D&D 4E Pre PHB2: Are we happy with WotC's maintenance of 4ED

[Gradine]

Is it just me that thinks this problem is primarily one for DM's as opposed to for Wizards?

If a player chooses a skill or ability for their character that is situationally dependent, doesn't it then become the DM's job to give the players situations to use them in? I don't have any players with Sure Strike/Careful Attack, but if I did I would make sure that the character finds themselves in situations where hitting is more important than doing more damage. Throwing Soldiers and counter-attacking monsters at the character is a start, as is giving them weapons with useful item powers. But put them it situations where murdering their opponents is not ideal, and you'll see players be more careful about the kinds of damage they dish out.

Sure it would be nice if, mathematically, these powers meshed well with others. As it stands though, if a player gives their character abilities based on fluff rather than min/maxing (which should absolutely be encouraged) it's not terribly difficult to give them obstacles where adhering to their character's fluff pays off.

 

[Mort_Q]

If a player choose a skill or ability for their character that is situationally dependent, doesn't it then become the DM's job to give the players situations to use them in?

This.

 

[keterys]

Careful Attack's situation... ie, that you need precisely a 19 to hit without it... is a little dubious for the DM to subject the party to. And I'm not even sure it's better in that instance.

If a creature has a reaction to when you miss it, Careful Attack still isn't a better option because it would take you literally almost twice as long to kill the creature as when using Twin Strike... and in that time Careful Attack would end up missing almost as many times, plus I bet the creature has some kind of actual action too.

That is, if your average damage for a single 1W (no Dex) attack is 10, and you have a 60% chance to hit with a normal shot, 70% with Careful Attack, you have a 64% chance per round (40% per shot, twice) to trigger the reaction with Twin Strike and a 30% chance with Careful Attack.

So, if the critter in question has 100 hp, it takes you about 15 rounds to kill it with Careful Attack, getting around 4.5 reactions in that time. Meanwhilst, it takes you 9 rounds to kill it with Twin Strike, netting 5.5 reactions in that time... _and 6 less rounds of actual combat_.

 

[Nail]

I don't have any players with Sure Strike/Careful Attack, but if I did I would make sure that the character finds themselves in situations where hitting is more important than doing more damage. Throwing Soldiers and counter-attacking monsters at the character is a start, as is giving them weapons with useful item powers.

Ouch.

I'm afraid you might not understand the scope of the problem with Sure Strike/Careful Attack. To put it bluntly, they are worse than a Basic Melee Attack against all but minions.

...and against minions, you'll be wanting Cleave anyway.

Soldiers? Soldiers would laugh if you used Sure Strike/Careful Attack.

Connecting with weapon powers? Those are Dailies, my friend. That means you'd be using that At-Will (you only get two!) exactly once per day. Whoopee. Knock yerself out.

FWIW, a simple fix would be to increase the bonus to the attack from +2 to +4 or +5, and then boost that again at Paragon and Epic. That might make it okay.....maybe.

 

[Gradine]

Does this mean that the player who plays their character as someone who takes it slow and safe is playing their character wrong? Again, if there are situations where Careful Attack/Sure Strike are better (and I suppose here I mean "feels right to use" and not "mathematically superior"), and there are plenty, why not try to work those in a tad more often than you normally would?

Last I checked this isn't WoW PvP. I realize that the game's inching ever closer towards board game and away from role playing, but have we really gotten to the point that a non-optimized build is suddenly invalidated? I don't think it's necessary to take a graphing calculator and/or excel spreadsheet to individual powers or monster manual defenses to build a character. In 3.x I once played a 12-year-old telepath... I can assure you I didn't really optimize this kid for combat, and he was still a lot of fun to play. 4.0 may have (unfortunately, i would say) overemphasized combat, but they have thankfully given you a lot of room to play around with flavor. There's plenty of imbalance in the system- this was inevitable (see, for instance, Lead the Attack versus pretty much any other tactical warlord daily), some of it mathematical, some of it tactical, but if a player's playing the character they want to play, who cares? If your only goal is to do the most damage, take Twin Strike and never look back.

I'm not going to argue that these powers aren't underpowered and that Wizards couldn't (or shouldn't) "fix" them, mathematically. You could always house rule it to fix if it that's what matters to you. Or if you have a player that wants a character who's more accurate but doesn't want to feel mathematically gimped. I dunno, maybe I'm the odd man out that always placed the feel of the character above min/maxing.

 

[Nail]

Does this mean that the player who plays their character as someone who takes it slow and safe is playing their character wrong?

Of course not.

But the option you are describing isn't "slow and safe". ...And as you are demonstrating with your posts, that fact is slightly hidden. It's uncool to design a piece of the game that way IMO.

Again, if there are situations where Careful Attack/Sure Strike are better (and I suppose here I mean "feels right to use" more than I mean "mathematically superior"), and there are plenty, why not try to work those in a tad more often than you normally would?

There are NOT "plenty" of situations where CA/SS is better. There are "exceptionally few".

I don't think it's necessary to take a graphing calculator and/or excel spreadsheet to individual powers or monster manual defenses to build a character.

That is *exactly* the point!!


Think that through a bit more: Should there be powers available that are much worse than others? Should there be powers that are worse than others, but seem - to those not mathematically inclined - to be better? Is fooling players a design goal?

There's plenty of imbalance in the system- this was inevitable (see, for instance, Lead the Attack versus pretty much any other tactical warlord daily).

I play a warlord. Lead the Attack ain't the only game in town worth playing.

 

[Gradine]

That is *exactly* the point!!

Think that through a bit more: Should there be powers available that are much worse than others? Should there be powers that are worse than others, but seem - to those not mathematically inclined - to be better? Is fooling players a design goal?

I find it hard to believe that even the least math-enabled D&D player would think that Sure Strike/Careful Attack are worth more damage, round for round, than other at-wills (particularly the equally though diametrically opposed cheesiness of twin strike). It's an accuracy power, and anyone with a head for D&D should realize that sacrificing power for accuracy is, at best, situational. It's not meant to be better than the other powers in every fight or every round. I do agree that in situations where it's meant to be better it still underperforms, and a scaling bonus to-hit might be the perfect fit for it. I would certainly allow it if I had a player that wanted it. Even adding a secondary stat bonus to the damage (Wisdom?) certainly adds to both the mathematical balance as well as the flavor. These are easy (albeit untested) fixes that cater to both the mix/maxers and the flavor fans. I may be underestimating the brokenness of the powers, but I still don't it invalidates the choice of taking it.


Of course, it may just be that I'm used to the way me and my friends play, which definitely involves, when appropriate, sacrificing tactics for flavor

To answer your other question, certainly it's okay for some powers to be better than others most of the time. Every power has a situation, however, where it's the best power for the job. It shouldn't be incumbent upon the PCs to take the powers that are best for vanilla encounters, because then they'll just get vanilla encounters. I'd encourage my players to take the spottier, more situational powers. It's makes for funner encounter design and funner encounters.

 

[Nail]

I do agree that in situations where it's meant to be better it still underperforms, and a scaling bonus to-hit might be the perfect fit for it. I would certainly allow it if I had a player that wanted it. Even adding a secondary stat bonus to the damage (Wisdom?) certainly adds to both the mathematical balance as well as the flavor.

Agreed.

You might be on to something there with the extra stat damage: I'd recommend Dex. That might not only fix it, but give it the role-playing flavor necessary.

To answer your other question, certainly it's okay for some powers to be better than others most of the time.

Hmmm. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't agree....at least with your inclusion of the word "most". IMO, it's best if an At-Will power is not useless most of the time. That way combat allows the use of either of your At-Wills, and thus isn't a repetitive "mash the same attack button" exercise.

 

[keterys]

Agreed... at-wills should be useful most of the time. They're your bread and butter, not bread and 27/32" torque wrench

Encounters can be slightly more specialized, but not extraordinarily so. Dailies are where you really want your 'occasional situation' to come up.

 

[the8bitdeity]

Agreed.

You might be on to something there with the extra stat damage: I'd recommend Dex. That might not only fix it, but give it the role-playing flavor necessary.

I'm not sure DEX works for both classes, but that's one suggestion I thought of. Use the tertiary stat for the class, and add it's bonus to the attack role. Though I'm not quite sure it works though. Feels too simple and not quite right.

Also I'd like to point out to Gradine that sub-optimal does not equal good role playing. I think good roleplaying is a group dynamic that each group has it's own level of. I don't think good role playing choices should result in sub optimal, on the contrary if ALL powers were balanced, then good role playing would be the ONLY reason to take powers (character concept). By creating an even playing field you're allowing concept to shape character, not effectiveness.