Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bargle0" data-source="post: 5757170" data-attributes="member: 76212">I appreciate that you've made yourself available to fans. I hope that&nbsp; also means that you can accept legitimate constructive criticism and&nbsp; consider it when you are designing things going forward.For example, a simple fix for BoU and RtFM would be to have them attack at&nbsp; Attribute+9. Attribute+9 vs. NAD has precedent as the appropriate&nbsp; scaling in epic. This is the state of the art going back to at least&nbsp; Dragon 380 (October 2009). The Corrosive Torrent power from that issue is a str or int +&nbsp; 9 vs reflex, close blast 5 power. It covers the same area as your&nbsp; powers, it targets NADs, and it's a level 20 daily power from a paragon&nbsp; path. Furthermore, I will point out that the Soul of Erosion PP is not exactly CharOp bait. This scaling shows up in printed material as well. See, for&nbsp; instance, the Paralyzing Bite power from the DSCS.Other burst and blast attacks do not suffer from the same failure to scale. If we are comparing apples-to-apples, this is what we must do.I had already factored that in to my analysis. Nowhere did I mention proficiency bonuses or attacking AC.I will break this down numerically. I think these are reasonable assumptions:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The character starts with an 18 in the primary attribute</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The character boosts that stat at every opportunity</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The character takes an Epic Destiny that boosts that attribute</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">We are attacking on-level creatures with level + 12 NADs</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inherent bonus enhancement scaling (+4/5/6 at 17/22/27)</li>
</ul>[code][FONT=Courier New]Level Def Attr 1/2lvl BoU&nbsp; &nbsp; P&nbsp; RtFM&nbsp;&nbsp; P&nbsp; Imp&nbsp; &nbsp; P exp.&nbsp; &nbsp; P------------------------------------------------------------&nbsp;&nbsp; 20&nbsp; 32&nbsp;&nbsp; +6&nbsp; &nbsp; +10 +21 0.50&nbsp;&nbsp; +20 0.45 +20 0.45&nbsp; +22 0.55&nbsp;&nbsp; 21&nbsp; 33&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +10 +23 0.55&nbsp;&nbsp; +22 0.50 +22 0.50&nbsp; +25 0.60&nbsp;&nbsp; 22&nbsp; 34&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +11 +24 0.55&nbsp;&nbsp; +23 0.50 +24 0.55&nbsp; +27 0.65&nbsp;&nbsp; 23&nbsp; 35&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +11 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]+24 0.50&nbsp;&nbsp; +23 0.45 +24 0.50&nbsp; +27 0.60&nbsp;&nbsp; 24&nbsp; 36&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +12 +25 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.50&nbsp;&nbsp; +24 0.45 +25 0.50&nbsp; +28 0.60[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]&nbsp; &nbsp; 25&nbsp; 37&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +12 +25 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.45&nbsp;&nbsp; +24 0.40 +25 0.45&nbsp; +28 0.55[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]&nbsp; &nbsp; 26&nbsp; 38&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +13 +26 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.45&nbsp;&nbsp; +25 0.40 +26 0.45&nbsp; +29 0.55&nbsp;[/FONT][FONT=Courier New]&nbsp; 27&nbsp; 39&nbsp;&nbsp; +8&nbsp; &nbsp; +13 +26 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.40&nbsp;&nbsp; +25 0.35 +27 0.45&nbsp; +30 0.55[/FONT][FONT=Courier New]&nbsp;&nbsp; 28&nbsp; 40&nbsp;&nbsp; +9&nbsp; &nbsp; +14 +28 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.45&nbsp;&nbsp; +27 0.40 +29 0.50&nbsp; +32 0.60&nbsp;&nbsp; [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]29&nbsp; 41&nbsp;&nbsp; +9&nbsp; &nbsp; +14 +28 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.40&nbsp;&nbsp; +27 0.35 +29 0.45&nbsp; +32 0.55[/FONT][FONT=Courier New]&nbsp;&nbsp; 30&nbsp; 42&nbsp;&nbsp; +9&nbsp; &nbsp; +15 +29 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.40&nbsp;&nbsp; +28 0.35 +30 0.45&nbsp; +33 0.55[/FONT]&nbsp; &nbsp; [/code]I will point out that the value for attribute+implement+expertise is exactly the same as attribute+9 for levels 27-30.The built in expectation for 4e is to hit 55% of the time. The only mechanism that maintains at least 55% and doesn't decay is to have a weapon/implement power and take an expertise feat. This math was done long ago for the PHB2, which was where expertise feats debuted as official material. To call expertise feats &quot;optional&quot; at this point ignores all of that work. Whether to take them is not the question. The only real question is when.Early on, 4e combat gained a reputation for a boring grind plagued with missed attacks, especially in epic. This result came about precisely because the designers did not account for this disparity in hit rate. Ignoring that work means taking a step back in that direction.Both of those paragon paths have weapon attacks as their encounter powers, which individually are much more important than dailies. Claiming that the PP must work for classes that don't have weapons while simultaneously putting in a weapon attack is inconsistent.Stand the Fallen is much more likely to hit and it heals allies within 10 squares. That's a huge area. If the purpose of the power is to heal, then StF is much better because it has a much broader reach. StF isn't even a terribly good Warlord power, because it forgoes an opportunity to enable your striker to heal instead. That being said, if BoU scales at attribute+9, it is a perfectly useful power.The one-turn blindness is nice. However, if the PP is designed for strikers, then using Reflect the Full Moon is almost always a waste of a turn compared to doing something else. One has to evaluate the opportunity cost: I could use my standard action on this power which does very little damage but has a decent control effect, or I could actually do my job and kill something. If I am a striker, the answer is almost always kill something.As someone who does a moderate amount of optimizing, I can see these as trap options and plan around it. For instance, if I chose one of these PPs, I will try to use these powers in alternate ways or get something extra out of them. However, a non-optimizer will take these PPs and then wonder why these don't do as well as his buddy's when they start through epic. They make system mastery more important, and that's why I don't like them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bargle0, post: 5757170, member: 76212"] I appreciate that you've made yourself available to fans. I hope that also means that you can accept legitimate constructive criticism and consider it when you are designing things going forward. For example, a simple fix for BoU and RtFM would be to have them attack at Attribute+9. Attribute+9 vs. NAD has precedent as the appropriate scaling in epic. This is the state of the art going back to at least Dragon 380 (October 2009). The Corrosive Torrent power from that issue is a str or int + 9 vs reflex, close blast 5 power. It covers the same area as your powers, it targets NADs, and it's a level 20 daily power from a paragon path. Furthermore, I will point out that the Soul of Erosion PP is not exactly CharOp bait. This scaling shows up in printed material as well. See, for instance, the Paralyzing Bite power from the DSCS. Other burst and blast attacks do not suffer from the same failure to scale. If we are comparing apples-to-apples, this is what we must do. I had already factored that in to my analysis. Nowhere did I mention proficiency bonuses or attacking AC. I will break this down numerically. I think these are reasonable assumptions: [LIST] [*]The character starts with an 18 in the primary attribute [*]The character boosts that stat at every opportunity [*]The character takes an Epic Destiny that boosts that attribute [*]We are attacking on-level creatures with level + 12 NADs [*]Inherent bonus enhancement scaling (+4/5/6 at 17/22/27) [/LIST] [code] [FONT=Courier New]Level Def Attr 1/2lvl BoU P RtFM P Imp P exp. P ------------------------------------------------------------ 20 32 +6 +10 +21 0.50 +20 0.45 +20 0.45 +22 0.55 21 33 +8 +10 +23 0.55 +22 0.50 +22 0.50 +25 0.60 22 34 +8 +11 +24 0.55 +23 0.50 +24 0.55 +27 0.65 23 35 +8 +11 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]+24 0.50 +23 0.45 +24 0.50 +27 0.60 24 36 +8 +12 +25 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.50 +24 0.45 +25 0.50 +28 0.60 [/FONT] [FONT=Courier New] 25 37 +8 +12 +25 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.45 +24 0.40 +25 0.45 +28 0.55 [/FONT] [FONT=Courier New] 26 38 +8 +13 +26 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.45 +25 0.40 +26 0.45 +29 0.55 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New] 27 39 +8 +13 +26 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.40 +25 0.35 +27 0.45 +30 0.55 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New] 28 40 +9 +14 +28 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.45 +27 0.40 +29 0.50 +32 0.60 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]29 41 +9 +14 +28 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.40 +27 0.35 +29 0.45 +32 0.55 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New] 30 42 +9 +15 +29 [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]0.40 +28 0.35 +30 0.45 +33 0.55 [/FONT] [/code]I will point out that the value for attribute+implement+expertise is exactly the same as attribute+9 for levels 27-30. The built in expectation for 4e is to hit 55% of the time. The only mechanism that maintains at least 55% and doesn't decay is to have a weapon/implement power and take an expertise feat. This math was done long ago for the PHB2, which was where expertise feats debuted as official material. To call expertise feats "optional" at this point ignores all of that work. [I]Whether[/I] to take them is not the question. The only real question is [I]when[/I]. Early on, 4e combat gained a reputation for a boring grind plagued with missed attacks, especially in epic. This result came about precisely because the designers did not account for this disparity in hit rate. Ignoring that work means taking a step back in that direction. Both of those paragon paths have weapon attacks as their encounter powers, which individually are much more important than dailies. Claiming that the PP must work for classes that don't have weapons while simultaneously putting in a weapon attack is inconsistent. Stand the Fallen is much more likely to hit and it heals allies within 10 squares. That's a huge area. If the purpose of the power is to heal, then StF is much better because it has a much broader reach. StF isn't even a terribly good Warlord power, because it forgoes an opportunity to enable your striker to heal instead. That being said, if BoU scales at attribute+9, it is a perfectly useful power. The one-turn blindness is nice. However, if the PP is designed for strikers, then using Reflect the Full Moon is almost always a waste of a turn compared to doing something else. One has to evaluate the opportunity cost: I could use my standard action on this power which does very little damage but has a decent control effect, or I could actually do my job and kill something. If I am a striker, the answer is almost always kill something. As someone who does a moderate amount of optimizing, I can see these as trap options and plan around it. For instance, if I chose one of these PPs, I will try to use these powers in alternate ways or get something extra out of them. However, a non-optimizer will take these PPs and then wonder why these don't do as well as his buddy's when they start through epic. They make system mastery more important, and that's why I don't like them. [/QUOTE]

Verification