D&D 5E How much should 5e aim at balance?

[Neonchameleon]

So its a system mastery issue where its a bad choice if you aren't using certain weapons but its not a power for only those weapons hmm...

Oh, anyone who says there's no system mastery in 4e is talking out of their hats. The only way to avoid system mastery playing a part is no options at all. The big problem with 3.0 and system mastery is that 3.0 was intentionally designed to reward system mastery and feats were put in that weren't very good and were intended to look good, like Toughness. And the difference between high and low is just too great.

That's not what's happening here. In this case Rain of Blows is a perfectly decent encounter power even without the kicker of an extra attack. It's not great but isn't a wasted choice under most circumstances. But the 4e reward for system mastery isn't "avoid trap choices and be able to overshadow other people". It's "Be able to create viable and interesting characters that don't fit the superficial restrictions". For instance a high dex shortsword or rapier based fighter. Doesn't seem like the 4e fighter should - but add a power or two like RoB in and it works well. Or the lazy warlord (who yells at people and never makes an attack roll), or scrappy bard (who uses a mix of psychically insulting damage and powers like blunder that get passed off as coincidences).

Of course there is charge-cheese in 4e. And if anyone shows up with more than one of Horned Helm, Vanguard Weapon, or Surprising Charge at my table I'm going to DM-veto. I'm also going to frown at psionics and hybrids.

I am absolutly open to any suggestions to improve him although this thread might not be the best place. Regarding augmenting ToI believe it or not its been very helpful in a number of situations to get enemies off certain positions on the battlefield or getting them off other more squishy party members. If there is a better place to start a thread to go over tweaking the build I am certainly open to all suggestions. Honestly I picked RoB becauseIi like the idea of iterative attacks and that plus Hack and Hew helps emulate that to a certain extent also Hack and Hew allows me to mark multiple opponents which can be handy.

Oh, I absolutely agree that high pushes are useful, and use them myself. As a PC I also firmly believe the best place for monsters is inside their own pit traps. And if you want to put the build in the 4e forum I'd be happy to help

 

[Herschel]

So its a system mastery issue where its a bad choice if you aren't using certain weapons but its not a power for only those weapons hmm...

Kind of. It's still not a terrible power, but your character appears tricked out to do forced movement (which is a LOT of fun also IMO). The power just does nothing to take advantage of your bevy of tricks. If you were playing with a Resourceful Warlord, for example, using Rain of Blows on an Action Point would still be pretty fearsome.

 

[Pickles JG]

Kind of. It's still not a terrible power, but your character appears tricked out to do forced movement (which is a LOT of fun also IMO). The power just does nothing to take advantage of your bevy of tricks. If you were playing with a Resourceful Warlord, for example, using Rain of Blows on an Action Point would still be pretty fearsome.

I have done this with the addition of Warlord's Favour for accuracy & adaptive stratagem for more damage. The DM was not best pleased when his elite died in our two actions. It is a power that works well in combinations though ours was a chance LFR one, never repeated.

If you are using a character tricked out to use an at will power over & over then you might look to encounter & daily powers that are not standard actions. A couple of immediate actions (or one) & some stances so that you can use your schtick over & over without loss. Too many interrupt/reactions can really slow the game down though & they compete with the mark punishment attacks too so you wold need to feel it out.

(NB this is what Rangers often do as twin strike is rather high on the power curve)

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, but I was trying it the other way around - 90% Fighter, 10% Wizard.

Oh, sorry, I got that turned around somehow.

What failed for me is that when I wanted to take a second Wizard level at about the 6-1 point (thus, to go to 6-2) it took way more XP than I thought it should, due to 3e's additive system. It's my 1e background getting in the way - 3e insists a F-6/W-2 is actually an 8th-level character, where to me a 6-2 is only marginally better than a single-class 6th.

The 'truth' of how 3e multi-classing works is, I think, somewhere between your perception and it's intention. A 3e 6/2 character /is/ supposed to be the equivalent of an 8th level character, and, in some ways, it is. Your 6/2 AD&D character with two classes, for instance, would have 6 HD, 2 of the 2nd-level class, 4 of the 6th level class (assuming the 2nd level class came first, otherwise, he'd still have 6 of the 1st class until he reached 7th in the second one - but you know all that). The 3e 6/2 multi-class would have 8 HD, 6 of the one, 2 of the other. BAB is similar. Your 2nd wizard level in 3e actually gets you the same +1 BAB as your 7th fighter level would have (your first wizard level got you 0, as would a 3rd wizard level). It doesn't work so well with caster level, though, your 6/2 character is a 2nd level caster in both 3e and 2e, nor with saving throws, which are very front-loaded (your first wizard level gives you +2 Will, for instance, which no individual fighter level will ever come close to). Ideally, just as every class added BAB, every class, even non-caster classes (due to experience with magic, if only seeing and resisting it), would add something to caster level, so your 6/2 fighter/wizard would prep a number/level of spells as a 2nd level wizard, but would cast them at level 6/2+2=5. Similarly, 'Good' saves should have worked like Skill Points, with that large first-level bonus gained /only/ at your first character level.

One thing that disappointed me about 4e was that it did not build on and 'fix' 3e multi-classing, something it's uniform advancement scheme would have made quite easy.

 

[Shadeydm]

And if you want to put the build in the 4e forum I'd be happy to help

I will do that sometime soon, Thanks!

 

[Underman]

I think this conflict arises from the specificity of 4e's powers and their attendant flavor text. I feel that 3e actually had a similar problem to a lesser degree with feats ("I can't do that until I have Improved Electric Boogaloo). I think, with the lack of abstraction, people feel far less empowered to add that narrative tweak on their own. So, since a 4e Fighter's "Crack the Shell" power says "You break through you enemy's armor and deal a painful bleeding wound." and its a Daily, many people think they can only crack their opponent's armor once a day. People feel like they can't narrate that with another attack (even if it had no mechanical impact). Its sorta the reverse of 4e fighter fans not feeling like they could narrate anything cool at all in older editions (thus "spamming I attack!" being boring.)

Good post.

Today's D&D Next Q&A gives me hope that someone out there is listening to the feedback, and -- pertinent to this discussion -- I like the presentation: it seems to go to great efforts to associate the mechanics to the fiction:

As a fighter gains levels, he or she not only increases skill at swordplay (represented by the dice growing larger in value), the fighter also learns to divide up his or her attention between multiple aspects of the fight (represented by gaining more dice). Furthermore, in many cases the fighter learns to focus more intently on a particular task, or perform more complex maneuvers than were possible when he or she was less experienced. So, the fighter learns new techniques (new uses for the dice), and also learns how use old maneuvers in ways that were previously beyond the scope of his or her skill (greater numeric values from the dice).

Back to Ratskinner's post, so a fighter could be cracking shells (narrated fortune-at-the-end style) throughout the adventure, but once per day, he can crack a shell fortune-in-the-middle style? Not my personal cup of tea though. (I agree with what pemerton wrote about applying fortune-in-the-middle to actions affecting external environment as a bigger problem for staying in actor stance than for passive things that happen to the character like hit points). However, I suspect I'd be happier with some amount of FiTM maneuvers within the combat superiority framework than within the 4e AEDU.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think this conflict arises from the specificity of 4e's powers and their attendant flavor text.... I think, with the lack of abstraction, people feel far less empowered to add that narrative tweak on their own. So, since a 4e Fighter's "Crack the Shell" power says "You break through you enemy's armor and deal a painful bleeding wound." and its a Daily, many people think they can only crack their opponent's armor once a day. People feel like they can't narrate that with another attack (even if it had no mechanical impact).

That's a very interesting analysis. Particularly interesting, as the thought process you postulate is starkly at odds with the actual 4e rules. In the PH, the second item under "How to Read a Power" is 'Flavor Text,' and, in no uncertain terms, it explains that the flavor text is but a suggestion of how the power might be pictured, and that the player is free to change it. The mechanics describe the actual game effects, which, in a high level of abstraction, do not change based on changes you make to the flavor text.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I will do that sometime soon, Thanks!

No problem. I think you've made the mistake a lot of people moving from 3.5 make. You've started with the powers and picking them because they look cool and remind you of mechanics. The way that IME works best for 4e is to work out what your character does when the rubber meets the road and then pick powers that reflects that.

And now I come to think of it, that may be part of the problem people have with disassociated mechanics. The mechanics chosen are reflections of the character concept so they were always associated with what the character was meant to be able to do. If you think of them as random crap the character can do rather than mechanically fleshing out how the character moves and behaves in combat you're probably going to find it weird.

Other than that, there are two and a half feat taxes (Expertise, Improved Defences by the time you hit Paragon, and arguably Weapon/Implement Focus), and one item tax for weapon-wielding PCs (Bracers of Mighty Striking/Iron Armbands of Power/Bracers of Archery). The rest ... is fine as long as you are using inherent bonusses.

Oh, and while I'm about it, it's easy to miss that Hack and Hew has the Invigorating keyword - so it can grant you temporary hit points as well as both hitting and marking two targets. Temps that you're probably going to need soon. You're psyching yourself up as you attack your two foes.

 

[Shadeydm]

No problem. I think you've made the mistake a lot of people moving from 3.5 make. You've started with the powers and picking them because they look cool and remind you of mechanics. The way that IME works best for 4e is to work out what your character does when the rubber meets the road and then pick powers that reflects that.

And now I come to think of it, that may be part of the problem people have with disassociated mechanics. The mechanics chosen are reflections of the character concept so they were always associated with what the character was meant to be able to do. If you think of them as random crap the character can do rather than mechanically fleshing out how the character moves and behaves in combat you're probably going to find it weird.

Other than that, there are two and a half feat taxes (Expertise, Improved Defences by the time you hit Paragon, and arguably Weapon/Implement Focus), and one item tax for weapon-wielding PCs (Bracers of Mighty Striking/Iron Armbands of Power/Bracers of Archery). The rest ... is fine as long as you are using inherent bonusses.

Oh, and while I'm about it, it's easy to miss that Hack and Hew has the Invigorating keyword - so it can grant you temporary hit points as well as both hitting and marking two targets. Temps that you're probably going to need soon. You're psyching yourself up as you attack your two foes.

Once I knew what class i was going to play for this game I figured out what concept I wanted to try and build and then looked through one of the Fighter's handbooks and Char Op threads posted on the WotC boards to see what synergies had been identified that fit. Whne I made my swordmage there weren't really any approprite Char Op builds but using the swordmage handbook I ended up with a kick a** sheilding swordmage. For the Fighter there was actually a Char Op. build that fit what i wanted to play perfectly in theory however in play not so much. Weird how that worked out.

 

[Ratskinner]

That's a very interesting analysis. Particularly interesting, as the thought process you postulate is starkly at odds with the actual 4e rules. In the PH, the second item under "How to Read a Power" is 'Flavor Text,' and, in no uncertain terms, it explains that the flavor text is but a suggestion of how the power might be pictured, and that the player is free to change it. The mechanics describe the actual game effects, which, in a high level of abstraction, do not change based on changes you make to the flavor text.

I would actually quibble with your assessment of "no uncertain terms". While you are (I think) technically correct, I would argue that text does a poor job of presenting it that way. pp 54-55 of my PHB do not describe it as a "suggested" interpretation of the power's mechanics. Instead, the first paragraph, (you know, the one you're most likely to read if you're skimming the rules as an experienced gamer) says:

The next section of a power description gives a brief explanation of what the power does, sometimes including information about what it looks or sounds like. The flavor text for acid wave appears here as an example.

The second paragraph does make it fairly clear that you can do "reflavoring" of powers. However, after reading that first paragraph, I doubt many gamers read the rest of the section (at least, until they reread it later, after their impressions had already been formed.) "Flavor Text--brief description--got it" would be the typical thought pattern, I would guess. Making the matter worse, there's a page break and the "Keywords" section starts about 2 inches down, drawing the casual reader away from the rest of the Flavor Text description.

So what happens when that casual reader comes back and reads more carefully later? They are told that they can reflavor Magic Missile by turning little bolts of light into flying skulls. Which, while cool, is a stylistic choice, that sounds like it would be a permanent thing for the "spooky" wizard. Its hardly an example that would lead a fighter player to conceive that he might regularly reinterpret his powers (which have no similar "special effects" to alter) in any significant way. The paragraph doesn't include the words "each time" (or similar) to make that clear.*

I know that for me, this wasn't that big of an issue. I've played MtG, and I'm used to the concept that "Flavor Text" is generally unimportant (and that you can ignore italicized text in WOTC product.) However, if I wasn't familiar with that idea.... If I didn't play magic.... If I hadn't played other narrative games like Capes (where mechanics and Story are totally "disassociated")....I'm not sure I would have interpreted it the same way. Heck, having looked at the text closely now while writing it, I'm less certain that the original intent was to reflavor at each use of a power, than I was when I started writing this post.

*I would make the following suggestion as being "clearer" than the original paragraph two (and three).

A power's flavor text is one example of how you might describe or narrate it when you use it. You can alter this descriptions as often as you like, to fit your own idea of what your powers look like, or what's happening in the story as you use it. A wizard could have his magic missile take the form of flying green skulls rather than bolts of light. A rogue might say that his trick strike power takes the form of chasing his enemy around the room while shouting "Aha!" rather than a series of feints and lures.
The Flavor Text cannot change the function of the power, though. When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.
​