D&D 4E Top 5 Encounter Powers That Need Fixing in 4e

[Pickles JG]

Make no mistake, I love the fact that the number of things that are unbalanced are so few that I cut off the list of encounter powers at 5 because I couldn't think of 10. I could add a couple more to that list, but not 5 more.

If it was 50 things it might not be an issue at all - it might just mean there were a lot of sub par powers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's probably a lot more accurate to say that "system mastery" is how the marketers of 4th edition decided to tell the designers to retroactively characterize the 3.x design philosophy. The designers fed us a lot of nonsense that no thinking person has any business believing in the early days of the runup to 4th edition.

Here is the relevant article from Monte Cook:
Ivory Tower Game Design

---

Of course, most systems will have an "emergent" system mastery. Sometimes, certain game abilities and combination of game abilities turn out stronger than others. But that's not the same as a "planned" system mastery, where there are abitilies that are deliberately weaker than other abilities you could choose.

 

[blargney the second]

Here is the relevant article from Monte Cook:
Ivory Tower Game Design

---

Of course, most systems will have an "emergent" system mastery. Sometimes, certain game abilities and combination of game abilities turn out stronger than others. But that's not the same as a "planned" system mastery, where there are abitilies that are deliberately weaker than other abilities you could choose.

That's a neat article - thanks for the link.

My favourite games all promote emergent system mastery to greater or lesser degrees. I enjoy figuring out good combos about as much as I enjoy putting them into play.

Planned mastery I don't like as much unless there's some randomizing effect that determines access to various components.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Prior to expansion books, the difference between the two at low levels(at least) is fractions of a point of damage per round across some of the range of possible target acs.

Not really.

Level 1 ranger. 18 dex. Longbow. Weapon Focus.

If we assume a 50% base chance to hit, you get:

Twin strike: DPR 9.81875
Careful Strike: DPR 6.35

So, in the range where the game is designed to generally occur, Twin strike does more than 50% more damage.

"But wait," you say. "Twin Strike is supposed to be better when it's relatively easy to hit. The time you want to use careful strike is when you are have trouble hitting.

So let's compare the two:
Attack number you need in order to hit Twin Strike DPR Careful Attack DPR
13 8.13375 5.35
14 7.265 4.85
15 6.37875 4.35
16 5.475 3.85
17 4.55375 3.35
18 3.615 2.85
19 2.65875 2.35
20 1.685 1.85
21 0.99125 1.35
22 0.99125 0.85

Looking at these numbers, you will notice that careful attack is more than 1 point of DPR behind twin strike until you would ordinarily need an 18 to hit, and only pulls ahead if you would ordinarily need a 20 or 21 to hit--and even then, is only ahead by a fraction of a point of damage per round.

So, careful attack is straight-up worse than twin strike in nearly every situation--even in the situations that it is designed to make you think it might be a good idea. The very few situations where it is better:
A. Don't come up very often (how often do you only hit on a 20 with twin strike)?
B. It is only ahead by that fraction of a point of DPR that you mentioned
C. You should probably be doing something other than attacking anyway. It's time to think about running away or using aid other or something like that.

The idea that system mastery was designed out of even the initial core books is abject nonsense.

Also note that while the Monte Cook article does mention system mastery, it does not say that it was a conscious design decision in 3.x to encourage it; rather he says, "mostly, we just made sure we didn't design it away."

So we're told that system mastery was a conscious 3rd edition design philosophy--as though the designers had gone out of their way to make sure that the game was hard to understand and that was one of their primary goals when designing the system. And we're told that 4th edition designed away system mastery. I suppose one could get more disingenous, but it would be difficult.

 

[Flipguarder]

Maybe Im not understanding your numbers correctly. But how can twin strike do any damage at all if you are required to roll a 21 or 22 on an attack. In that scenario isn't careful strike the only ranger power that can hit? (unless of course you crit.)

 

[keterys]

You can always hit on a 20, even if it's not a crit if a 20 would normally miss.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You can always hit on a 20, even if it's not a crit if a 20 would normally miss.

Exactly. That's why the twin strike numbers are exactly the same for 21 and 22 but lower than they were at 20.

If you need a 20 to hit, any hit crits.
If you only hit on a 20 because it's a 20 (and 20's always hit), you don't crit. It doesn't matter how high the defense gets after that, you still hit exactly the same amount of the time.

 

[Saeviomagy]

So, careful attack is straight-up worse than twin strike in nearly every situation.

Yes. It is. I never disputed the fact. Now run the numbers with some of the previewed possibilities: full damage mod, +4 to hit etc. The power fluctuated wildly leading up to release.

The simple fact of the matter is that because twin strike and careful attack fill the exact same niche, one of them will always be better. There is no room in the game for both at once without a major overhaul. I don't think the designers ever got that, thus we end up with one bad and one good power.

 

[keterys]

Given that Twin Strike allows you to attack two targets and has twice the chance to crit, I imagine Careful Attack _could_ fill the same rough niche but be slightly better against a single target.

It's a little boring, though, all told, but hey.

For reference, before Careful Attack was +4 it was apparently roll twice and take the better. I find that amusing to think about for a second.

 

[Regicide]

That's a neat article - thanks for the link.

Yes, it made me realize something. The 4E designers think they got rid of system mastery by writing up the little blurbs at the start of the class write ups. In a sense they have, if you restrict your view of how the system will be used to be exclusively for 1st level disposable characters used at game day events.

Unfortunately we have a system which rewards system mastery far more than 3E ever did with more feats to choose from, more feats to choose, more critical stat choices and power and magic item interactions which require immense amounts of system analysis to winnow out and math far more complicated. And it's different for each class.