What to do with a crappy PP power?

[Felon]

I know you said it was not useful. If the power is so bad, choose a different PP, but since you are obviously not thinking that way, you consider the rest of the PP good enough to make up for the one weak power.

snip

This.

Some paths are balanced around their features, others their powers, and others are somewhere in between.

snip

Knight Commander is another good example. The class feature of "All adjacent allies get +2 to attacks" is at least slightly offset by an almost-useless Level 12 Utility power.

PPs are balanced across their 10 levels. If you can swap out the less-powerful features in favor of more-powerful ones, I think you're trying to cop out of the inherent balance.

To me, all of that is yet another example of people fabricating unwritten rules of D&D based on loose inferences, and then regarding them as absolute law. Eventually a book gets published that utterly invalidates the contrivance that was thought such a valuable agent of balance.

Case in point: there was a time when suggesting that you give a class more AoE attacks was greeted with declarations that the designers clearly and obviously only want controller classes to have AoE. Then PHB2 comes out and the sorcerer is a striker with tons of AoE. Then suddenly all of the rigid thinkers quietly drop their position that they had devoted so many words to in countless threads, with no retraction or admission of wrongness whatsoever, as if their adamant words had never been uttered. But instead of learning the real lesson at hand, they latch on to something else, applying inductive logic to fabricate some new meta-rule that should be regarded as absolute and inviolate.

The fact is, this a pretty morphic version of D&D and there's no guiding central authority (or rather, there are a multitude of would-be guiding authorities that have about the same tenure as a No. 2 on The Prisoner). Most things are up for grabs, the majority of apple carts are ripe for overtunring. What seems like bedrock firmament today is plowed and furrowed tomorrow.

So forgive me if I have little regard declarations that clearly and obviously PP powers are locked-in irrevocably by an intentional element of D&D design handed down from on high.

 

[Felon]

Wow, that utility power isn't even that bad. Cover and concealment should happen fairly often, often enough that it's a difference maker.

If it had said 'You get +2 to hit targets in cover or concealment' it'd sound a lot better. However, it IS better than -that-.

But looking at the path in toto... it's a good path for the most part. If Song of Sonic Striking is the worst thing on there... then it's really not a bad deal at all.

I don't see cover and concealment bonuses occure very often in this campaign. You might in yours, I don't in mine. I guess I could encourage the DM to apply those penalties with more fervor so I could as much utility out of this power as you think I should, but somehow that solution seems unfulfilling.

The Euphonic Bow PP is OK. Not great, just OK. It basically addresses a problem with the bard and some other classes--namely, the pointless handicap of juggling multiple weapons and implements. Without the EB's ability, I'd have to pull out and put away a wand constantly. The 11th level encounter is kind of blah (daze one target), the 12th level utility is very situational, and the 16th level power (get a free basic attack when you score a critical hit) makes me kinda angry. It is, with the exception of the AP power, conspicuously bereft of bonafide leaderly powers. It's more of a leader-wanna-be-a-striker class.

That is kind of a situational Utility. But one of those that when you use it, and it is effective, you rock. And if you loose it, and get into a situation where it would be useful, you feel frustrated.

I feel your pain with that power, if it was a class power it would totally be one to skip over. I prefer Encounter Utilities, and Utilities that can be used in any encounter, not just in certain circumstances. It sucks that this is the go-to PP for Bards who want to use ranged weapons, and that you don't get more options for that kind of build. It seems like a popular enough option.

You pretty much hit every nail on the head. If it's popular, it's because it gets a bow-bard out of a corner he'd be painted into. There aren't even two ranged-weapon at-wills, so you can imagine on that alone the amount of juggling that would be going on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To me, all of that is yet another example of people fabricating unwritten rules of D&D based on loose inferences, and then regarding them as absolute law. Eventually a book gets published that utterly invalidates the contrivance that was thought such a valuable agent of balance.

Case in point: there was a time when suggesting that you give a class more AoE attacks was greeted with declarations that the designers clearly and obviously only want controller classes to have AoE. Then PHB2 comes out and the sorcerer is a striker with tons of AoE. Then suddenly all of the rigid thinkers quietly drop their position that they had devoted so many words to in countless threads, with no retraction or admission of wrongness whatsoever, as if their adamant words had never been uttered. But instead of learning the real lesson at hand, they latch on to something else, applying inductive logic to fabricate some new meta-rule that should be regarded as absolute and inviolate.

Well, maybe you can't discern some basic principles that underlie the balance in 4e, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that other people can't see them. Nor does it mean there can't be carefully carved out exceptions to any specific general design pattern in the game.

I feel reasonably confident in stating that we are VERY unlikely to see generally available mechanisms for achieving certain things. Some of these could be:

1) Access to at-will powers of other classes as at-wills. There are two ways to do this now, one of which carries a very high cost (PMC) and the other is both restricted to a very narrow subset of characters and is widely considered one of the most broken feats in the game (Versatile Master). Clearly there is a design pattern at work here. Clearly violating it has negative consequences.

2) Swapping out of PP powers. Again this CLEARLY has negative balance consequences and we can easily discern a design pattern here.

3) Access to feats and racial features of races different from the characters own. Half-elf SORT OF has this, though many of the feats it technically has access to are still closed by secondary requirements or simply unusable because they enhance elf racial traits. I seriously don't see any general exceptions ever being made here.

There are a few others but most of them are both a bit less clear-cut and less strictly enforced. Your example of AoEs doesn't strike me as a very good example. No doubt some people have propounded at some time in the past that strikers would never have easy access to AoEs, but in fact PHB1 had plenty of limited exceptions to this already. On top of that MANY people feel that sorcerer is a class that does quite a bit of stepping on the toes of other arcane classes, like wizard and warlock. So to the extent that it does expand the design space for strikers its not really clear that they should have gone as far as they did. In any case it was never a clearly marked line like "no access to other class' at-wills" is.

 

[Marshall]

You pretty much hit every nail on the head. If it's popular, it's because it gets a bow-bard out of a corner he'd be painted into. There aren't even two ranged-weapon at-wills, so you can imagine on that alone the amount of juggling that would be going on.

If thats all you want, and I agree its the only reason to pick up the PP, use a Songbow. Harsh is nice for damage and the others can be pretty sweet as well.
This is just another example of where the implement rules aren't fully developed yet.

 

[abyssaldeath]

If thats all you want, and I agree its the only reason to pick up the PP, use a Songbow. Harsh is nice for damage and the others can be pretty sweet as well.
This is just another example of where the implement rules aren't fully developed yet.

The PP feature is a little better than a Songbow. Not only does the feature let you use a bow as an implement, but it also increases the range of all your Bard Ranged Implement powers to the range, including 'long range', of the bow you are using. This PP seems to be aimed at a ranged weapon focused Bard whilst given a boost to ranged implement powers at the same time.

That said, I don't agree with Felon that using a Songbow is a case of the Bard being painted into a corner. If that is what he meant by bow-bards being painted into a corner. The are a few classes that have a similar situation. Is it an ideal situation? No, but then it doesn't have to be.

I'm not really sure how this is an example of the implement rules not being 'fully developed'.

 

[Felon]

Well, maybe you can't discern some basic principles that underlie the balance in 4e, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or that other people can't see them.

This is not a matter of one person being able to see something that someone else can't (because anyone who thinks they're smarter than me is probably kidding themselves), but rather it's a matter of being able to discern conjecture for what it is: a guideline at best. Taking note of patterns is very commendable--most people don't bother to look that hard--but concluding that a pattern equates to a hard-and-fast rule of what you can and can't do within the system is oversimiplification. 4e's designers are constantly opening up new ground and smashing taboos and saying "hey, we haven't really made X available to Y before, so we think folks will really love that we're giving it to them now". Not so much do we hear "we decided never to allow ____ under any circumstances".

 

[Felon]

If thats all you want, and I agree its the only reason to pick up the PP, use a Songbow. Harsh is nice for damage and the others can be pretty sweet as well.
This is just another example of where the implement rules aren't fully developed yet.

That's true, but y'know, I guess the real bottom line is that it's six or a half-dozen with the bard PP's. For instance, if you compare some level 11 encounter attacks---Arrow of Cachopony to Karmic Wound and Pacifying Voice--you'll start to spot the pattern; there's a fixation on debuff effects across the board, which are supposed to work out as indirect buffs for the party. The Cunning Provaricator is the real standout when it comes to giving out honest-to-gosh buffs. Since in my campaign, the DM hasn't let go of the idea that all bards fixate on musical instruments--and his treasure dispensation relfects that--I took the EB PP as a way of achieving a measure of self-sufficiency, at least until he gets up to speed.

The PP feature is a little better than a Songbow. Not only does the feature let you use a bow as an implement, but it also increases the range of all your Bard Ranged Implement powers to the range, including 'long range', of the bow you are using. This PP seems to be aimed at a ranged weapon focused Bard whilst given a boost to ranged implement powers at the same time.

That said, I don't agree with Felon that using a Songbow is a case of the Bard being painted into a corner. If that is what he meant by bow-bards being painted into a corner. The are a few classes that have a similar situation. Is it an ideal situation? No, but then it doesn't have to be.

I'm not really sure how this is an example of the implement rules not being 'fully developed'.

Having to juggle a bow and an implement is kind of a pointless pain in the neck. The bard can use a weapon as an implement sometimes--if he makes some confining choices--so why not let him just do it innately, just as the swordmage does? What goal does this imposition serve? I'm not sure what it means to say "it doesn't have to be an ideal situation". It ought to be ideal.

 

[Herschel]

This is not a matter of one person being able to see something that someone else can't (because anyone who thinks they're smarter than me is probably kidding themselves),

I obviously am much smarter because I'm not whining about a useful power in a good Paragon Path and wasting loads of time trying to swap it out. It's not the greatest power ever, but it is nice to have. Sometimes placing cover between you and the baddie is a tactically sound choice, especially with the power.

 

[Lord Byron]

To me, all of that is yet another example of people fabricating unwritten rules of D&D based on loose inferences, and then regarding them as absolute law. Eventually a book gets published that utterly invalidates the contrivance that was thought such a valuable agent of balance.

Have you ever heard of the Is-Ought problem? Because I think that's basically what you're getting at. Another way of putting it is "you can't get an ought from an is", and I think that's ostensibly what some people here have been doing.

Statements like "it's actually an OK power anyway" or "the paragon path is balanced with the powers being unswappable in mind" are basically descriptions of the way the game is. What they don't do is provide any reason to conclude that it ought to be that way. They also don't really answer the question Felon asked, which is why I assume he's getting a bit frustrated by this (beg pardon if I am assuming too much).

Oddly (given these types of reactions), there are at least two things to do with your utility powers, as indicated by posts 3 and 4 in this thread, making statements like "suck it up" sound kind of presumptive. Or at least thats how it sounds to me, as it seems to imply something like "you can't do anything about it, so deal with it" when that isn't the case.

Maybe you should get the disembodied hand familar. That would ironically make what you're trying to avoid--juggling implements and weapons--a lot easier.

 

[Herschel]

The “ought” is naught. “Because my DM sucks and can’t figure out how to add creative terrain/cover” or “Because I don’t think it comes up often enough” is not a valid reason to create potentially wonky loopholes and swap outs in a balanced system.