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

[Plane Sailing]

They have issued errata for stealth to make it work better.

They have issued errata for skill challenges and skill table DCs (although I don't know that they've fixed their underlying problems with skill challenges).

They've issued errata for a magic item (veterans armour).

I wonder why they haven't issued errata for issues like sure strike and wizard at-wills?

(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

 

[Jhaelen]

- suboptimal is still something that needs to be fixed

Not really.

- I see the point about VA

Agreed.

- I think the Wiz's At Wills need to not be suboptimal, especially as the principal controller in the first book

How about errata that change a wizard's role, then?

I don't see the problem about the wizard's at-wills. They aren't suboptimal, they're just not as controllery as they could be. They're well balanced compared to other at-will powers.

Noe of the PHB1 classes mentions this, but (almost) all of them have secondary roles, just like the PHB2 classes. So the wizard is a secondary striker; I don't see why that should be a problem.

Want to play something more controllery than the wizard? Well, play a different class, then.

 

[eamon]

I'd cast my vote for a fix for suboptimal powers. I think a player shouldn't get screwed for choosing powers for fluff without much regard for optimization beyond the obvious. The problem isn't that better and worse choices exists - that's normal. The problem is that the information is misrepresented. Nobody would pick Power Attack if accuracy is wanted; but a naive player might pick careful attack above twin strike if accuracy is wanted. That's a problem - powers that are much worse that they claim (or seem) to be.

Powers should work as advertised. Careful attack is never competitive with twin strike, and at the very least it shouldn't claim to be (better remove the power than leave it as is). Sure strike's only use might be to kill a minion - if they don't change the power, the fluff should, as it's misleading right now.

And specifically for at-wills, being basic, character defining things, there should be a certain minimal balance as well - no at-will should massively out- or under-perform another categorically.

 

[ki11erDM]

- suboptimal is still something that needs to be fixed

My case for Sure Strike not being completly suboptimal:
Sure Strike + Heaby Blade Opportunity + Combat Superiority = good

Sure Strike vs minon = good

Sure Strike + Item power = good

Is it good any other time? Maybe. But those times it is a good power to have.

As for the wizard powers... I could see them needing a bit more control. But I would rather they givin them some more powers in Dragon or in another book than just add to the ones they have.

 

[Mad Hamish]

- suboptimal is still something that needs to be fixed

Not really.
Especially with retraining available.
If people pick the wrong power they can swap it out next level.

- I think the Wiz's At Wills need to not be suboptimal, especially as the principal controller in the first book

I'd prefer to see more at wills added that are controllery, probably in Complete Arcane.
It'll be a bit annoying waiting but it's better than having to refer to the errata every time people make a Wizard.

 

[the8bitdeity]

Not really.
Especially with retraining available.
If people pick the wrong power they can swap it out next level.

I disagree fundamentally with this point. Every choice should be equally optimal situationally dependent. Each power choice is an opportunity cost where you COULD be taking another power.

With sure strike / careful attack, there is NO reason for a fighter to take it. At the basic math level a basic attack is better than these powers.

In the end each power should be equally beneficial, I just think Sure Strike / Careful Attack the designers over valued "to hit". I think each should have it's own side effects for sacrificing damage.

 

[Mad Hamish]

I disagree fundamentally with this point. Every choice should be equally optimal situationally dependent. Each power choice is an opportunity cost where you COULD be taking another power.

With sure strike / careful attack, there is NO reason for a fighter to take it. At the basic math level a basic attack is better than these powers.

In the end each power should be equally beneficial, I just think Sure Strike / Careful Attack the designers over valued "to hit". I think each should have it's own side effects for sacrificing damage.

I'm not saying that they're well designed or should be taken.
I'm saying that I'd prefer another book to release more at-will powers rather than change them in errata.

Making changes to powers in errata should be for cases where what they do isn't clear, doesn't work as written or are totally broken rather than for poor powers.

 

[jorrit]

I disagree fundamentally with this point. Every choice should be equally optimal situationally dependent. Each power choice is an opportunity cost where you COULD be taking another power.

With sure strike / careful attack, there is NO reason for a fighter to take it. At the basic math level a basic attack is better than these powers.

Sure strike / Careful attack are VERY useful against minions and against creatures that you know are very low on health (the DM stated they were bloodied and they had considerable damage since then). Especially for rangers where you can count on Hunter's Quarry giving that extra punch to bring the creature down.

That said, when I DM for my children I allow them to declare the usage of Sure Strike / Careful Attack AFTER failing a basic attack roll (not after failing an attack roll for any other power of course). So if they fail a roll they can choose to decrease the damage but still hit. That way these powers are used a bit more often but it is not exactly RAW

Greetings,

 

[the8bitdeity]

Sure strike / Careful attack are VERY useful against minions and against creatures that you know are very low on health (the DM stated they were bloodied and they had considerable damage since then). Especially for rangers where you can count on Hunter's Quarry giving that extra punch to bring the creature down.

That said, when I DM for my children I allow them to declare the usage of Sure Strike / Careful Attack AFTER failing a basic attack roll (not after failing an attack roll for any other power of course). So if they fail a roll they can choose to decrease the damage but still hit. That way these powers are used a bit more often but it is not exactly RAW

Greetings,

Well, there we go. That makes the power exceedingly more useful! That said it might step on the toes of heavy blade opportunist for OAs, unless you don't allow OAs to use the Sure Strike / Careful Attack route. In which case that tweaking become less beneficial due to the fact that my players NEVER use basic attacks.

Still, it's an interesting solution.

Ultimately it's difficult to think up a home brew option to maintain the spirit of the powers (taking care to get the right shot, as opposed to shooting from the hip).

 

[jorrit]

Well, there we go. That makes the power exceedingly more useful! That said it might step on the toes of heavy blade opportunist for OAs, unless you don't allow OAs to use the Sure Strike / Careful Attack route. In which case that tweaking become less beneficial due to the fact that my players NEVER use basic attacks.

How do your players avoid the usage of basic attacks? At some point all daily and encounter powers are spent and all that is left are at-wills (some of which are basic attacks). So I don't see how you can avoid basic attacks really?

Greetings,