D&D 4E How is the 4e essentials Slayer??

[MwaO]

Yeah, I agree that the later high level "math fixes" completely unneeded

Depends on your game. Specifically, an issue was that parties without enabling leaders got made and then the PCs didn't have any to-hit bonuses. And because there were a lot of '+stat' options out there instead of say +3, things get a little messed up.

There are three things they needed to fix:
Multi-attacking damage - make bonuses generally per W rather than per damage roll and lower the benefit

Get to-hit/defenses where they're leveling up appropriately. Quite honestly, though this probably would have triggered all sorts of crazy responses, they should have just made a base 'here's your to-hit score and add level to it' that automatically went up, ignoring magic items, stat boosts(which would still add to damage), etc...

Kill with hot fire any +stat/-stat bonuses/penalties to actions and change them either to +3/-3.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Depends on your game. Specifically, an issue was that parties without enabling leaders got made and then the PCs didn't have any to-hit bonuses. And because there were a lot of '+stat' options out there instead of say +3, things get a little messed up.

The game really was designed to work best with all 4 role represented, so, yeah, missing out on a leader hurt in more than just the lack of healing.

Multi-attacking damage - make bonuses generally per W rather than per damage roll and lower the benefit

Or just skip multi-attacking entirely. Or make each hit on the same target of a multi-attack sequence add 1[W] to the single damage roll - there was a power in Gamma World that worked that way, Felinoid at-will, I think it was. Simple, elegant, stops the issues with multiple attacks cold, never picked up in 4e/E, Next or 5e. :shrug:

Get to-hit/defenses where they're leveling up appropriately. Quite honestly, though this probably would have triggered all sorts of crazy responses, they should have just made a base 'here's your to-hit score and add level to it' that automatically went up, ignoring magic items, stat boosts(which would still add to damage), etc...

Also could have worked well. Also how it worked in Gamma World, coincidentally enough. No stat boost, not item boosts (some items had their own attack rolls, that was about it), just your stats as rolled at 1st level, plus your level (which only went to 10).

Magic weapons still adding damage, having properties & powers, and of course, crit damage, could have worked, I suppose.

Kill with hot fire any +stat/-stat bonuses/penalties to actions and change them either to +3/-3.

Or just don't have stats ballooning to 30+

 

[MwaO]

Or just skip multi-attacking entirely. Or make each hit on the same target of a multi-attack sequence add 1[W] to the single damage roll - there was a power in Gamma World that worked that way, Felinoid at-will, I think it was. Simple, elegant, stops the issues with multiple attacks cold, never picked up in 4e/E, Next or 5e. :shrug:

Issue with that is non-standard action attacks, such as OAs or immediates. Bonuses need to be large in order to make a single attack work. That then boosts non-standard action attacks and either you need the bonuses to be kind of arbitrary(only standard action attacks which dings Defenders) or makes things too powerful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Issue with that is non-standard action attacks, such as OAs or immediates. Bonuses need to be large in order to make a single attack work. That then boosts non-standard action attacks and either you need the bonuses to be kind of arbitrary(only standard action attacks which dings Defenders) or makes things too powerful.

Bonuses and/or extra dice, sure. And they needn't apply to basic attacks nor be given to most immediate action attacks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Better to be close and above the curve than close and below. It has a lot of consequences for how fights play out. I've said this before, but the Slayer really need to be built roughly the way it was, except instead of any damage bonuses or stances or daily powers(and it doesn't gain the E11 from Paragon Paths), give it the following two options:
Power: Fighter's Strike - counts as a basic attack, does 1w+Str or 1w+Dex(with finesse/ranged weapons), 2w in Epic.
Class Feature: Dual Fighter's Strike: Standard Action, make 2 Fighter's Strikes

Done. Boring as all get out and a little bit on the high damage side early on, but should be reasonably balanced by 5th.

Not a bad idea, how does it interact with leaders? It seems to avoid the "buffing basic attacks" thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Depends on your game. Specifically, an issue was that parties without enabling leaders got made and then the PCs didn't have any to-hit bonuses. And because there were a lot of '+stat' options out there instead of say +3, things get a little messed up.

There are three things they needed to fix:
Multi-attacking damage - make bonuses generally per W rather than per damage roll and lower the benefit

Get to-hit/defenses where they're leveling up appropriately. Quite honestly, though this probably would have triggered all sorts of crazy responses, they should have just made a base 'here's your to-hit score and add level to it' that automatically went up, ignoring magic items, stat boosts(which would still add to damage), etc...

Kill with hot fire any +stat/-stat bonuses/penalties to actions and change them either to +3/-3.

Yeah, I hear you. In my own 4e hack bonuses NEVER stack, and there are FEW types, beyond that you get advantage or disadvantage, and that's it. You CAN have things like magic items that grant bonuses, but they're not likely to become vital, because you could easily get other bonuses of the same basic degree via whatever (the equivalents of feats, though they don't exist per-se).

The point being 4e was a little heavy on certain things, and it did trigger a need to have those things, like enhancement, and specific attack and damage bonus stacking values.

Another thing I don't have is ANY multi-attacks, they just don't exist. Things are MUCH more controlled and thus when you pick up some nice thematic bonus because you're "the best guy on earth with an axe" it really stands out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Issue with that is non-standard action attacks, such as OAs or immediates. Bonuses need to be large in order to make a single attack work. That then boosts non-standard action attacks and either you need the bonuses to be kind of arbitrary(only standard action attacks which dings Defenders) or makes things too powerful.

And my answer is these things are RARE AS HELL. Just OAs are relatively hard to get, though fighters can work that. The end result is that there's some fairly basic optimization you can certainly do, max your STR or DEX or whatever depending on you attack powers, but in general you worry about it all in play, when you go for tactically advantageous situations to get your real bonuses.

The leader/no-leader dichotomy definitely exists, though it kinda depends on the party as to how big it is. Many strikers, like say bow rangers, don't care too much, but other characters do, a lot.

 

[MwaO]

Not a bad idea, how does it interact with leaders? It seems to avoid the "buffing basic attacks" thing.

Yup - they're solid at making basic attacks, just not fantastic. So leaders are fine with them because they neither break the game, but their presence means someone has a good basic attack, maybe both melee and ranged.

The cool thing about them is that for the most part, they're optimization-independent - they ought to be at or about the level of optimization of the party unless the group as a whole is way off the curve, either below or above. And because of how good they'll seem to those below the curve, it can fix that issue.

 

[MwaO]

And my answer is these things are RARE AS HELL. Just OAs are relatively hard to get, though fighters can work that. The end result is that there's some fairly basic optimization you can certainly do, max your STR or DEX or whatever depending on you attack powers, but in general you worry about it all in play, when you go for tactically advantageous situations to get your real bonuses.

I think ideally, the solution is one that works on the current system rather than an idealized version which needs a player base.

That's why I like making all bonuses from X being bonuses of type X. Have a +3 unnamed damage bonus from a feat? That's a feat bonus. Wielding a +3 sword? That's a +3 item bonus. Have what looks like an additional damage roll in a power which isn't an attack? Extra damage that doesn't work with bonuses.

Now make a few +1/2/3 per W/I bonuses, one for feat and one for item. The Archer Ranger will like the +3 bow, the Barbarian with the big 5w attack the +2 per W Iron Armbands of Power.

 

[pemerton]

the later high level "math fixes" completely unneeded, though arguably more on the expertise side than with defenses, where it can kinda suck to be auto-hit (though far from catastrophic, given epic PCs options to deal with the consequences).

an issue was that parties without enabling leaders got made and then the PCs didn't have any to-hit bonuses.

I haven't done a thorough mathematical analysis and so can only speak from my own experience running an epic campaign: we don't use Expertise feats (we do use the Essentials defences feats, though) and we don't have an enabling leader (hybrid cleric-ranger who mostly uses rangery stuff with cleric for healing; the sorcerer used to be a Demonskin Adept but now is a Voice of Thunder) and the players don't have too much trouble in combat.

At 25th level they took on Torog (with hp and defences as per Underdark, and other stats MM3-ed). I used a d8 escalation die (13th Age style but for the PCs only) to compensate for the level difference (in the fiction, it represented Torog's ebbing power following the destruction of his Soul Abattoir). The fight ended in the round the escalation die showed 5.

Admittedly at that time the sorcerer was still a Demonskin Adept, but that's still only 1 round of +3 to hit.

I have no real idea how optimised the group is - the subjective feel is of pretty effective characters, but they certainly don't match some of the numbers I see posted here - but the Expertise feats have certainly not seemed to be required.