Will WotC ever get it right?

[Marshall]

Since 3e's Bo9S WotC has demonstrated, over and over, that they have no idea how to assign levels to powers. With every class in 4e having an extensive list of powers this glaring weakness just becomes more and more apparent.

Frex...
SOR 25 Acid Typhoon vs SOR 29 Hellish Firestorm
Both are Area Burst 2, Range 20, Standard, Each Creature, CHA vs FORT attacks with exactly the same Storm Magic rider.

The difference?
4d8+CHA Acid and Thunder with ongoing 10 Acid vs 3d10+CHA Thunder with ongoing 10 Fire....

The 25th level attack has greater min damage, greater max damage, greater average damage, more descriptors(so its less resistable)...IOW, superior in every way.

Why can I see this in a 5 min toilet seat perusal when the guys who are getting paid for it cant see the forest for the trees?

I'm sure there are more examples of this, please contribute....

 

[Nifft]

Why can I see this in a 5 min toilet seat perusal when the guys who are getting paid for it cant

In the spirit of enlightened discourse, I'm going to pretend you're genuinely seeking an answer to this question.

The answer is: because debugging parallelizes very, very well.

The more eyes are on a set of rules, the more likely it becomes that someone will stumble upon each of the holes in those rules. This is how Open Source Software has become so robust: it's got much of the most looked-at, and therefore best debugged, code in the world.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

Since 3e's Bo9S WotC has demonstrated, over and over, that they have no idea how to assign levels to powers. With every class in 4e having an extensive list of powers this glaring weakness just becomes more and more apparent.

Frex...
SOR 25 Acid Typhoon vs SOR 29 Hellish Firestorm
Both are Area Burst 2, Range 20, Standard, Each Creature, CHA vs FORT attacks with exactly the same Storm Magic rider.

The difference?
4d8+CHA Acid and Thunder with ongoing 10 Acid vs 3d10+CHA Thunder with ongoing 10 Fire....

The 25th level attack has greater min damage, greater max damage, greater average damage, more descriptors(so its less resistable)...IOW, superior in every way.

Why can I see this in a 5 min toilet seat perusal when the guys who are getting paid for it cant see the forest for the trees?

I'm sure there are more examples of this, please contribute....

You are stuck in the old 3.X paradigm where you believe that because its higher level its supposed to be exponentially better than something lower than it. This is not true in 4th edition.

 

[-Avalon-]

You are stuck in the old 3.X paradigm where you believe that because its higher level its supposed to be exponentially better than something lower than it. This is not true in 4th edition.

Ok, so what is the point of leveling if not to gain power and get stronger?

 

[Marshall]

You are stuck in the old 3.X paradigm where you believe that because its higher level its supposed to be exponentially better than something lower than it. This is not true in 4th edition.

No. But linearly better is the way its supposed to work. When a higher level power is strictly worse, you've failed at the design.

 

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

You are stuck in the old 3.X paradigm where you believe that because its higher level its supposed to be exponentially better than something lower than it. This is not true in 4th edition.

For whatever reason it should be better. That's the point of levels. If it isn't then we should get rid of them.

Edit: Ouch, Blinding Barrage.

 

[Obryn]

There are a few examples of this in PHB1 as well.

I'd expect it to be errata'd. Remember that just because you caught an error doesn't mean others will. By the same token, you're bound to miss errors that others will find.

As Nifft said, the likelihood of finding errors increases dramatically, the more eyeballs you put on it.

-O

 

[Marshall]

There are a few examples of this in PHB1 as well.

I'd expect it to be errata'd. Remember that just because you caught an error doesn't mean others will. By the same token, you're bound to miss errors that others will find.

As Nifft said, the likelihood of finding errors increases dramatically, the more eyeballs you put on it.

-O

The only way that makes sense is if WotC is so disorganized that they dont even list the powers in a simple spreadsheet during the design process. This isnt a subjective difference. Its a quantitative 25>29 error that shows up as soon as you casually examine the powers.

Once is annoying but, as I said in the OP, this kind of error started in the Bo9S. WotC should have learned better by now.

On top of that, I'd also bet that these errors arent ever fixed. It would obsolete a whole slew of follow-on products even before their release(see power decks)

 

[RefinedBean]

Well, nothing's perfect.

Have you told them what you've found? I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

 

[fba827]

The difference?
4d8+CHA Acid and Thunder with ongoing 10 Acid vs 3d10+CHA Thunder with ongoing 10 Fire....

Because I know my post is about to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, let me preface by saying that I am agreeing with you despite how it is about to sound (it'll make sense by the end of the post )

Few creatures have resistance to acid and/or thunder (and no creatures from the MM1 have vulnerability to either of them)

However, with fire, you do have a considerable number of creatures that are resistance or vulnerable to it, making it a better tactical choice in certain encounters (in encounter against creatures resistant to fire, the acid/thunder attacks are better; in an encounter against creatures vulnerable to fire, the ongoing fire is more painful)...

plus, I think (going from memory here) there are a couple more feats and items that enhance fire damage effects than there are to enhance acid or thunder effects.

In a general situation? Yes, the numbers certainly are better - I am not in any way disagreeing with that.

Just keep in mind that ongoing 10 acid and ongoing 10 fire will have different results depending on what creatures you are up against (and what powers/feats/items/etc you have that modify acid or fire).

my point in saying all this -- I have a feeling that they assign more "importance" to fire damage (or radiant damage due to undead vulnerabilities) than they do for other damage types.

Is it right for them to do so? Not so much in my opinion because my encounters may focus on monster groups of different proportions than the resistant/vulnerable spread of creatures in the MM1.
But it is a factor that may have gone in to the thinking process none the less.