High Level 4e

[gribble]

Was the character intentionally handicapped, only hitting on a 20 seems remarkable even for a very casual character.

I guess it depend on your definition of handicapped, but no, he wasn't intentionally gimped. My observation of the character/encounter:

1. The PC is more RP focussed than combat focussed. For example: I think he is the only PC with the skill training feat, plus he had a much more "realistic" spread of stats than is typical/expected of 4e PCs (i.e.: I think his lowest stat was a 12 or 14, his primary stat was an 18 and he had 2 or 3 stats at 18).
2. He fell into a lot of the "traps" that the designers supposedly removed from 4e (not taking Weapon Expertise and/or Paragon/Robust defences, not having high enough stats to get the improved crit feat for his weapon, etc).
3. Being a TWF ranger, and therefore needing 2 magic weapons, his magic weapons were a little below the curve (+4 rather than +5).
4. Being a more well rounded character all his defences were good, but none were great. Seeing as the enemies were mostly targeting AC, he soaked up a lot more punishment than the other characters.
5. The encounter was a fairly tough one anyway - most of the PCs (without buffs) were needing 13 or so to hit the enemies, and there was little point in giving him the buffs to improve "needing a 20 to hit" to "needing a 17 to hit".

It seems that 4e, more than any other version of D&D, really rewards specialists over generalists.

 

[gribble]

Does the problem with 'grinds' get worse at higher level?

Yep, that's definitely been our experience. We typically get about 2 encounters (3 in a good session) in about a 3-4 hour gaming session.

I guess what I mean, would be if combat becomes more decisive (as in more proportionate damage being dealt)?

Yes and no. As I said above, a lot of powers are "insta-win", as in, once they're used there's really only one way an encounter is going to go. However, unlike 3e, the opponents are still hanging around taking rounds to actually die rather than being instantly defeated.

Hmmm... hard to explain without an example. Take Evards Black Tenatcles. Once it goes down (pretty much every encounter at Epic Level), any enemies it catches who don't have teleportation, phasing or flight are pretty much out of the combat. But they continue to sit there making saves and taking 20-40 points of damage a round. Given that most epic level opponents have hundreds of HP, they hang around for a loooooong time... occasionally one will get out, have a round of action and then get thunderwaved (or something similar) back in. The fight is over - the monsters just don't know it...

 

[Rechan]

1. He fell into a lot of the "traps" that the designers supposedly removed from 4e (not taking Weapon Expertise and/or Paragon/Robust defences, not having high enough stats to get the improved crit feat for his weapon, etc).

Except these options didn't exist until March. Are you saying that before then, everyone sucked?

It seems that 4e, more than any other version of D&D, really rewards specialists over generalists.

Tell that to the monk or paladin of old. Or Bard, for that matter.

 

[amysrevenge]

My group felt that they didn't get enough "stuff" until right about paragon level to have some variety.

I can understand the sentiment. I draw a "stuff" line myself, I just draw it a bit lower. For me, I don't feel like there is enough stuff until I get my second Daily - level 5. At that point, I feel like I can go a ways without shuffling back down to at-will, at-will, at-will.

 

[gribble]

Except these options didn't exist until March. Are you saying that before then, everyone sucked?

Who said anything about everyone sucking?
Before PHB2 was released we were all a lot lower level (around 13th - 14th from memory as we were just starting P2) and the difference was a lot less pronounced. Since then, we've gained a few levels and the difference between those with and without Weapon Expertise is +3 to hit, and those with and without Robust Defences is +2 to all non AC defences. Those aren't insignifican't differences, especially when those with are the characters who were already more optimised...

It's definitely a "trap" for those who don't game the system.

Tell that to the monk or paladin of old. Or Bard, for that matter.

I never said older versions didn't also reward specialists, just that it is a problem 4e certainly hasn't fixed. D&D has always been a game for specialists.

 

[Rechan]

I never said older versions didn't also reward specialists, just that it is a problem 4e certainly hasn't fixed. D&D has always been a game for specialists.

You said 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition. If D&D has always been a game for specialists...

 

[MerricB]

I guess it depend on your definition of handicapped, but no, he wasn't intentionally gimped. My observation of the character/encounter:

1. The PC is more RP focussed than combat focussed. For example: I think he is the only PC with the skill training feat, plus he had a much more "realistic" spread of stats than is typical/expected of 4e PCs (i.e.: I think his lowest stat was a 12 or 14, his primary stat was an 18 and he had 2 or 3 stats at 18).

The character seems astonishingly bad. As in, you'd have to actually make an effort to create such a character. 4E gives two stat bonuses on levels 4, 8, 14 and 18, as well as the "all in" stats... and somehow this Ranger only has an 18 Strength? (Most of the rest of the party would have 24-26 in their primary stat, I take it?)

How do you get to cast Evard's Black Tentacles so often, btw?

Incidently, Weapon Expertise is still only a +2 bonus at level 22. It finally reaches +3 at level 25.

Cheers!

 

[gribble]

You said 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition. If D&D has always been a game for specialists...

Both statements can be true. I don't dispute that 3e definitely rewarded specialists (certainly the "specialist" classes were usually better than the "generalist" ones and there was encouragement to take a high primary ability score for those specialist classes), but with 4e it certainly seems to be much more enshrined in the system.
E.g.:
The "standard array" IME is actually 18, 14, 11, 10, 10, 8 and not 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10.
Most characters have a Race that gives them +2 to their primary stat.
Most characters will take Weapon Expertise (certainly by 15th level), and Paragon/Robust Defences.
Most characters take powers that build on their secondary stat.

All choices that reward specialisation over generalisation, and all choices that you will see in 99%+ of "optimised" characters.

I suppose I was saying that while 3e certainly rewarded specialists over generalists, it was possible (or at least much easier) to make an effective generalist in 3e than it is in 4e.

So yes, I stand by both my statements. D&D has always been a game for specialists, and 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition.

 

[gribble]

The character seems astonishingly bad. As in, you'd have to actually make an effort to create such a character.

Not necessary. The player fell into the trap of making a generalist in 4e. He decided he wanted to be good at both melee and ranged combat, therefore he started with 14s in both Str and Dex, and then treated them as his "primary" stats and split his primary level bumps between Str and Dex, and his secondary level bumps among his other stats (primarily Wisdom). I think he has 18 Str, Dex and Wis now, and everything else is 12+ (maybe even 14+).

How do you get to cast Evard's Black Tentacles so often, btw?

1/day for the basic daily
1/day for Archmage Spell Recall
1/day plus 1/2 encounters for Arcane Mastery epic feat

So he can cast it once for each of the first 5 encounters of the day, and then every second encounter after that. Usually the fighter types are well out of healing surges and wanting to rest by the 5th encounter of the day at Epic levels.

Incidently, Weapon Expertise is still only a +2 bonus at level 22. It finally reaches +3 at level 25.

Right, sorry, my bad. Still, a permanent +2 is certainly significant.

 

[MerricB]

So yes, I stand by both my statements. D&D has always been a game for specialists, and 4e rewards specialists more than any previous edition.

I saw some pretty mad specialists in high (15th+) level D&D, and they left any generalists far, far behind. We were talking 40 AC vs 25 AC and things like that. I was putting in winter wolves that weren't much of a threat to the party just so the bard could hit something. With ability scores hitting levels of 30+, the gap just kept getting bigger and bigger.

That ability to just keep casting Evard's seems pretty impressive. We'll see if my group does so. (What am I typing? Of course they will!) We've just hit paragon levels, and it's been fun so far.

The Weapon Expertise is definitely significant.

I'm still astonished by that ranger. The starting stats are bad, and it just gets worse from there. Even at paragon levels, that ranger would have been significantly worse than everyone else. Are the higher non-core stats actually giving it any useful bonuses?

Cheers!