What are Avengers doing since SOC got nerfed?

[Zinovia]

Strange question... Why do all of you who seem to hate any build that is multiclass and synergistic? And then allow them?

I don't believe that people here hate builds that are multiclass and synergistic. They hate builds that are cheesy and overpowered. Where you draw the line is certainly a good question and subject to interpretation. The more specific game elements you need to combine to build a given combo, the more likely it is to be pure cheese if not outright broken. There are so many options in the game that it is impossible to foresee all the ways in which they can be combined, so that broken combos are inevitable. All WotC can do is errata the most commonly abused elements, as was done here.

The Avenger Student of Caiphon combo requires a radiant weapon to work, because it raises the crit range only of radiant and fear powers. You must take 1) Warlock multiclass with 2) Star pact and 3) Student of Caiphon paragon path, and 4) wield a radiant weapon. Then you do more damage than the rest of the group combined, according to the example of this build we have seen in this thread. It's overpowered and was not working as intended. The errata recently issued restricting its use to warlock powers fixes it. Now you are free to multiclass warlock to your heart's content - or even go hybrid, and it won't create an unbalanced crit-fisher build that outshines the rest of the group.

Why not just outright ban multiclassing so everyone can be 'pure build x'?

That would be both boring and unnecessary. I have a hybrid and two MC classes in my 6 person group, with another player considering multiclassing as well. One of them multiclassed specifically to get a paragon path from another class. It's not a problem.

And no hate for stupidly unpowerful options either? If enough people pick bad builds, the person with a decent build looks cheasy op.

It was easy to build useless characters in 3E, but you really do have to work at it in 4th. So long as you have a decent number on your primary stat, then your character will work decently. If you are *really* being obtuse and pick powers from the opposite half of a "V" class, then yeah, you could manage to build an underpowered character; likewise with 2 non-synergistic hybrid options. In that case I would advise the player and help them make an effective character that comes as close to what they envisioned as possible.

In my game, the warlock is not an optimizer by nature, and was frustrated by her lack of good damage and interesting options. I think it takes a certain amount of rules mastery to get the most out of a warlock, especially a feylock. Because I do like to optimize (without creating broken combos) I created a hybrid sorcerer/feylock build that has her excited about her character again. She does lay down the hurt now, but she's a striker, so that's all to the good, and just what both she and the party needed.

For some of these gm's... Why let players pick their character details anyway? You don't like what they pick apperently, just veto it!

That's a reductio ad absurdum argument. Banning a couple combos that seem to break all the rules as intended (rather than RAW) is a choice made by the DM for the betterment of the game as a whole. One character that does more damage than the rest of the group combined is clearly unbalanced. It is likely to cause envy among the other players. It's fun to play an OP character, but not to be in a party with one. Everyone wants their character to be good at what they do, and not be outshone entirely by one other character.

If someone in my group had wanted to build such a character, I would have talked to them about it, and asked them to not go that route. Yes, I admire the cleverness in finding these combos, but I also see no reason to allow such a twisting of the rules as they were intended to work. It comes at the expense of the other players in the group, who feel ineffective by comparison. Balance is a good thing.

 

[Akaiku]

I would think hard before I answered if one of my players said they wanted to switch paragon paths because a certain ability got nerfed. In my opinion,you should pick the paragon path that fits your character as much as for the powers you get so I just might make them stick with the path they chose especially since I would want to design my adventures subplots around those chosen paths.

You think one should pick the paragon path MORESO because of 'character plot' then effectiveness, you mean.

If a person's character concept changed radically because of plot or the like, would you say they are unable to do that because the mechanics they already picked say as much?

And with your avenger/student of caiphon thing...
Does the avenger have the time away from his/her devotion to persue any other paths? I may be wrong with avenger, but with cleric and palidian, there is no ex-cleric or palidian rules. Your power was granted by devotion, it's not removed from lack thereof. You just make enemies (woo plot points!)

Also, being wierd and also more powerful then the common adventurer is not exclusive with having a plot. Occasionally, roleplayers who do like the roleplaying aspect want to also be awesome at the mechanical standpoints. People often have differening opinions of where a given character should fall on the suck/awesome scale.

To steal a buzzword, outlier characters are constantly being refered as "badwrongfun" If you have a player who wants to be that outlier and you hvae a problem with it, tell him exactly how broken/cheasy/whatever you call it he CAN be. Do not leave it up to an opinion you do not want to let slide.

But... I do agree with one thing. Mechanical power without some ic justification isn't cool. However, I believe that justifying why/how you are some wierd munchkin thing is part of the process. A character is neither entirely mechanics or entirely concept to me, because both rules and imagination exist in the 'game'.

 

[Zaran]

You think one should pick the paragon path MORESO because of 'character plot' then effectiveness, you mean.

If a person's character concept changed radically because of plot or the like, would you say they are unable to do that because the mechanics they already picked say as much?

And with your avenger/student of caiphon thing...
Does the avenger have the time away from his/her devotion to persue any other paths? I may be wrong with avenger, but with cleric and palidian, there is no ex-cleric or palidian rules. Your power was granted by devotion, it's not removed from lack thereof. You just make enemies (woo plot points!)

Also, being wierd and also more powerful then the common adventurer is not exclusive with having a plot. Occasionally, roleplayers who do like the roleplaying aspect want to also be awesome at the mechanical standpoints. People often have differening opinions of where a given character should fall on the suck/awesome scale.

To steal a buzzword, outlier characters are constantly being refered as "badwrongfun" If you have a player who wants to be that outlier and you hvae a problem with it, tell him exactly how broken/cheasy/whatever you call it he CAN be. Do not leave it up to an opinion you do not want to let slide.

But... I do agree with one thing. Mechanical power without some ic justification isn't cool. However, I believe that justifying why/how you are some wierd munchkin thing is part of the process. A character is neither entirely mechanics or entirely concept to me, because both rules and imagination exist in the 'game'.

I would have no problem with someone wanting to switch paragon paths because of change of concept.

And sure an avenger might be able to pursue other paths and if one of them said he wanted to roleplay splitting his devotion with his deity with an arcane bond with an entity I might allow it. But he better not turn around and tell me he wants to change because his damage output got nerfed.

 

[Mengu]

The mechanics should be balanced without "role playing" considerations. I can see stories to justify any weird and funky choices a character may make in his build. You can refluff a paladin as a trickster. Fluff is not rules. So, if a combination is allowed by the rules, it can't be excused for being overpowered just because there is no good role playing reason to pick that combination.

The updates are doing a decent job of closing up some of the more overpowered/unintended loop holes. But it still is the DM's (and partly player's) responsibility to make sure power levels of the PC's don't get too far out of alignment with each other because of some new (or old) unforeseen or miscalculated interaction in the rules.

I believe it is hardest to see these interactions with multi-class options, because the rules are not strapped down tight enough around the class pre-requisite wordings, or benefit durations. They are slowly realizing this and tightening those rules, as what happened with Warrior of the Wild, Honored Foe, Hero of Faith, Student of Caiphon, and the like.

4e is a pretty complex machine with some lose parts that need to be tightened down via periodic maintenance.

 

[Akaiku]

That's a reductio ad absurdum argument. Banning a couple combos that seem to break all the rules as intended (rather than RAW) is a choice made by the DM for the betterment of the game as a whole. One character that does more damage than the rest of the group combined is clearly unbalanced. It is likely to cause envy among the other players. It's fun to play an OP character, but not to be in a party with one. Everyone wants their character to be good at what they do, and not be outshone entirely by one other character.

Getting the one higher crit range then is easily obtainable (Jagged is available and only requires the specific weapon part, radiant servent is a significantly more synergestic on outside of crit range powers class) really really REALLY shouldn't cause a theoretical character to outdamage an entire other party unless said party didn't include strikers, was shorthanded and nobody tried for damage. And in that situation, if nobody else even gave a passing care for damage, is it a problem that someone picked up the slack? Especally with a striker class that gets it's extra damage from extra crit range and extra accuracy. Or do you never have a bow ranger or a brutal rogue?

 

[Zinovia]

Regarding the amount of damage done relative to the rest of the group, I was going on what was stated earlier in this thread. It may be that the character was in a group with low overall damage. I haven't seen an avenger in play myself. It was just a common crit-fisher build on the CharOp forums, and Student of Caiphon was often, if not always, part of those types of builds. The nerf is well done in my estimation. Keep in mind the rules need to not only cover home games, but LFR games as well, where you never know what other characters you'll be in a group with.

While Avengers still make great crit-fishers with their dual roll mechanic, at least going from SoC to just using a Jagged weapon should reduce the chance of crits by 10% if my math is right: 30% of the time (2 rolls, crit on 18-20) vs 20% (2 rolls, crit on 19-20). That's a significant improvement towards balance, and requires less cheese. You only need 2 things (Avenger, and Jagged weapon) vs 5 (Avenger, Warlock multi, Star pact, SoC paragon path, and Radiant weapon).

 

[Prestidigitalis]

On the topic of outlawing multiclass Paragon Paths:

I'm not big on the builds that "abuse" multiclassing for PP purposes. (Or porpoises -- that's bad too.) I'd rather take a slightly weaker PP that fits my character concept.

For example, my Barbarian will probably stick with the Bear Warrior path, just because it fits her. Plus I want to be able to growl "Rawr! I'm a bear!"

The thing is, sometimes a multi-class PP fits my concept the best. My Swordmage will probably take Spellstorm Mage, a wizard PP. Why? Because I want to have more area effect options, and I don't want my entire schtick to be Swordburst enhanced by Arcane Reach + Enlarge Spell + Destructive Wizardry + Resounding Thunder + Arcane Admixture (Thunder). I don't think that's any kind of OP.

Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.

 

[Flipguarder]

I can hear some players now.

"No it totally fits my characters story. He's what, a gno- I mean half-elf. I'm an avenger of... well thats not soo important is it. There was something else that worked.... OH and I'm... umm... all about my dagger... yeah."

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Oh boy, where to start. I'll try to address some of the issues that have been raised. Btw, I think they are really good points.

1. At the time I went for SOC, our party consisted of a Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, and my Avenger. (we had "guest" appearance by 2 different Warlords but they didn't stay). So even though at first glance, we'd have 2 strikers in the Ranger and Warlock, they weren't doing a lot of DPR. The party consensus was we needed more damage, so I picked SOC with 2 weapon fighting/opening. Right after, we had a Barbarian join us, and the DMs allowed the wizard to change to a Bard. So we have a good striker and a leader now, which sort of made my SOC choice a moot point, but there was no way to know that was gonna happen at the time.

2. Reluctantly, but whole-heartedly, I agree with WOTC's errata. It hurts, but I can see the balance inherent in what they are doing. I just wish they could have done it *after* the campaign I'm in...

3. If anyone remembers my first/earlier postings on Enworld, we are in a campaign where Magic, and thusly, Magical items are considered "rare". We are allowed to buy consumables such as Healing and Regeneration potions, but the Adventurers Vault is closed to the party members. I'm at level 11 (midway) and have all + 2 items except for my main Hammer, which is +3, due to one of the casters transferring a mod from a found item.
I don't have Magical boots, gloves, tattoos, wondrous items, etc, nor does anyone else in the party. I only repeat this because a Jagged weapon was mentioned and as you can see, I won't be able to get one. (I'm using Hammers anyways). In our game, you can't just say to the DM, okay - I'm switching my weapons to weapon X. The DM is going to ask, how did you do that?

4. The DMs are allowing me to change my Paragon Path. DaggerMaster is out - it requires daggers and as you can see - there isn't any way for me to acquire any. Besides, it does seem as "cheesy" as SOC was, and I'll be surprised if it doesn't get "adjusted" too. I've decided to go with Radiant Servant. I had almost picked it before I went with SOC. Sure wish I had now. Radiant Servant does seem to fit my characters central theme better - Holy Avenger and all that.


Thanks for everyone's thoughts and opinions. I surely do appreciate all the input.

 

[Samir]

3. If anyone remembers my first/earlier postings on Enworld, we are in a campaign where Magic, and thusly, Magical items are considered "rare". We are allowed to buy consumables such as Healing and Regeneration potions, but the Adventurers Vault is closed to the party members. I'm at level 11 (midway) and have all + 2 items except for my main Hammer, which is +3, due to one of the casters transferring a mod from a found item.
I don't have Magical boots, gloves, tattoos, wondrous items, etc, nor does anyone else in the party. I only repeat this because a Jagged weapon was mentioned and as you can see, I won't be able to get one. (I'm using Hammers anyways). In our game, you can't just say to the DM, okay - I'm switching my weapons to weapon X. The DM is going to ask, how did you do that?

How were you getting your 18-20 crit without a radiant weapon, were you just using Bond of Retribution?

4. The DMs are allowing me to change my Paragon Path. DaggerMaster is out - it requires daggers and as you can see - there isn't any way for me to acquire any. Besides, it does seem as "cheesy" as SOC was, and I'll be surprised if it doesn't get "adjusted" too. I've decided to go with Radiant Servant. I had almost picked it before I went with SOC. Sure wish I had now. Radiant Servant does seem to fit my characters central theme better - Holy Avenger and all that.

Radiant Servant is okay, but I really think you're going to regret that choice at epic (assuming you are playing to epic) when your 19-20 is still relegated to a single at-will attack and you could have just spent a feat to apply the same thing to all your attacks.