Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Heterocentrist!
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Forked Thread: what do you do when bloodclaw > artifact (& HR just doesn't cut it)
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
Heterocentrist!
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Do take a deep breath, everybody.
Feel free to discuss things with evilbob, but even if you feel it, don't make an effort to 'correct' him.
FWIW, I agree with many of the points which he is making here relating to 4e as a system. I've come to the conclusion that in the game which I run I just use PHB1 and nothing else at the moment. A chap who runs a game I play in uses everything.
In the past, to me, D&D was the go-to game for a basic 'fit any genre' kind of game. Now I find that it does a '4e genre' game pretty well, but trying to use it as the basis for any of the genres that I used to use D&D for turns out badly, so I've given up on that and turned to other systems (which is working out OK for me too).
I think that an underlying issue which evilbob touches on but which isn't actually being discussed is the difference between
a) the clear mathematics which they are using for relating attacks and defences to level
b) the relatively arbitrary way in which powers are assigned their damage, effects and level etc. This affects powers and magic item power/properties
It is the latter issue which seems to be at the bottom of a number of the issues evilbob has identified for himself. Nothing has been published about the way in which powers are graded, and the regular appearance of "say what?" powers suggests that WotC may not actually have their own secret sauce guidelines either, and that things are decided by rule of thumb. Who knows? I don't, but it seems that way.
This is actually in quite a lot of contrast with 3e and earlier editions where it was normally pretty obvious what level most spells would be, and although some might end up underpowered for their level, not many were overpowered for their level.
It would be interesting and instructive to break down all the powers and consider the combination of things which are seen in powers - in terms of # of [W] dice, number of fixed dice, size of fixed dice, number of attacks, number of targets, burst/blast radius, number and type of keywords, type of condition, duration of condition and such. It may be that there is no discernible pattern (which would indicate a problem to me, especially as so much effort went into "sorting out the math"), it might be that there are some clear patterns and a few outliers, which would be interesting.
One of the things that seemed obvious to me during 3e's evolution is that some things were set up with implied checks and balances in the core books and later books developed aspects but ignored the implied checks and balances (e.g. Conjuration spells ignore spell resistance, but do lower damage in the 3e core books. Then supplements appeared with spells labelled as conjuration so that they ignore spell resistance but were doing xd6 damage just like the evocation spells they effectively superceded... ignoring the original inherent balancing factor and in the process devaluing the evocation school).
I think that there is a thoughtful conversation which can be had by engaging with some of the underlying issues here.
Regards
Feel free to discuss things with evilbob, but even if you feel it, don't make an effort to 'correct' him.
FWIW, I agree with many of the points which he is making here relating to 4e as a system. I've come to the conclusion that in the game which I run I just use PHB1 and nothing else at the moment. A chap who runs a game I play in uses everything.
In the past, to me, D&D was the go-to game for a basic 'fit any genre' kind of game. Now I find that it does a '4e genre' game pretty well, but trying to use it as the basis for any of the genres that I used to use D&D for turns out badly, so I've given up on that and turned to other systems (which is working out OK for me too).
I think that an underlying issue which evilbob touches on but which isn't actually being discussed is the difference between
a) the clear mathematics which they are using for relating attacks and defences to level
b) the relatively arbitrary way in which powers are assigned their damage, effects and level etc. This affects powers and magic item power/properties
It is the latter issue which seems to be at the bottom of a number of the issues evilbob has identified for himself. Nothing has been published about the way in which powers are graded, and the regular appearance of "say what?" powers suggests that WotC may not actually have their own secret sauce guidelines either, and that things are decided by rule of thumb. Who knows? I don't, but it seems that way.
This is actually in quite a lot of contrast with 3e and earlier editions where it was normally pretty obvious what level most spells would be, and although some might end up underpowered for their level, not many were overpowered for their level.
It would be interesting and instructive to break down all the powers and consider the combination of things which are seen in powers - in terms of # of [W] dice, number of fixed dice, size of fixed dice, number of attacks, number of targets, burst/blast radius, number and type of keywords, type of condition, duration of condition and such. It may be that there is no discernible pattern (which would indicate a problem to me, especially as so much effort went into "sorting out the math"), it might be that there are some clear patterns and a few outliers, which would be interesting.
One of the things that seemed obvious to me during 3e's evolution is that some things were set up with implied checks and balances in the core books and later books developed aspects but ignored the implied checks and balances (e.g. Conjuration spells ignore spell resistance, but do lower damage in the 3e core books. Then supplements appeared with spells labelled as conjuration so that they ignore spell resistance but were doing xd6 damage just like the evocation spells they effectively superceded... ignoring the original inherent balancing factor and in the process devaluing the evocation school).
I think that there is a thoughtful conversation which can be had by engaging with some of the underlying issues here.
Regards
Interesting angle planesailing...
I always assumed that "just like previous editions", the effects and damage are simply compared to existing ones
(As an aside, you're kidding right about the spells being the right level right in previous editions? You didn't hang out on WOTC's Spells and magic items forums now did you
)
I always assumed that "just like previous editions", the effects and damage are simply compared to existing ones
(As an aside, you're kidding right about the spells being the right level right in previous editions? You didn't hang out on WOTC's Spells and magic items forums now did you
)
Old Gumphrey
First Post
You're right; until, of course, you give it to a level 13 human barbarian with Storm of Blades who action points into it and then gets 5 attacks with +3 to hit that inflict 1d12 + 27 apiece for a measly cost of 15 damage. This being after he raged for God knows how much and if he rolls a single 20 anywhere in that six-attack mess, it goes up to EIGHT. Frenzy, Swift Charge, everything dies. I regularly inflict over 250 damage in the first round at level 13 with my barbarian. I can create "don't roll a 1" scenarios and almost guarantee the success of every single attack. It's patently ridiculous, and I feel, quite frankly, a little dirty for using the combo.
So for someone who attacks once per round, yeah, it's not all that bad. But not all characters attack once per round. What are the "more powerful weapons" that are out there, by the way? I haven't seen another class that can dish out 300 damage in one round with NO BUFFS, all thanks to one power and one weapon.
Again, you miss the very basic premise: taking damage can be bad if the DM makes them pay for taking extra damage. It's very powerful, but not broken. So is the Obsidian Fly if the DM doesn't attack the very squishy fly. If they don't, it's a F12 hovering mount. As for more powerful, it all depends on situations but one is the voidcrystal weapon. Make that elite disappear for a round, whack his support and bring him back in the middle of a mullti-flank/zone/world of hurt.
Your Barbarian attack also is buffed. You mention having to use the Action Point in to it to get maximum effect which directly implies buffing from a Warlord, Oak Hammer Rage or non-base source. Yeah, it's very powerful, at the top end of the curve, and I'd agree it's cheesey in some cases but I wouldn't call it broken. You're also using an example from Paragon Tier, where baddies also have a lot more HP and can inflict a lot more status effects or damage. Imobilize, dominate, stun, slow, even daze can keep you from gatting to open with that first round.
Your Barbarian attack also is buffed. You mention having to use the Action Point in to it to get maximum effect which directly implies buffing from a Warlord, Oak Hammer Rage or non-base source. Yeah, it's very powerful, at the top end of the curve, and I'd agree it's cheesey in some cases but I wouldn't call it broken. You're also using an example from Paragon Tier, where baddies also have a lot more HP and can inflict a lot more status effects or damage. Imobilize, dominate, stun, slow, even daze can keep you from gatting to open with that first round.
This is just an observation, but it seems like most of the 'oh man, that's broken' issues boil down to places where, intentionally or unintentionally, Wizards broke the economy of actions rule.
Any way to get a static bonus to a hit scales very effectively if you can get multiple hits per single action. I don't think that was an interaction they intended, but that's just my take on it.
I think I'd be tempted (if I felt like massive overkill damage was coming out of just a few characters, specifically the multiple-hits-per-action folks) to do something like how they handle some of the multitarget arcane powers -- only let those static bonuses apply to one hit per action. So you can add Bloodclaw damage to one of your Hurricane of Blades hits or whatever, and it acts normally, but it can't be used on subsequent hits.
Any thoughts? I haven't thought that through much, just adapting it from how some of those "Pick two targets, apply +x only to one" abilities I've seen some of the arcane classes have.
I do have to admit it seems like an oversight to have many opportunities for lots of hits per action from some of the martial classes, when summons and companions were so carefully written to prevent the same issue.
Any way to get a static bonus to a hit scales very effectively if you can get multiple hits per single action. I don't think that was an interaction they intended, but that's just my take on it.
I think I'd be tempted (if I felt like massive overkill damage was coming out of just a few characters, specifically the multiple-hits-per-action folks) to do something like how they handle some of the multitarget arcane powers -- only let those static bonuses apply to one hit per action. So you can add Bloodclaw damage to one of your Hurricane of Blades hits or whatever, and it acts normally, but it can't be used on subsequent hits.
Any thoughts? I haven't thought that through much, just adapting it from how some of those "Pick two targets, apply +x only to one" abilities I've seen some of the arcane classes have.
I do have to admit it seems like an oversight to have many opportunities for lots of hits per action from some of the martial classes, when summons and companions were so carefully written to prevent the same issue.
malraux
First Post
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.
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.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
I just wanted to say that I completely understand evilbob's position, because I was that guy: I had his position, except in my case the game was 3X. What I wanted to do was run a game using WotC books and pretty much just run it: my players would pick what they wanted from the core and the splats, and we'd have a game. There'd be nothing I couldn't handle, right?
Wrong. The thing is, there is a core balance under which the game operates, and my players, by combining the different splats WotC had out for 3X, were moving so far outside the line that you could barely see it. I was running Shackled City at the time, and they were literally not challenged by anything the adventure threw at them. Those of you who've played or run that adventure will realize how crazy that statement is, because that's a hard adventure.
So what I did was to re-write everything to bring it up to the level of the group. Once I did that, and I warned them I was doing it, the game became challenging and deadly again, but at the cost of an insane amount of prep time. It also became no fun for anyone. The group jokingly refers to the Temple of Wee Jas as "the battle that would never end."
What I wanted was to run a game where I could say "yes" and include anything my group wanted to play from WotC's books, and have the game be fun. I didn't get that.
The solution for me was 4.0. I told my group that, even with the problems I have with 4E (and I have a few--different from evilbob) I still felt comfortable letting them "have at it" with the available material, with only a smattering of bans or removal (I've banned exactly one class, for example--the battlerager).
The result has been that 4E works for me and my group in a way that 3X just didn't. It's not WotC's fault or my group's...it's just that the mechanics didn't mesh well with their ability to game characters.
For me, the solution before 4E launched was to massively retool my adventure to make it challenging. Honestly, if 4E hadn't come along I think I would have had to stop it due to player and GM fatigue. That is an option under 4E, retool the monsters to make them a challenge to your group, and house rule the things that are too problematic for you.
That's not my ultimate suggestion, though, because that would only be a temporary patch. My real suggestion is to move to a game you actually feel comfortable with out of the box. For me, that game is (currently) 4E. For you? Honestly, I'd start a poll and ask for suggestions and move in that direction.
Life is too short to make gaming into work.
--Steve
Wrong. The thing is, there is a core balance under which the game operates, and my players, by combining the different splats WotC had out for 3X, were moving so far outside the line that you could barely see it. I was running Shackled City at the time, and they were literally not challenged by anything the adventure threw at them. Those of you who've played or run that adventure will realize how crazy that statement is, because that's a hard adventure.
So what I did was to re-write everything to bring it up to the level of the group. Once I did that, and I warned them I was doing it, the game became challenging and deadly again, but at the cost of an insane amount of prep time. It also became no fun for anyone. The group jokingly refers to the Temple of Wee Jas as "the battle that would never end."
What I wanted was to run a game where I could say "yes" and include anything my group wanted to play from WotC's books, and have the game be fun. I didn't get that.
The solution for me was 4.0. I told my group that, even with the problems I have with 4E (and I have a few--different from evilbob) I still felt comfortable letting them "have at it" with the available material, with only a smattering of bans or removal (I've banned exactly one class, for example--the battlerager).
The result has been that 4E works for me and my group in a way that 3X just didn't. It's not WotC's fault or my group's...it's just that the mechanics didn't mesh well with their ability to game characters.
For me, the solution before 4E launched was to massively retool my adventure to make it challenging. Honestly, if 4E hadn't come along I think I would have had to stop it due to player and GM fatigue. That is an option under 4E, retool the monsters to make them a challenge to your group, and house rule the things that are too problematic for you.
That's not my ultimate suggestion, though, because that would only be a temporary patch. My real suggestion is to move to a game you actually feel comfortable with out of the box. For me, that game is (currently) 4E. For you? Honestly, I'd start a poll and ask for suggestions and move in that direction.
Life is too short to make gaming into work.
--Steve
AngryMojo
First Post
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.
Similar Threads
