eDragon: Starlock feats and powers

[Keenath]

Note that in the full-magazine release, Twofold Pact no longer has a racial requirement.

 

[kaomera]

That's my feeling as well. I think that it's a bad idea to mess with the power structure.

I was surprised because I didn't see any comments about it.

I don't see why this is a big deal, what am I missing?

 

[Shroomy]

I don't know, I kind of like it. Its a neat power that will more than likely allow the PC and his allies to regain a power that will likely be used to lay the smack down on their enemies. Now, that said, I wouldn't exactly make this a common type of thing and I would like to know how it actually plays.

 

[James McMurray]

I don't see why this is a big deal, what am I missing?

My sentiments exactly. So it breaks from the standard mold. Isn't that the underlying assumption of exception based design?

 

[Victim]

Trading an attack power for a great in combat utility seems like a workable trade - it's not like the Divine Oracle 11 attack has much in common with other attack powers. Or how about some of the cleric dailies? The difference between some attack powers and some of the most combat related utilities seems pretty thin to me.

It's the reverse that seems more problematic - which we haven't seen yet, and hopefully won't.

 

[Shroomy]

Trading an attack power for a great in combat utility seems like a workable trade - it's not like the Divine Oracle 11 attack has much in common with other attack powers. Or how about some of the cleric dailies? The difference between some attack powers and some of the most combat related utilities seems pretty thin to me.

It's the reverse that seems more problematic - which we haven't seen yet, and hopefully won't.

Yep, there's something I would disagree with. I don't think that the Utility slots should ever be changed to Attack Powers.

 

[doctorhook]

Yep, there's something I would disagree with. I don't think that the Utility slots should ever be changed to Attack Powers.

Agreed, completely. But the balance goes both ways, I believe; a character with fewer attack powers but more utility powers would be a step back towards the "I-can't-do-nuthin'-but-heal!" cleric concept of older editions, which 4E was expressedly trying to get away from.

IMO, this "attack-for-utility" scheme clashes particularly strongly when you consider that this is a Paragon Path designed for a striker class.

...So it breaks from the standard mold. Isn't that the underlying assumption of exception based design?

It's like Plane Sailing said: superstructure versus foundation. This power breaks from the "standard mold" in a way that challenges some of the most basic assumptions of the game's structure. (This structure exists to preserve balance and fairness in play.)

If this is the kind of (allegedly) "exception-based" design that you're willing to accept, why not an At-Will power that does 2[W] + modifier damage at first level? Why not a Controller with the HP and number of Surges of a Defender? Why not a class that can gain its Paragon Path at 1st-level? Why not have a class that gets to pick two Paragon Paths simulateously? Why not 1st-level daily powers that deal damage like 29th-level daily powers? All of these examples are "exceptions", but I don't believe any of them fit into "exceptions-based" design. Instead, they fit into "game-breaking" design.

My, it sure is getting slippery on this slope!

 

[kaomera]

My, it sure is getting slippery on this slope!

Well, it certainly looks slippery over on that side... If you extend the point you seem (to me, at least) to be making to it's furthest point then you end up with 1 class with 1 set of powers and no choices at all, ever, because they wouldn't be balanced. I do agree that the possibilities you list all look bad (and also beyond the scope of what's reasonably going to show up in a Dragon article or future supplement), but Hungry Mercy certainly seems balanced against other level 20 Paragon abilities, and I in no way see it as an "I-can't-do-nuthin'-but-heal!" ability. I would also say that given the other options available to a Warlock having one Utility in there, for players who want it, is a good thing; however, being that this is a Paragon Path power you have much less choice in taking it. You'd need to either pick another Paragon Path or else work something out with the DM.

However, the only possible imbalance I can see is that you're likely trading a Daily power (and a Minor action and a Healing Surge ~ neither is ignorable, really) for an Encounter power, and a lower-level one up until level 25. This is balanced by the fact that you can A) use a particularly-effective attack twice in one encounter, and B) you can potentially effect several nearby allies. And if you roll a "6", I don't think that getting a second use of your level 19 Daily is anything to sneeze at... So, IMHO Hungry Mercy is just as good as having a level 20 Attack power, possibly even better at level 25 and above.

I agree that making radical changes to the "structure" of the system, at least if done too often or without proper thoughtfulness, would be bad. I guess I just don't really see the Attack vs. Utility balance as a particularly vital part of that structure.

 

[James McMurray]

Agreed, completely. But the balance goes both ways, I believe; a character with fewer attack powers but more utility powers would be a step back towards the "I-can't-do-nuthin'-but-heal!" cleric concept of older editions, which 4E was expressedly trying to get away from.

Does this power cause that?

It's like Plane Sailing said: superstructure versus foundation. This power breaks from the "standard mold" in a way that challenges some of the most basic assumptions of the game's structure. (This structure exists to preserve balance and fairness in play.)

What about this situation is unbalanced or unfair?

If this is the kind of (allegedly) "exception-based" design that you're willing to accept, why not an At-Will power that does 2[W] + modifier damage at first level?[/quote]

If there's something else making it balanced, sure. MAybe it requires a dagger or an unarmed strike?

Why not a Controller with the HP and number of Surges of a Defender?

If there's something else about the class that makes that ability balanced, sure. Maybe all of their powers are weaker than every other controller's powers of that level.

Why not a class that can gain its Paragon Path at 1st-level? Why not have a class that gets to pick two Paragon Paths simulateously?

The paths would have to suck in order to be balanced, but sure. I'd probably never play the class, but some people would.

Why not 1st-level daily powers that deal damage like 29th-level daily powers?

I can't think of anything that would allow that power to be balanced, but if it somehow is, great.

All of these examples are "exceptions", but I don't believe any of them fit into "exceptions-based" design. Instead, they fit into "game-breaking" design.

Not if they're balanced.

Is this change "game breakiing design"?

My, it sure is getting slippery on this slope

Given that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, it doesn't concern me much. Is there anything you see that's actually wrong with this instance, or is it all based on fear of the unknown future?