Pros and Cons of going mainstream

[S'mon]

But instead of the Ranger stepping up next, it is the Warlock who must fill in the breach. The Ranger can't go toe to toe with things like ogres, etc., because he can't take hits. So even though the Ranger has better melee weapons at his disposal, it is the ill-equipped (in terms of weapons) Warlock who has to interpose himself between friend & foe. And his powers & abilities do not lend themselves to that role. Suddenly, he goes from a ranged combatant to recon with, to a guy swinging a hammer with his MBA...just so the squishy Ranger can do his thing..

Don't you have any Blast attacks?
I don't have any issue with Infernal warlocks being tough; it's thematically appropriate and they tend not to have the greatest AC so it evens out. But I do think that melee Strikers often seem a bit too squishy, and don't get much to balance against the advantages of being a Ranged striker,. Indeed Ranged strikers often have better AC & Ref due to better DEX. We had a melee Ranger in one campaign with CON 10 and AC 13 (Hide) at 1st level, who was constantly getting knocked out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So you don't like the fact that PCs get so many HPs through Healing surges yet you understand the fact they're expected to have them because they'll be expected to need them all? I feel like it's complaining that a car having a 50 gallon gas tank is too much yet still wanting to drive 2,000 miles without stopping for gas.

You could simply remove all Healing Surges, and state that any power requiring Healing Surges simply doesn't anymore. They still recover HP according to the Healing Surge Value. You'll then need to change healing encounter powers to 1 per day with an additional use gained every six levels. Will that be closer to your liking?

Its a chicken and egg problem, to a certain extent.

I wasn't in the room with the designers when the idea of HS first originated, or the idea of the NPC abilities that, even at low levels, could cause PCs to need huge amounts of HPs, so I don't know which popped up first. But now they are inextricably linked.

To use your analogy, its like designing a car with a 50g tank, then intentionally placing cities 2000 miles apart.

And you have missed that part of my complaint about HSes and HP is that they have radically changed the way certain classes play. For 30+ years, the Ranger was a damn tough dude. The Warlock's initial incarnation was physically tougher than most arcanists, but not a beefcake. But in 4Ed, as I have pointed out, there are Con-based casters who are flat out tougher than Rangers, and that really feels wrong. Its a distortion that shouldn't be.

Lastly, no, your proposed change would not be more to my liking. For one thing, it still means magical healing works better on certain PCs than on others, just by virtue of the PCs class (and possibly race).

 

[S'mon]

And you have missed that part of my complaint about HSes and HP is that they have radically changed the way certain classes play. For 30+ years, the Ranger was a damn tough dude.

The 1e Ranger was damn tough at 1st level, but the 4e Ranger seems closely based on the 3.5 Wilderninja Ranger (d8 hd). Both influenced by Peter Jackson's Legolas rather than tough-guy Aragorn.

Edit: OTOH I would never dispute claims that 4e 'feels' different/wrong. I've come to enjoy the feel of 4e a lot but it feels very different from what I think of as D&D. And I'm not surprised that 4e seems to have a narrower appeal than does traditional D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanks - I can see that. But if the system assumes ca 4 fights between extended rests, wouldn't a smaller number of fights between rests keep effective surge availability exactly the same?

Can't really say- because I don't like the system all that much and have no intent to DM it, I haven explored how changing things would interact with the game's math. I'm content to play the game as the DM runs it.

It's definitely also my experience that the Defender, if doing his job, is burning through lots of Surges. And there's also the risk that other players are lazy and don't support the Defender, so they don't use their own surges. What should be happening IMO is that the Defender takes a large chunk of the aggro, but other PCs like CON Warlocks certainly should be attracting a decent amount away from him. Letting the Defender bear the entire brunt is quite dysfunctional play IMO, except in a very small group.

Sure, but a Con Warlock isn't designed to enter melee, at least, not as the Defender's wingman. Even if he has Eldritch Strike, his defenses are pretty flimsy and he needs to stay mobile. In that, he would be like a Rogue. But most of the Warlock's powers are low-damage compared to most melee strikers. (They can be pretty accurate, though, depending on build.)

Its not like we're hanging the Fighter out to dry, though. The WarPriest IS right there in melee beside him. But the Ranger is hanging out with the Wizard, with my Warlock filling the gap betwixt & between. (The composition of the rest of the party depends on who can show up in a given session.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don't you have any Blast attacks?
I don't have any issue with Infernal warlocks being tough; it's thematically appropriate and they tend not to have the greatest AC so it evens out. But I do think that melee Strikers often seem a bit too squishy, and don't get much to balance against the advantages of being a Ranged striker,. Indeed Ranged strikers often have better AC & Ref due to better DEX. We had a melee Ranger in one campaign with CON 10 and AC 13 (Hide) at 1st level, who was constantly getting knocked out.

Actually, I'm playing a balanced-stat Starlock- yes, he could have even more HP than he does now (possibly more than the Fighter)- who is multiclassed into Psion.

While I do have some AoE attacks, I have to be careful about targeting, lest I hit the Fighter.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The 1e Ranger was damn tough at 1st level, but the 4e Ranger seems closely based on the 3.5 Wilderninja Ranger (d8 hd). Both influenced by Peter Jackson's Legolas rather than tough-guy Aragorn.

Even in 3.5Ed, a Ranger will have more HP than most arcane casters- Warlocks are only d6, as I recall. A 3.5Ed Warlock with a double-digit HP lead on a Ranger of like level is, AFAIK, unheard of.

OTOH I would never dispute claims that 4e 'feels' different/wrong. I've come to enjoy the feel of 4e a lot but it feels very different from what I think of as D&D. And I'm not surprised that 4e seems to have a narrower appeal than does traditional D&D.

That's kind of where I am as well. I have posted more than once- occasionally in a poorly worded fashion- that I think 4Ed as a game would have been better if it were not released as an edition of D&D. Maybe not as lucrative, but a better game, since it would have been free from all the baggage of having to feed ANY of the sacred cows of its legacy.

The designers would have had a tabula rasa: Non-Vancian wizards without books...maybe even wearing armor. No expectations of any particular races being included or excluded. No discussions about alignment. Holy Warriors of a different design. Whatever.

Don't get me wrong- I like many of those sacred cows, and I want them in my D&D. It just seems to me that parts of 4Ed get kinda creaky when made to accommodate them.

 

[pemerton]

IME what actually happens IMCs is that there is usually 1 fight between rests, sometimes 2, rarely 3, and surge availability in practice is not the resource issue the game apparently intended.

Interesting.

In my game the frequency of rests is much less - it depends a bit on how small a skill challenge can be and still count as an encounter, but something more like 5 to 10+ would be the norm in my game. This is in part because I use various techniques to limit extended rests - skill challenges in the wilderness to find a safe spot, or in the Underdark no extended rests except in a safe place, like the duergarhold they stayed in for a week or so or a Hallowed Temple if they can find the space for it and have enough components.

I think the tension between player and GM control over extended rests is probably one of the more vulnerable aspects of 4e's design - a GM who won't permit rests is in danger of being too adversarial, but a GM who lets the players take complete control of their rests is perhaps coming close to a 1st ed GM who lets the players choose their own treasure. I don't think I've found any magic solution in my own game - getting it right is a mixture of the players being good sports and me doing my best to use my judgement in encounter design and pacing.

 

[Balesir]

Thanks - I can see that. But if the system assumes ca 4 fights between extended rests, wouldn't a smaller number of fights between rests keep effective surge availability exactly the same?
IME what actually happens IMCs is that there is usually 1 fight between rests, sometimes 2, rarely 3, and surge availability in practice is not the resource issue the game apparently intended. So eg surge drain attacks are not seen as a real threat, because PCs are not slogging through four battles a day. (Also, PCs at Paragon Tier IME fight only 4-5 battles each level, not the 8-9 assumed by the game, but each fight takes 2-3 hours!)

My concern with "2 surges per rest" would be power balance in a different way - if surges come back without daily powers, or daily powers come back completely but surges only partially, then the balance of encounters changes.

The method I am using to limit rest benefits is intended to cover this: I treat daily powers (of all sorts - item powers etc. included) a bit like "recharge" powers for monsters. In theory, surges are treated similarly. I have "imperfect" rests graded 2-6. That many(1) out of every 6 surges used are regenerated, and daily powers that roll that number or higher on a d6 are regenerated. It's simple and allows characters that expend lots of surges (but also have lots of surges) to keep relatively in line with the rest.

Edit: (1) Sorry - obviously wrong: should be 7 minus that many. So, a "Rest 4" means half (3 in every 6) of the surges expended and expended daily powers for which you roll 4, 5 or 6 are regenerated. Odd surges can be rolled for just as daily powers are.

Edit: It's definitely also my experience that the Defender, if doing his job, is burning through lots of Surges. And there's also the risk that other players are lazy and don't support the Defender, so they don't use their own surges. What should be happening IMO is that the Defender takes a large chunk of the aggro, but other PCs like CON Warlocks certainly should be attracting a decent amount away from him. Letting the Defender bear the entire brunt is quite dysfunctional play IMO, except in a very small group.

I find the first to run out of surges (which determines when a rest is taken, usually) is often the strikers. The fighters and paladin use a lot, but they also have a lot!

 

[Upper_Krust]

I don't disagree, I never actually owned a 2e DMG anyway so my experience is limited - we basically used 2e PHB & MM as supplements for our 1e campaign, which was never a Story type campaign, it was pretty hardcore Gamist as [MENTION=326]Upper_Krust[/MENTION] could attest.

1st Edition had an edge to it, where 2nd Edition did not. I want to fight devils, demons and gods - not baatezu, tanar'ri and avatars.

...plus it didn't have Gygax.

 

[S'mon]

Even in 3.5Ed, a Ranger will have more HP than most arcane casters- Warlocks are only d6, as I recall. A 3.5Ed Warlock with a double-digit HP lead on a Ranger of like level is, AFAIK, unheard of.

Heh, in my 3.5 Barakus campaign the Wizard had a double digit hp lead on the Ranger!
Mix of random dice rolling and Wizard prioritising making himself stat-boosting items, inc a CON-boost.