PHB 2 power creep

[hong]

What I meant was, this is something that results from a combination of factors. The fewer the constraints on when you're able to crank up the damage, the better.

In fact, I got it slightly wrong. It's not so much that the barbarian took down the first monster in 1 round, it's that the damage is split across 2 monsters. The ranger can land all 4 shots on 1 target if required, which is generally more useful because of the focus fire principle.

 

[TheNovaLord]

I notice nobody posts saying how their warlock managed to do 100+ damage in one round

Hmm. strange that. My dwarf warlock is currently 7th level. He is impressed by the damage the elf ranger does, but as he does more than the party fighter and paladin, he is happy. I get more irked that having +11 to hit seems not enuff rather than doing 2d8+d6+10 damage isnt enough!!

I think one person in our group owns a PHB2, but nothing has been used from it yet. Is the sorceror genuinely more powerful than the warlock given the warlock targets a wide range of defences with a range of damage flavours?

It seems folks are saying that PHB2 at wills have more 'effect' stuff and in general roles are what WOTC originally envisaged maybe its not power creep, but power catch-up as PHB2 is now the baseline from the off?

maybe one benefit of playing an unsupported system is that you have all the stuff from the off, so no creep can occur.

anyway good discussion for someone like me who dont own it.

 

[keterys]

It's not _that_ hard for a warlock to do that kind of damage... but usually not to one target.

Still, if I assumed my level 5 warlock had Hunger of Hadar down (2d10+3 every time someone enters or starts in it) and I crit with Diabolic Grasp someone next to the area, I could slide them into it twice, leaving them there... it'd be 36 or so from the crit and 6d10+9 from the automatic damage, oh then a sustain attack for another 1d6+8. That's without an action point, and the Hunger could easily have hit more than one target or done more damage, over the course of the entire battle. A single target attack before the diabolic grasp could easily edge things over 100.

 

[keterys]

The main reason I think the sorcerer is better designed than the warlock is that it has a shtick (multi target damage) that it really works and its striker benefit applies to all attacks, making it much more consistent.

Then again, I also am not that worried about the fact that rangers deal more damage than warlocks - I actually don't like the design of rangers since they rely entirely on what I see as a flaw in the system with multiple attacks on a single target. Barbarians do get extra bursty when they crit, since they can often rampage and swift charge right after... but that's generally then back to normal for the rest of the combat. I don't like the way their powers are designed with the +1W baked in, since it basically makes multiclassing (or half-elfing) to them too good and unattractive for them to MC out. Rather it was a separate feature somehow, but eh.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think one person in our group owns a PHB2, but nothing has been used from it yet. Is the sorceror genuinely more powerful than the warlock given the warlock targets a wide range of defences with a range of damage flavours?

Well, I don't know. Has anyone actually tried to analyze and compare the two classes?

For me it doesn't really matter how powerful a class is. If I like the flavour of a class, I'll play it even if I have to tweak the hell out of it to be on par with others.

To my great surprise the warlock class was my favorite after reading PHB1, although it was the class I was least interested in after the previews. I just love their mix of powers and the cool pact boons.

After reading PHB2 I was similarly surprised that my favorite class was the sorcerer. It seems I'm an arcane striker person

Anyway, I'm a bit dubious about the chaos sorcerer build. I definitely wouldn't consider playing one without the Disciplined Wild Soul feat.
It's absolutely must-have for this build since randomly determining one out of ten energy types means you often will have zero benefit from this class feature.

What I love about the dragon sorcerer is that you can have a character built around a single energy type and not suffer for it.

One thing I've been wondering about after reading the sorcerer:
Is it actually beneficial if all of your powers have an energy type?
It seems that powers that do untyped damage are generally more useful.

 

[Nail]

BRV is pretty much as obvious as you can get with a class's ability for a Fighter. Goblins figure out that the Wizard has a Shield spell from the staff in my campaign because it is obvious. It is just as obvious that no actual damage is being done to a BRV Fighter, because anything else would be ignoring the game-state as-is.

(Whoa....goblins know a Wizard has the shield spell 'cuz he carries a staff? I don't think you meant that: could you clarify?)

Why is it obvious that no damage is done?

I think I would agree with you if you said: "When the monster hits the BRV fighter, it's pretty clear to all that the BRV fighter managed to shrug off some of the damage."