PHB 2 power creep

[KarinsDad]

Yeah, it really helps in increasing staying power. No arguments there.

But the question is though, does the fighter need it?

That's not the question. The (inaccurate) statement you made was:

"Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is."

Replace +1 to hit with BRV and yes, the PHB II Fighter is a lot tougher. You said so yourself: "it really helps in increasing staying power".

And, he is just as sticky. NPCs do not know that one attack in 20 will miss that would have hit, so there should be zero difference in how the DM plays the NPCs.

Is it worth lowering average damage per round by around 10% and reducing the chance to land with OAs, dailies and encounter powers by 5%?

There aren't that many ways to get +1 to hit. Lots of ways to gain/recover HPs.

Deterrence is one of the duties of a Defender, not just endurance, and lowering your chance to hit impacts that.

So, let me get this straight. Each power hits 1 time in 20 more than it would have.

So, if there are 10 round encounters, the +1 to hit helps on one round out of every TWO encounters. In 7 rounds encounters, the +1 to hit helps on one round out of every THREE encounters. 95% of the time, the result of an attack between the two Fighters are identical.

And, the NPCs do not know that a given Fighter is 1 less to hit. There is no "lowering your chance to hit impacts deterence" because foes will not detect this. If it does not occur 19 rounds out of 20, how do the NPCs detect it? The two Fighters should appear equally as sticky to NPCs.

BRV, on the other hand, helps on more than half of the rounds. It even helps on rounds where the Fighter is not hit with a Burst or Melee attack (because the temp hit points still help against other types of attacks).

BRV not only gives more temp hit points to the Fighter, but it also allows the Leader to concentrate heals on other PCs. Pro group.

The defender is the most attacked PC in the group. BRV allows that defender to use fewer Healing Surges and hence, allows him to fight in more encounters per day. Pro group.

+1 to hit is helpful. Just nowhere near as helpful as BRV. If the Fighter does not hit one time in 20, it just means that a different PC out of the other 4 will have to hit. That extends one encounter in every two by maybe a half round.


One final note: If a Fighter goes unconscious just once, he loses ~+10 to hit (i.e. 50% chance to hit goes to 0%). So, a single round of unconsciousness is equivalent to 10 rounds (or 1 encounter) of +1 to hit. BRV decreases the number of times a Fighter goes unconscious.

 

[keterys]

One final note: If a Fighter goes unconscious just once, he loses ~+10 to hit (i.e. 50% chance to hit goes to 0%). So, a single round of unconsciousness is equivalent to 200 rounds (or 20 encounters) of +1 to hit.

You're off by a factor of 20 here, just for reference. 10 rounds, 1 encounter.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're off by a factor of 20 here, just for reference. 10 rounds, 1 encounter.

Fixed that. It's amazing how the brain stops working when one gets old.

 

[Smeelbo]

Let's see how it plays out...

It just reminds me of Magic the Gathering, where every new set introduces one or more new game mechanics. Every new book allows the characters to manipulate the rules or environment in new ways. Unforseen interactions are going to result in more and more "broken combos" - or even just basic class features.

This is the future of D&D. More powers, more combinations, and hence more broken combinations, faster than the errata can be published. I predict that no later than the summer of 2011, a revised PHB/MM/DMG will be published that will not be very backward compatable, and that Hasbro will at that time regularize the "aging out" of problematic material. It may be called 5th Edition, 4.5, Revised 4E, even 4E Type II, but it will happen, and for essentially the same reasons it happened with Magic The Gathering, even though there are striking differences between the dynamics of the two games.

Simply put, in order to manage the game successfully while still being able to introduce (and hence sell) new material, the total complexity of the game will need to be capped, and this will be accomplished by removing older material in order to make room for the sale of newer material.

Count on it.

Actually, I think it's highly likely they planned to include feats similar to these right from the beginning, they just decided not to put them right into PHB1.

Again, I return to my observation after my very first reading of the 4E PHB: "They plan to sell us a 'Book of +2s.'" I had not expected it so soon, but there it is.

As for whether PHB2 is out of line, my intention is to keep playing and see how it all actually turns out. I have completely reversed my initial opinion of 4E, so I will keep my mind open. Hopefully, I'll get to actually play again soon, instead of just DMing.

Smeelbo

 

[Dan'L]

That's not the question. The (inaccurate) statement you made was:

"Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is."

Replace +1 to hit with BRV and yes, the PHB II Fighter is a lot tougher. You said so yourself: "it really helps in increasing staying power".

And, he is just as sticky. NPCs do not know that one attack in 20 will miss that would have hit, so there should be zero difference in how the DM plays the NPCs.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another? Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks? 1-handed, 2-handed, BRV, Tempest -- they're all basic fighters.

I understood the statement "Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is" to be referring to the Fighter class, which now has four builds, in comparison to the other defender classes. Not being the one who made the statement, I can't be 100% sure that's what was meant, but that's how I took it.

So, arguing that one fighter build is stickier or tougher than another does zip in refuting the assertion that fighter is stickier/tougher than: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden. Now, I haven't seen the Warden in play yet, but I'll vouch that the Fighter is stickier/tougher than the Paladins and Swordmages that I've seen.

-Dan'L

 

[yesnomu]

Simply put, in order to manage the game successfully while still being able to introduce (and hence sell) new material, the total complexity of the game will need to be capped, and this will be accomplished by removing older material in order to make room for the sale of newer material.

I dunno. Unlike Magic, where you can choose each individual card in a deck, in D&D your choices are much more sharply curtailed. Powers, for example: you get your class's powers, and one or two per type from a single multiclass. (Excepting Versatile Master/Eternal Seeker here, I agree those have a much higher abuse potential). As long as class choices are individually balanced, and classes are designed to fit their role, Wizards shouldn't ever have to phase out PHBI's classes. Likewise, many powerful feats are class-based, and only a few magic items can be used together at a time. There's a sharply limited area for intersections.

PHBI, AV, MP and PHBII have all had a set of overpowered things, many of which haven't been errata'd yet. But lists of these are easy to find online, along with suggested fixes (cruise the Wizards errata forums, for example). Most importantly, the majority of the content in all these books is fine. A rogue with AV and MP has more options, but not a whole lot more raw power than a straight PHB one (Fighter is more debatable).

 

[DracoSuave]

I remember the days of Sword and Fist.

Things are -not- as bad as they were in the early days of 3.0. S&F had more errata for it than any splat out yet.

 

[jasin]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another? Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks?

Because one of them appears in a book that is necessary for the game, and one of them appears in an optional supplement, WotC's 4E policy of designating everything as "core" notwithstanding.

 

[keterys]

Also, the MP fighter talents are widely decried on the internet* for their imbalance, while the PHB ones generally lauded.

* Which doesn't say much, but hey.

 

[Mengu]

Also, the MP fighter talents are widely decried on the internet* for their imbalance, while the PHB ones generally lauded.

* Which doesn't say much, but hey.

Way to discredit your own statement.

Well, cries from the internet got them to issue errata for infinite attack powers like Blade Cascade, but they don't seem to care much about the battlerager and tempest issues. I guess toning down Marked Scourge did indirectly help a bit for tempest issues, but not much.