. So with zero critting we're looking at an average of about 220 damage on something I can flank (totally easy) that has 25-26 AC. And this isn't "average on a hit", because I only miss 5% of the swings I take, and thanks to Frenzied Berserker, the missed swing on Storm of Blades deals half damage, anyway. So we can safely assume that I'm nearly automatically going to deal 200 damage to a target with 26 or less AC. This will almost assuredly drop it, giving me access to swift charge. And this is all without the ungodly 5d12 + 1d10 extra on a crit, plus max damage, plus free attack for another 1d12 + 28.

We can go back and forth and debate about level 14 mobs, and elites vs. standards, and a bunch of other crap, but the point is with this combo you can unload 200 freaking damage basically any time you feel like it, provided you don't roll complete trash. "Don't roll a 1" stops working as soon as things become elite, or higher level, but an at-will buff puts it back in range. This combo is NOT BALANCED, and adding or subtracting a few points of Str or AC or Con isn't really going to change anything.

 

[malraux]

You can absolutely take one action in the middle of another. When someone walks past you, you can smack them with your sword. There's like 50 powers that do nothing except interrupt actions. And it's not because it has a special name. Dragons, when bloodied, immediately recharge their breath weapons and use them as free actions. You can free action even on someone else's turn, in the middle of their action. Why wouldn't you be able to free action in the middle of your own action?

So what you're telling me is that in your games, your players can't shout in the middle of an attack, because shouting is a free action, and that would be taking one action in the middle of another? Sounds kinda mechanical to me. =P

The question isn't "can you take an action in the middle of someone else's action?" its "can I take an action in the middle of my own action?" For example, a ranger cannot, after his first attack with twin strike drops an enemy, mark a new target before making the second attack.

edit: oh and 26(lurkers and artillery) is the low end of AC for 14th level monsters, with 30 (soilders) being the high end. All non-elites of course.

 

[SteveC]

I really like it when people don't argue against your argument...they just try to call you out for maths and such.

What I have an issue with is when people shift the goalposts. Your level 13 barbarian can't have +6 strength and +5 con, and he doesn't receive a +7 bonus for level...oh and we're assuming he's flanking too. Got it. You're also still not hitting AC29 on a one.

Even with that, I'll tell you that this character is pretty powerful, but he's also living on borrowed time. With 11s or 9s in all of his other stats, his AC, REF and Will are going to be terrible. He's also going to contribute nothing to the group in a skill challenge that doesn't involve athletics.

Beyond that, unless you're creating this character at level _14_ which is what I think you meant, you've had to play them to the point where they got this uber ability, with all of the weaknesses that low AC and defenses give.

So you've got a good character, but I'm far from thinking you've proven bloodclaw to be broken.

 

[Nifft]

This is the heart of the matter for me. I know lots of stuff in 3.5 was imbalanced, but somehow, the longer I play, 4.0 keeps starting to seem even more so.

I prefer to mentally compare 4.0e with 3.0e. Both were brand new systems, thought to be more elegant than their predecessor, but both filled with allegedly balanced effects that had unintended (and therefore broken) consequences.

IMHO we will see 4.5e -- or we will see a steady release of core rules fixes that effectively gives us 4.5e -- eventually.

But so far, 4.0e seems less broken than 3.0e, and (best of all) there's now a community who understands and discusses balance issues, and we mostly agree about what is good and what is bad. That's huge. WotC and other publishers wouldn't sell nice things if everyone were clamoring for bad things.

Cheers, -- N

 

[gizmo33]

Sure, they might solve a problem, or some problems, but it doesn't solve the problem. And that problem is that WotC doesn't pay me to edit their books.

I can see why houserules won't solve the problem. Maybe a time machine. I don't think your frustration is going to end any time soon.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Hey evilbob, what exactly do you want WOTC to do to solve your problem?

As a lot of people said, I think the best (or only) solution for you is to play another RPG system.