4E Power Creep--Forked Thread: As long as we are talking...

[thecasualoblivion]

Forked from: As long as we are talking hypothetically...

I'll fork this since this reply has nothing to do with the parent thread.

Well, 2E's healthy life span surely didn't go up all the way to 2000. I certainly can't envisage WotC to pin the health of 4E on the sort of nichê product TSR relied on in the final 5 years of 2E's existence.

Where I'm on board with you, OTOH, is that 4E's mechanical simplicity isn't a stumbling block to future development. I mean, PHB 2 is already a huge step forward; if WotC keeps going on that scale, the potential for 4E is easily on a par with 3E. (I'd have never thought I'd ever write a sentence like this, but strange things can happen.) You see, like you I think some of the self-imposed constraints on 4E could be lifted pretty easily (e.g. DDM-distances on mobility, way more rituals, etc etc). So the question isn't whether WotC can see this through at a game-mechanical level, but whether they're interested to see it through at a corporate/economical level. Which is where my earlier point re TSR's death-defying optimism re nichê product comes in. See, I think continually developing 4E to ever more complex (not complicated) reaches inevitable renders a portion of the early 4E stuff obsolete. (In part, I think that's what's happening with PHB 2 vs. PHB 1 already, although I'd rather not render this a matter of debate in this wonderful thread.) So the issue is, how far can WotC go without alienating customers who don't want to see their extant 4E-investments being partly, but continuously, invalidated?

That's hard to guess. Personally I'd keep buying 4E products year in, year out, provided the new stuff IS more interesting than the old stuff, and I don't get forced to switch editions in the process of picking up new stuff. But yeah, I think we've just seen a scratch of 4E's full potential. Whether that potential will see fruition in 4E itself or whether WotC thinks it more worthwhile to wrap all that into the next (read: 5E) PHB 1, only time will tell.

I don't really see the power creep after the release of PHB 2. Before PHB 2, the most powerful classes in 4E were Fighter and Warlord, and after PHB 2 that is still true. In fact, after Arcane Power was released, I'd put Wizard into the #3 slot without batting an eye.

While there was some discussion on this topic after PHB 2 was released, after seeing it in action, both in making lots of characters and in play, I haven't seen the PHB rendered obsolete yet.

 

[Rechan]

... the most powerful classes in 4E were... Warlord...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Warlords have more powers that grant extra actions than any other class, and why I put them there.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I have to agree with Rechan with Warlord.....

I think that the PHBII classes are on par with the originals except in a couple of areas, which are being addressed in the power books. Overall, I see no problem with new and old characters put togetehr, and I have a couple of mixed groups right now. Fighters are still the best defenders, if notthe most flavorfull, and clerics still heal best, but not in teh same way as otehr healers.

I have been impressed iwth wizard's ability to change basic roles around. The Sorcerer, Ranger, Rogue, Barbarian, Avenger and Warlock all play very differently even though all are strikers. I like that. I like that a lot. Defenders are the same, as are leaders. I have to admit I find controllers pretty bland overall, and see little differentation in their ways of approaching controllers, but I feel WOTC does not have this role figured out themselves yet, but that is just my opinion.


Even looking at power creep in items, feats and such, I still do nto see it.

However, I do think tthe PHBII classes are a bit mroe versatile and have a bit wider array of abilities than the PHB, but as I said, I see the power books covering that, and am really looking forward to Divine Power to power up my fave, the cleric, and give some boost to the class I want to love, the paladin.

 

[Rechan]

Warlords have more powers that grant extra actions than any other class, and why I put them there.

I wouldn't really classify that as making them the most powerful class.

But then, I think the Warlord class really missed the mark. I wish that WotC would go back and retool it, given what they know now about class design. Setting the Warlord next to the Bard, the Bard does the Warlord's job so much better.

But that's beside the point.

I don't see power creep.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I I wish that WotC would go back and retool it, given what they know now about class design. .

I would have to agree here, too. The Paladin, Wizard and Warlord could use a lot of changes. The other classes seem to do their things well.

IMHO,

The wizard does not control the battlefield well enough, especially with at-wills.

The paladin does not have enough connection between his two halves, and the two tend to work at cross purposes, to boot. Third having levels where the only good choices are on or the otehr build is not cool.

Warlords are good at giving up their actions to give otehrs actions, but trading yoru standard for theri basic attack does not seem efficient. Especially when you have to hit with your standard to give them a chance to miss with their basic.

I woiuld welcome WOTC going back tothe basic book in a year and fixing htings a bit.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But then, I think the Warlord class really missed the mark. I wish that WotC would go back and retool it, given what they know now about class design. Setting the Warlord next to the Bard, the Bard does the Warlord's job so much better.

really? You think the bard is BETTER then the warlord!?!?!?!?!??!!??

I can't find any bard build that holds a flame to the attack bonus (and as such the DPR increase) as the Tac Lord

and don't even get me started with the healing of the Inspire lord (although both artaficer and cleric out heal them)

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I really don't get the Warlord hate, aside from people not seeing a well built Tactical Warlord in action. Maybe its that the other three builds aren't on the same level. But giving another character(preferably a 2hd weapon Defender, Barbarian or Avenger) a basic attack with +Int damage is possibly the most damaging at-will in the game. Our Demon Queen's Enclave game featured an Eladrin Tactical Warlord using our Fullblade Pitfighter(of doom) as his primary weapon, and this combined with a level 30 Epic Tactical Warlord in a one-shot has provided some of the most supernova moments I've seen in 4E. In addition, most of the Encounter/Daily powers that a Warlord gets that grant extra attacks are high damage weapon attacks by themselves. Warlords are very lackluster on the control front, but they make up for it in the smash department. Warlords are the Rangers of the Leader role.

Now, the question of whether or not a Warlord is more dependant on his party is another matter.

 

[Ourph]

I really don't get the Warlord hate.

I agree. Given the choice of only 1 Leader in any adventuring party, I would definitely go for the Warlord above any of the other choices.

 

[Rechan]

My dislike of the warlord has multiple reasons. But, I think that's sorta derailing the intent of the OP to address power creep.