Question about power-gaming.

[Mistwell]

4e is both better and worse.

It's worse in that you are required to power-game a bit. Because the mathematical skeleton underlying the system is tight, every +1 counts, so you really, really want an 18 in your "attack stat" and there's hardly any room to deviate.

I disagree. With so many powers based off your secondary ability, an 18 is far from required.

 

[Vempyre]

I disagree. With so many powers based off your secondary ability, an 18 is far from required.

I agree.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I disagree. With so many powers based off your secondary ability, an 18 is far from required.

Exactly! If anything, 4th edition will encourage some players to pick something like 14, 14, 14, 12, 11, 10

Your greatest bonus will be half your level anyway

 

[Melfast]

Infinite Teleports?

The build depends on allowing the character to teleport twice based on the two deaths created by the simultaneous damage effect of the slashing wake.

If the character were to kill three minions in his wake, should he be able to teleport three more times and effectively travel nine additional squares? I think the answer is no. You can only travel up to three squares from your original square, and can't simultaneously teleport to three different locations within three squares of your original position at the same time. Therefore, you only get to power the pact power once from the single action and not three times.

I'd rule that your one action begets one free action and not up to seven. The simultaneous deaths merely give you one use of your teleport and not multiple. As a result, you can either A) power your teleport, or B) use the rod to curse those around you.

I can see the arguments for the other way, but think this way works cleaner for the intent of the new edition -- omits complexity, speeds play, and keeps one character from dominating play time.

Just my two cents.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And "Y got the shaft!"

I thought we already had these discussions now.
"Ranger overpowered, see my unlimited attacks per round exploit"
"Clerics underpowered, not enough interesting feats!"

I think the strength of 4E is that there are clear "benchmarks" for how powerful something can be. The monster stat guidelines basically tell you the to-hit bonus, defenses, hit points and damage expected for each level.

It shouldn't be that hard to relate that back to the existing PCs, and create guidelines for the powers.

Another strength is that there is decidedly not a power discrepancy between "martial" characters and spellcasters. 3E was inherently imbalanced to the benefit of spellcasters. You don't need any splat books for it. Knock, Scry, Teleport, Disintegrate, Finger of Death, all these spells are in PHB and only accessible to spellcasters.

3E also contained rules element to promote "system mastery". Alertness & Toughness compared to Power Attack or Empower Spell. 4E no longer has this. System Mastery naturally benefits Power-Gamers, since he will analyze these options and find the good ones, while a more "casual" player will just pick what fits his character - and Alertness sounds nice if you're idea of a Guardian-like character, and Toughness sounds good for a Dwarven Fighter...

The question is:
- Does WotC R&D have these numbers stored? (likely)
- Will they continue to use them, even if the team changes, and the pressure to create new books appealing to the gamers (including the power-gamers) increases?
- How well do these numbers support predicting power interaction? The Armor Splinter/Cascade of Steel example indicates that there are instances where it didn't go right, despite all play-testing and number-crunching. Or are these instances all "paper-tigers". Yes, you could create it on paper, but there are disadvantages and they'll not be used in actual play?

My current prediction is:
- Initial Balance is good (except for outliers that a group can simply choose to avoid. There is a difference between cheese and power-gaming. )
- Party Tactics Optimization will be the best way to power-game, which usually means everyone is involved or no-one is.
- Later books will have to be handled with care, though most feats, powers, and classes will be fine.

 

[Vaeron]

What you need to watch out for now, it not the Munchkin Character, but the Munchkin Party. If your resident Powergamer wants to "help" the other players craft their characters then watch out.

If teams work together, it's natural they'll develop power combos that benefit one another... Like the Fastball Special.

But I see your point. It may actually be possible to make characters that are completely gimped individually, but grant each other insane bonuses as a group... Like a warlord who has only powers that move his allies or grant them attacks on his turn instead of attacking himself linked with a damage-heavy rogue.

 

[cferejohn]

But I see your point. It may actually be possible to make characters that are completely gimped individually, but grant each other insane bonuses as a group... Like a warlord who has only powers that move his allies or grant them attacks on his turn instead of attacking himself linked with a damage-heavy rogue.

I know it was just an example, but Rogues only get their sneak attack damage once/round.

 

[Mirtek]

Exactly! If anything, 4th edition will encourage some players to pick something like 14, 14, 14, 12, 11, 10

Your greatest bonus will be half your level anyway

So instead of hitting with one of them (where you have the 18 in your prime stat) and mostly missing with the rest of them, this build will just be mostly missing with all of them? At least that means that no power complains because the other hits more then her

Honestly, with all this talk how crucial every single +1 is, such a 14,14,14,12,11,10 build sounds like a dangerous attempt

3E also contained rules element to promote "system mastery". Alertness & Toughness compared to Power Attack or Empower Spell. 4E no longer has this. System Mastery naturally benefits Power-Gamers, since he will analyze these options and find the good ones, while a more "casual" player will just pick what fits his character - and Alertness sounds nice if you're idea of a Guardian-like character, and Toughness sounds good for a Dwarven Fighter...

Just looking at the feat requirements I really can't see why system mastery is supposed to be gone. With the removal of stat boosting items it's just as worse as in 3.x. You still have to plan all your feats up to the epic tier right from first level, otherwise you will discover that you just can take most of them because you started with a too low tertiary ability score at first level.

 

[AtomicPope]

If teams work together, it's natural they'll develop power combos that benefit one another... Like the Fastball Special.

But I see your point. It may actually be possible to make characters that are completely gimped individually, but grant each other insane bonuses as a group... Like a warlord who has only powers that move his allies or grant them attacks on his turn instead of attacking himself linked with a damage-heavy rogue.

I played at Kubla Con our DM was a Playtester and had been playing 4e officially for 3 months. He was happy to see us have both a Cleric and a Warlord (no Warlock or Ranger) in the same party to see how it would work. The Cleric and Warlord would both boost a party member who announced, "Using my Daily!" We ended up working combos with the Warlord and Rogue using Viper's Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and the Rogue's Daily Slide (can't remember right now) moving us and the enemy to completely rearrange the battlefield.

The teamwork aspect of 4e is simply amazing.

 

[AtomicPope]

My current prediction is:
- Initial Balance is good (except for outliers that a group can simply choose to avoid. There is a difference between cheese and power-gaming. )
- Party Tactics Optimization will be the best way to power-game, which usually means everyone is involved or no-one is.
- Later books will have to be handled with care, though most feats, powers, and classes will be fine.

I'm running a 4e campaign and your 1st two predictions are correct. Players that work together come out on top. It's the glory hounds (GURPS disadvantage) that just end up unconcious while everyone else is trying to clean up their mess.