D&D 4E Confirming the 4e Math, Stage 1: Iconics

[Regicide]

I think the best thing is to balance these out a little bit. Go with the strengths, but have a few feats/powers to shore up the weaknesses some.

Really I don't think the characters even matter, it's the synergy that matters. For instance, at level 1 if 4 characters use -2 AC until next round powers and can keep an opponent's AC effectively reduced by 8 for the encounter, how much worse is it than -8 at level 24 with higher level powers? That to me seems to be whats really being tested. The roll against AC is supposed to be fairly constant, so if that number changes from 8 then there is a change in the synergy's power.

 

[deleteme123456]

Are the iconics designed to be min-maxers or represent more typical, less power-gamer types?

The feat selections should be tied to their roles... except for things that just make sense for everyone (expertise, armor spec if you can meet the stats (armor prof: leather for classes without it), paragon/robust defenses)... the defenders should look for things to increase the potency of their marks or their OAs or their defense... the striker to increase damage, the leader their healing / buffing (minor accent on debuffing in some cases, for example psychic lock is very good for a bard with viscious mockery), the controller on debuffing / battlefield movement / options. Maybe 1 feat per tier that's not in the "obvious" choices set and that doesn't help with their primary role.

 

[Plane Sailing]

6) I'm going to keep Adventurer's Vault... that one is stone, so people can stopping asking about this one

OK, although I don't know why. It has been the source of so much cheese in builds that people have talked about (double weapons, craghammers, greatbows, mordenkrags etc. etc.)

If you are including AV, why wouldn't the classes take advantage of the AV superior weapon cheese?

 

[KarinsDad]

Really I don't think the characters even matter, it's the synergy that matters. For instance, at level 1 if 4 characters use -2 AC until next round powers and can keep an opponent's AC effectively reduced by 8 for the encounter, how much worse is it than -8 at level 24 with higher level powers? That to me seems to be whats really being tested. The roll against AC is supposed to be fairly constant, so if that number changes from 8 then there is a change in the synergy's power.

We've had this discussion before. The roll against AC is not constant across levels and 4 such PCs will never be successful at giving a foe -8 every single round for an entire encounter.

Even if 4 PCs all have the ability to give an opponent -2 to hit with a power that has to hit first (the vast majority of debuff powers), every PC will not be successful with it every single round.

At low levels where the chance to hit is greater (e.g. 50% to 65%), PCs could average between -4 and -5.2 to a single monster.

At high levels where the chance to hit is less (e.g. 35% to 50%), PCs could average a -2.8 and -4 to a single monster.

So as one goes up levels, the synergy is LESS effective for these types of debuff strategies. Not only that, but the PCs will have even more options at higher levels, so each of them will use their debuff powers less frequently.

 

[KarinsDad]

OK, although I don't know why. It has been the source of so much cheese in builds that people have talked about (double weapons, craghammers, greatbows, mordenkrags etc. etc.)

The Paragon level Heavy Armor sag problem is addressed in AV.

To me, a Paragon level test and even a mid-Epic level test would be incomplete without it.

I understand the concern about the AV weapons. They are pure cheese.

 

[Stalker0]

Are the iconics designed to be min-maxers or represent more typical, less power-gamer types?

The goal is to create the iconic role for each. So an iconic defender, leader...etc. I have tried to make the fighter tough and have powers that guard and defend his buddies, the cleric has several heal/buff abilities, the wizard has area hits or powerful debuffs, the rogue has big damage.

 

[chaotix42]

I agree that double weapons are a bit much, but I like the hammers! For once hammers are awesome.

 

[NMcCoy]

I second the suggestion of building at levels 4, 14, and 24 - your magic item triad has all the same pluses that way, and you get your pick of nice items within that range.

To me a halfling artful dodger rogue and eladrin wand wizard seem more iconic, but maybe that's just me...

 

[Regicide]

We've had this discussion before. The roll against AC is not constant across levels and 4 such PCs will never be successful at giving a foe -8 every single round for an entire encounter.

Actually, that discussion was for the PCs giving the opponent a penalty on it's attack rolls. What I was mentioning here was the PCs reducing the AC of an opponent.

Even if 4 PCs all have the ability to give an opponent -2 to hit with a power that has to hit first (the vast majority of debuff powers), every PC will not be successful with it every single round.

If 2 land the first round, next round the opponent's AC is 4 less, it's actually VERY likely that by round 2 or 3 everyone will be hitting practically every turn as the monster's AC is now 8 less (with 4 players, 10 less with 5, 12 less with 6...)

The strategy is actually to lower the monster's AC by round 2 and by round 3 to start unloading daily's on it 2 at a time. But whatever. It's a moot point because it does synergize better, and it's blatantly obvious. It's easier to lower ACs at higher levels especially with things like the rogue paragon path that gives a permanent -2 to AC on a crits and greater access to encounter powers that do it.

 

[Bayuer]

Good going Stalker!
I don't think you will find something new, but this is nice initative and I can't wait to see the results of your calculations. But here are some things you might consider:

1)making analise for lvl 5,15,25. This are half tier levels and you need to compare all tiers to make your analises worth something. I think you should start from lvl 5 and then make other lvls.
2)I would like to see the RAW AC/NADs analysis (without any feats) and with feats taken
3)Shield Specialization and Armor Spec don't stack. Both give feat bonuses.