things i like/dislike about PHB2 - a sort of review

[ppaladin123]

Strikers

There were 3 striker classes in the PHB1 and there are 3 more in the PHB2. Clearly, the devs like strikers. It's a shame, then, that the sorcerer and the barbarian are so incredibly powerful that there's really almost reason to go back to the PHB1 for a striker. Ruthless and Brutal rogues are the only striker builds from the PHB1 that can hold a candle to this new batch.

You obviously haven't spent much time on the character optimization boards over at wizards.com. Rangers, rogues and (oddly enough) tempest fighters are, by far, still the most powerful damage dealers/strikers. The avenger isn't even on the radar. The sorcerer, while potent, is still somewhere in the middle of the pack. And the barbarian? He does above average...if he survives.

I'll agree though that the warlock, even with all its bonus controller effects, is rather weak in the damage department (except the dark pact warlock). I imagine that will be, "corrected," in arcane power.

P.S. I like the deva but I agree that it is weird to go from one easily mispronounced name to another.

 

[Shemeska]

I also 100% disagree about the deva. It's a cool race, filled with roleplaying opportunities.

So were aasimar. And in agreement with the OP, was there really a need to reinvent them for the sake of reinvention?

 

[Agamon]

I admit, I went through the book while playing online poker, reformatting a laptop, and watching TV (yay multitasking!), but I really liked what I saw. Nothing made me frown or shake my head, and a lot made me grin and wish I was playing and not DMing (Obryn & Hjorimir summed up my thoughts nicely). The rules clarifications especially made me happy, my brother was an unhappy player last session with the unclear stealth rules (granted, these are the erratad rules, right? I shoulda got up to snuff on those....)

 

[Piratecat]

I really liked the book and thought it was well worth my money. Deva leap to the top of "race I most want to play" (well, along with a kobold rat-themed druid), and the racial paragon paths looked great. Still, as always, I'll take all reviews (including my own) more seriously once people have a chance to play for a while.

I find it interesting that in a game where a common complaint is that combat tends to grind, people also complain that some classes do a lot of damage.

 

[Obryn]

I gave Sorcerer vs. Warlock some more thought on damage.... Obviously, there are two big things we need to look at - kicker damage and powers.

(1) Kicker damage.

Warlocks' kicker damage is through their curses. They need to curse a foe as a minor action, and it always has to be the closest foe. This is kind of a limiting factor, but I don't know that warlocks are really using their minor actions for anything else.

Their kicker damage is 1d6 / 2d6 / 3d6 from Heroic to Epic tiers. This averages out to 3.5 / 7 / 10.5, with an increasing central tendency from tier to tier. The real limiting factor is that it can only be dealt 1/round.

Sorcerers get kicker damage from their secondary attributes. For sake of argument, I'll assume this will start at a 16 and get improved at every opportunity. (Naturally, some will get higher and some will be lower, but 16 is a fair assumption for a secondary stat.) They also get +2 bonuses to this each tier above Heroic.

Their kicker damage will go from 3 at the outset, to 4 at 8th level, to 6 at 11th, 7 at 14th, and 10 at 21st. This is reliable - that is, there's no chance of higher or lower.

It's about even with Warlocks, but its advantage is that sorcerers don't need to curse their foes, and can deal it to every target in a burst or blast.

Conclusion - I think Sorcerers have a slight edge here, but it's not really an excessive one, IMHO. The average kicker damage looks like it scales very, very closely between the two classes, absent any special feats or magic items. It's only in bursts and blasts that the difference becomes substantial.


(2) Powers. I'll look at the at-wills, then the most damaging dailies from (just randomly) 1st, 15th, and 25th levels.

At-Wills
IMHO, both classes are about even, with a few oddballs.

Warlock:
Eldritch Blast is the default. I'm considering this the baseline.
Dire Radiance does lower damage by an average of 2 points, but has a pretty excellent control effect. Also, it's Radiant which is a great damage type.
Eyebite does lower damage, also, but basically acts as a +5 to all defenses against the targeted creature.
Hellish Rebuke also does lower damage, but again, deals pretty sizable extra damage on the not-too-unlikely event of the Warlock suffering damage.

Sorcerer:
Acid Orb is basically Eldritch Blast that deals acid damage. Sometimes that's a plus, sometimes not.
Burning Spray is quite good - Warlocks don't get a burst power. Damage is fair, and the bonus for Dragon Magic is minor but nice.
Chaos Bolt is like Eldritch Blast, but with a small kicker for Wild Mages.
Dragonfrost is a very good power. It's a slightly less damaging Eldritch Blast with a Push 1.
Storm Walk is great for warlocks who might get into combat. It's Nimble Strike, more or less.

Frankly, when it comes to the At-Wills, I can't decide which is better. The Sorcerer does slightly more base damage, but the Warlock's control effects are simply stronger. I would personally rather have more effects for a slightly smaller die size, but YMMV.

Dailies...

Warlock 1: Flames of Phlegethos is the most damaging, with an ongoing 5 whether or not the attack lands.
Sorcerer 1: Tied between Chromatic Orb and Dazzling Ray. I think Chromatic Orb is slightly better, but more random.

I don't want to call it, but I think Sorcerer has maybe a slight edge.

Warlock 15: Lots of good ones, all of which can be sustained. Tendrils of Thuban is a good one, dealing 4d10 damage in a burst 1 and creating a Sustain Minor zone. Fireswarm also deals 4d10 damage, and with a Sustain Standard it can wreak havoc if the rest of your party kicks in to push enemies towards your target.

Sorcerer 15: 4d10 is the cap damage with Spitfire Furnace, but in a blast 3. It also gives an aura which deals fair damage to every creature next to you every round.

Honestly, I can't call these two, either. Both also have other power choices that could be excellent - for example, Curse of the Golden Mist could completely lock down a low Will target for a very long time.

25th level....
Warlock: I kinda like the 15th level ones better, but Curse of the Twin Princes is a pretty good one. It's 4d10+Cha damage, and basically lets you pass your damage off to them. Tartarean Tomb is the same damage, and can completely lock down a foe who can't save. Thirteen Baleful Stars is a quick Stun power, and everyone loves those.

Sorcerer: Words of Chaos is a lot like Curse of the Twin Princes. Slightly more damage, but it's also more random. Force Storm is great against hordes, but seems REALLY situational. Draconic Incarnation is a huge close burst, with a nice extra control effect.


So yeah... after looking pretty closely, I am just simply not seeing how Sorcerers are absolutely better... I think Warlocks more than hold their own one-on-one, and any shortfalls are fairly well-compensated by their pact boons...

-O

 

[Wolfwood2]

So were aasimar. And in agreement with the OP, was there really a need to reinvent them for the sake of reinvention?

Assimar were a cool race filled with roleplaying opportunites? Really?

"I have celestial ancestors!"

"So what?"

That's what it came down to. Now you could say much the same about pre-4E tieflings, but at least they had 'struggling to overcome my dark nature' to fall back on. Much less of a market for struggling to overcome your bright nature.

Clearly some sort of reworking was called for. Did the developers have to go in the direction they did? Nah, there were other ways to do it. But whichever way they went, there wasn't a lot of material to be reworked and reused.

 

[avin]

So were aasimar. And in agreement with the OP, was there really a need to reinvent them for the sake of reinvention?

They watched Watchmen, merged Aasimar with Znythri and voilá!

There is an article explaining why that was made. Ecology of the Deva?

Wotc is probably trying to make some races "more attractive" (whatever that means) and changing some things is not new for 4E.

In fact, I don't care. I will be using Aasimar as they were AND also Deva as a new race. Double win for me.

 

[avin]

Assimar were a cool race filled with roleplaying opportunites? Really?

"I have celestial ancestors!"

"So what?"

That's what it came down to. Now you could say much the same about pre-4E tieflings, but at least they had 'struggling to overcome my dark nature' to fall back on. Much less of a market for struggling to overcome your bright nature.

Clearly some sort of reworking was called for. Did the developers have to go in the direction they did? Nah, there were other ways to do it. But whichever way they went, there wasn't a lot of material to be reworked and reused.

I think celestial bloodline is more interesting than what was made.

And, no, it wasn't clear that a rework was called for. It's your opinion, not a fact

 

[hexgrid]

I think celestial bloodline is more interesting than what was made.

Problem is, 4e doesn't have celestials. This was the reason given in the article for why aasimars needed to be reworked.

 

[Zaukrie]

I find it interesting that in a game where a common complaint is that combat tends to grind, people also complain that some classes do a lot of damage.

My concern (not playtested) is that they do so much damage that a DM will have a hard time whittling down his hitpoints (especially at low level) meaning he'll utterly dominate combat at low levels. However, I'm no gaming engineer, so I count it as a concern right now, not complaint. It isn't how much they do, it is how much they do relative to other classes.

As for the book, I'm thrilled I own it. Well worth the money for me.