D&D 4E Is there a compiled Broken 4e Bits?
Goumindong
First Post
It also feels very thematic to Tempus who has this "honor" thing going. He can't let his believers fight at a disadvantage when some baddie breaks the mold.
For Battlerager's vigor and minions....just never attack with the minions. Instead use aid another to allow your big guys to bring more pain.
With that said, you always have to be careful of the argument "that ability is not broken is the DM just modifies his encounter in X way".
One of the things the 4e designers highlighted is that they reduced true immunities in the game because it was too commonly forcing people to change tactics in order to be effective (such as rogue's against sneak attack immune creatures).
That argument is a valid one in my opinion...while its good to force players to give up their favorite toys once in a while and think of something else, you can't use that too often.
In my opinion, Battlerager's can greatly invalidate melee combat from monsters with very little cost (-1 to attacks, I don't even care about the damage part). As others have mentioned, a DM always has to put in ranged attack options just to challenge them.
If a DM is forced to invalidate certain tactics all the time because of a single ability, then I think there is a problem with that ability.
With that said, you always have to be careful of the argument "that ability is not broken is the DM just modifies his encounter in X way".
One of the things the 4e designers highlighted is that they reduced true immunities in the game because it was too commonly forcing people to change tactics in order to be effective (such as rogue's against sneak attack immune creatures).
That argument is a valid one in my opinion...while its good to force players to give up their favorite toys once in a while and think of something else, you can't use that too often.
In my opinion, Battlerager's can greatly invalidate melee combat from monsters with very little cost (-1 to attacks, I don't even care about the damage part). As others have mentioned, a DM always has to put in ranged attack options just to challenge them.
If a DM is forced to invalidate certain tactics all the time because of a single ability, then I think there is a problem with that ability.
Dice4Hire
First Post
I would definitely agree here. Many would argue the DM just has to do XXX to negate it, but it XXX requires jumping through improbable holes, then maybe the ability is the problem, not the DM.
Falling Icicle
Adventurer
I've always considered the various elemental damage feats (Astral Fire, Burning Blizzard, etc) to be underpowered, especially compared to Weapon Focus. I suggest either changing them to an untyped bonus (rather than a feat bonus), removing their ability score requirements, or both.
Can I kiss you? Come on, come over here...you have earned it.
This power has been bugging me in terms of how to house rule it, but I think you have a brilliant idea here. It makes it powerful without being the deal breaker it currently is (no more "RRoT centric builds").
Im off to update my house errata document!
chitzk0i
Explorer
This section...
The first quote implies that as a DM, you should vary your encounters: sometimes you should let the PCs laugh in the face of danger and sometimes you should put the fear of god in them. The second quote implies that you have to include ranged attack options into every battle. Do you really need to do that? Not really, as long as you put them in sometime. Even if you're running an pre-made adventure, you can toss in a few level-appropriate minions with bows or javelins to eat up temp hit points while the fighter tanks the otherwise all-melee encounter.
BRV fighters are awesome against melee monsters, but I've played a BRV fighter (and a lot of other fighters for what it's worth). Even if you have all the monsters herded up and attacking you and they all have no ranged attacks, they're going to catch on to the fact that they're not hurting you much and then they're going to bull rush you or grab and drag you or force move you or just plain walk away and terrorize the rest of the party. And these are ideal conditions. I don't see the big deal.
...seems to contradict this part from the same post.
The first quote implies that as a DM, you should vary your encounters: sometimes you should let the PCs laugh in the face of danger and sometimes you should put the fear of god in them. The second quote implies that you have to include ranged attack options into every battle. Do you really need to do that? Not really, as long as you put them in sometime. Even if you're running an pre-made adventure, you can toss in a few level-appropriate minions with bows or javelins to eat up temp hit points while the fighter tanks the otherwise all-melee encounter.
BRV fighters are awesome against melee monsters, but I've played a BRV fighter (and a lot of other fighters for what it's worth). Even if you have all the monsters herded up and attacking you and they all have no ranged attacks, they're going to catch on to the fact that they're not hurting you much and then they're going to bull rush you or grab and drag you or force move you or just plain walk away and terrorize the rest of the party. And these are ideal conditions. I don't see the big deal.
Last edited:
Its a matter of degree. The first point mentions that a DM should once in a while try to put PCs in a position of weakness to mix things up. The problem is if an ability is so good it forces a DM to do that too frequently then its a problem.
A BRV fighter isn't just good in melee combat, melee combat is not really even a challenge for him. As such, it forces the DM to use ranged attackers to provide challenge, which then causes issues.
I don't have to worry about this power in my own game, but I like the quoted idea a lot.
keterys
First Post
BRV gets annoying in a few ways... one in that it dictates certain encounter design, like I had to add ranged attacks to a whole slew of creatures so they could do _anything_. Not a big deal, but when running modules it's nice to not have to do that kind of thing. Another in that it feels like you're given all kinds of reason not to attack him, as a DM, which seems unfair to the rest of the party. Finally, when you do have more powerful ranged options and they figure out to focus fire on him, it feels a little dirty like you're getting payback or something.
Honestly I'm just not a fan of the way BRV plays out, having now played alongside one and DMed for one. Neat concept, failed execution.
Honestly I'm just not a fan of the way BRV plays out, having now played alongside one and DMed for one. Neat concept, failed execution.
