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

[DracoSuave]

Fact:

It takes feats for the 'OMG AWESOME AC' light-armor'd classes to get up to heavy armor level. As many, in fact, as it takes for a Cleric to get to Plate-and-sword-and-board level.

Assuming a +4 dex/int/whatever mod for a light armor user:

Cloth is inferior to everything
Leather is equivalent to chain
Hide is equivalent to scale
Nothing is equivalent to plate.

Now, of the classes that get armor bonuses, one is a non-dex/int based class, and doesn't get a replacement, and the other three are -cloth- wearers. Further more, of those cloth-wearers:

One is a wizard, and needs to be wielding a two-handed weapon to get up to plate-level AC, and costs two feats to get there

One is a swordmage, has to have an empty hand to get the full bonus, and is a defender, and is -supposed- to have plate-level AC. Also needs to spend a feat or two

One is the avenger, who's a melee toe-to-toe fighter.

All this, of course, ignores the fact that plate isn't the gold-standard for defenders or melee types. The entire story of armor does not -end- nor -begin- at the AC. Exalted Chain, for example, can be more valuable to a melee cleric than any sort of plate armor. Clerics aren't paladins, even in melee.

Here's a question then.... if plate is so necessary for a melee cleric to function, where are the 'VALOR BARDS NEED PLATE OMG' threads? They don't exist, because leaders don't need plate to function.

 

[Ryndal]

At that point, they should have accepted the necessity of incremental revision and aging as opposed to classic versioning, and will introduce some appropriate language, similar to "blocks" in Magic. They might divide material along tier lines, for example, and one year, replace heroic, next year paragon, and the next year epic, and then start the cycle over again. Or something like that.

However, they'd better be thinking about it now. Because the longer they let the mess fester without preparing for it, the worse the transition will be. On the other hand, if they are already planning for a Revised Player's Handbook/Dungeonmaster's Guide for 2011 say, they can lay the groundwork for incremental revisions now, and make the transition far more pleasant for everyone.

Tier-based products might be a good first step.

Smeelbo[/quote]

While I understand what is being said here - the underlying assumption is the many players will try and "break" the game through obscure and esoteric combinations. Undoubtedly, many players will try this. Many, however, will not. They will play the game for fun and not to "win" the game.

My current 4th ed campaign features 3 relatively new players and I assure you they are not looking to min/max or "break" the game. I am sure there are others in similar situations.

I was a big MtG player at one time. The goal in tournament MtG was indeed to break the game. Not everyone played tournament MtG, however. The game can be played as a pure social game. As can 4th ed. D/D.

I would hazard a guess that there are more serious gamers visiting these boards as opposed to social players.

Ryndal

 

[Goumindong]

(nb the fighter in my game likes sure strike - for targetting minions which are above his level. Then it doesn't matter how much damage he does, the extra chance of hitting works to his advantage. It is better in those circumstances than cleave is)

Cheers

That is only mathematically valuable if there is only one minion.

Once there are two minions, or one minion and another enemy there, you can cleave the second enemy into the minion, killing the minion automatically.

If there are two minions then you get two for the price of one with cleave(making it as effective as two attack rolls against minions)

That is a pretty narrow set of use.

 

[Nail]

(nb the fighter in my game likes sure strike - for targetting minions which are above his level. Then it doesn't matter how much damage he does, the extra chance of hitting works to his advantage. It is better in those circumstances than cleave is)

That is only mathematically valuable if there is only one minion.

Once there are two minions, or one minion and another enemy there, you can cleave the second enemy into the minion, killing the minion automatically.

If there are two minions then you get two for the price of one with cleave(making it as effective as two attack rolls against minions)

That is a pretty narrow set of use.

...it may be a pretty narrow set "of use", but IME it's a pretty *wide* set of "players who misunderstand". As the replies in this thread amply show, many people think Sure Strike is a good At-Will. The fact that it's not is hidden...and that's bad, methinks.

If we assume that an At-Will should do at least what a Basic Melee Attack should do, We get into trouble.

Assume:

(Weapon Talent Fighter 5, Str 18, Longsword +1 => Atk +11, Dam 1d8+5)

and

(Soldier level 5, AC 21)

Then a Basic Melee Attack does (55% * 9.5) ~5.2 damage per round, on average.

And Sure Strike does (65% * 5.5) ~3.6 damage per round, on average.

....so you see that Sure Strike would need a "Str+8" to compensate! Which is just silly.

 

[cmbarona]

...so you see that Sure Strike would need a "Str+8" to compensate! Which is just silly.

It'd be pretty "sure" to hit, though!

Moving on...

To those who advocate for the rolling block of material, similar to Magic, I have to object. I like 4e, and I don't want (nor care about) new material coming out invalidating my current books. I want to keep my PHB and the rules contained therein. If WotC wants to update the books, I'm fine with that. I'd even be fine with a "revised" PHB that contains updates, because my group uses them. I'm ok as long as 4.0 doesn't become 4.5, invalidating all of the current books released.

Ultimately, I think the errata needed is actually relatively simple to do, so my gripe isn't about the updates being done, it's about the updates not being done. And yes, I agree that they shouldn't disguise fixes as feats. One thing I like about 4e is that all the pluses and minuses are tighter than 3.5. Characters can focus on their role, not their to-hit and defenses.

On a slightly different note: I still think D&D should separate the pool of combat feats from utility feats, as they should have done in 3.5. Oh well. Maybe in 5.0.

 

[the8bitdeity]

...it may be a pretty narrow set "of use", but IME it's a pretty *wide* set of "players who misunderstand". As the replies in this thread amply show, many people think Sure Strike is a good At-Will. The fact that it's not is hidden...and that's bad, methinks.

If we assume that an At-Will should do at least what a Basic Melee Attack should do, We get into trouble.

Assume:

(Weapon Talent Fighter 5, Str 18, Longsword +1 => Atk +11, Dam 1d8+5)

and

(Soldier level 5, AC 21)

Then a Basic Melee Attack does (55% * 9.5) ~5.2 damage per round, on average.

And Sure Strike does (65% * 5.5) ~3.6 damage per round, on average.

....so you see that Sure Strike would need a "Str+8" to compensate! Which is just silly.

Wouldn't it be
Basic Melee Attack = (50% * 9.5) + (5% * 13) = 5.4

Sure Strike = (60% * 5.5) + (5% * 9) = 3.75

Still comparable differential.

I think Sure Strike and Careful Attack really show that the designers of 4ed over valued minions. I frankly find minions aren't worth the XP budget they take up, and might halve it.

 

[Goumindong]

...it may be a pretty narrow set "of use", but IME it's a pretty *wide* set of "players who misunderstand". As the replies in this thread amply show, many people think Sure Strike is a good At-Will. The fact that it's not is hidden...and that's bad, methinks.

I absolutely agree, i was just pointing out that the claim "its good against minions" isn't really true since its only good against a single minion with none other around and if there is only one minion in range and no other enemies then you're not really worried.

Especially since the value of minions(Can't crit, few encounter powers) in terms of actions compared to a normal enemy is kinda low

 

[the8bitdeity]

I absolutely agree, i was just pointing out that the claim "its good against minions" isn't really true since its only good against a single minion with none other around and if there is only one minion in range and no other enemies then you're not really worried.

Especially since the value of minions(Can't crit, few encounter powers) in terms of actions compared to a normal enemy is kinda low

I really think minion over valuation is a major issue in 4ed. I think the designers at first were like "AWESOME!" but the reality is they don't pose enough of a threat to be more than sacks of XP. I'm investigating doing the following:

1. Heroic minions count as 1/2 their XP value
2. Paragon Minions count as 1/3 their XP value
3. Epic Minions count as 1/4 their XP value

Thoughts?