Designers looking for mechanics feedback on Optimization Board

[ppaladin123]

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Mike Mearls has asked that mechanical problems (broken powers and feats, underpowered or under-supported classes, math fixes, gaps, problematic mechanics, etc.) be discussed and compiled in a stickied thread on the WotC character optimization board. Based on the original post, it looks like they are well aware of some of out common complaints about MBAs and abandoned classes. I expect much of this discussion will be reflected in changes in the scheduled June errata. This is your chance to guide 4e development so get over there and post!

 

[Neverfate]

Everyone is gonna say:

• "Math fixes". Though I dunno how they would address that (+1 Tier bonus to attacks/defense. I dunno math)

• Our worst/under supported classes: Seeker, Runepriest, Artificer, Assassin.

• Twin Strike.

• Fighter being a better striker than some full striker classes

• Those missing "Intelligent Blade Master" feats missing from some classes. Battlemind and Monk, obviously.

• A host of items and feats that are broken, useless or someway related to Frost-Cheese

 

[ppaladin123]

Everyone is gonna say:

• "Math fixes". Though I dunno how they would address that (+1 Tier bonus to attacks/defense. I dunno math)

• Our worst/under supported classes: Seeker, Runepriest, Artificer, Assassin.

• Twin Strike.

• Fighter being a better striker than some full striker classes

• Those missing "Intelligent Blade Master" feats missing from some classes. Battlemind and Monk, obviously.

• A host of items and feats that are broken, useless or someway related to Frost-Cheese

Indeed, but there is also already discussion of certain paragon paths (e.g. Kulkor Arms Master), power point scaling, beast companions, racial powers, the poor abandoned changeling, and so forth. It is a good place to post some of the issues that get less attention.

 

[Mentat55]

Yeah, the CharOp boards are where people have evaluated every feat, every power, and every PP for its utility, efficacy, power, and synergy. I consider myself competent at building characters, but their mastery of the material is impressive. I am glad to see the WotC staff taking advantage of that resource. Best of all, it is free, right? They don't need to add manpower, and most of us on boards like that or here at EN World happily provide our opinions and insights about D&D for free.

It would be cool to see them give some credit to their community members for certain things, if possible.

 

[Aegeri]

This is one of the best things that I feel Wizards has done in some time.

My list (off the top of my head):

Frenzied Berserker: Lovely paragon path with cool fluff - far too punishing a mechanic on the rage to make it viable.

Shade: I think this might be the worst race in 4E - excluding the MM "races". There are lots of good ways of fixing this race and keeping the same concept.

The original Assassin: Too low damage, resilience is nowhere to be seen for such a fragile class and can't perform its striker role adequately. Shrouds could use a serious mechanical rewrite.

Seeker: I honestly don't know where to begin in fixing this class, but it needs something done to it.

Kulkor Arms Master: Let's turn any class into a striker wheeeeee. Definitely needs to be fixed.

Half-Elves: Versatile Master needs a nerf bat. I don't care what they do to the thing, but my preference would be "Just doesn't exist anymore".

Edit: That thread on char op pretty much goes over most of the major problems with the system actually. There is a lot of consensus on certain things, like how much expertise sucks and how the beastmaster rangers pet (and by extension the sentinels) fail to scale in damage potential correctly. I really hope that Wizards reads through all of this and comes up with some fixes, because if they fix even half the major points bought up in the thread we'll have a pretty great edition.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I never understood why WotC didn't make use of the CharOp folks before. They have a much, MUCH better grasp of the rules than the WotC designers, as was the case during the life of 3.xE.

If I ran WotC, I would be farming out the last run of development to the CharOp team before publishing. They WILL catch the errors and poor design choices and, no doubt, will do a much better job on the editing (see page XX).

 

[Tony Vargas]

CharOp might be a useful resource, but it's also a risky one to put too much faith in. They do specialize in sort of torture-testing the system, mostly around specific sorts of corner cases, obviously (those that are 'optimal'). They also /like/ the system to be breakable - challenging to break, but breakable, in big, exciting, fun ways. I could see mining CharOp for things you should fix. I think any advice should be taken with a grain of salt, though.

 

[Aulirophile]

CharOp might be a useful resource, but it's also a risky one to put too much faith in. They do specialize in sort of torture-testing the system, mostly around specific sorts of corner cases, obviously (those that are 'optimal'). They also /like/ the system to be breakable - challenging to break, but breakable, in big, exciting, fun ways. I could see mining CharOp for things you should fix. I think any advice should be taken with a grain of salt, though.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The community at Charop isn't like that at all (hell, the forum has a very nice sticky explaining what CharOp is about and it mentions this bizarre misconception and then laughs at it.)

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yes, I agree. Char-op's approach to the game is one way to approach the game, but role-playing is not it.

 

[Aegeri]

It's a good thing then that they are asking them for feedback on improving the games mechanics - which is precisely what they are perfect at.