What's broken/overpowered? What's weak?

[Samurai]

Early analysis says that half-elves and greatswords are weak and that low level teleport looks very powerful.

What have you discovered so far?

jh

As for half elves, I'd say they are a little weaker than some of the other races. Their bonus to other people's Diplomacy, which we heard about a long time ago, is not only silly, it harms the Half Elf's own niche (since he gets +2 Diplomacy and a Charisma bonus, he's ideally suited to be a party spokesman, so who cares if the other characters get +1 to their Diplomacy? And why should they get it anyway? Is it because "Hey, they are traveling with a half-breed, what a generous, open-minded bunch they are!"?

So, I would replace that bonus with something a bit more powerful, such as the Human's Bonus Feat. That should make them about equal, I think.

The Greatsword seems fine to me, compared with other large weapons.

 

[Samurai]

I'll try for half-elves.

POINT 1: Half-elves have a lame stat bonus. Constitution and Charisma are only found together at all for Warlocks. Compare Dragonborn, who have Strength and Charisma, giving them the primary attribute plus another used attribute for Clerics, Paladins, and Warlords. (They also have both secondary attributes for Rogues but Rogues are set up so that this is not useful.)

POINT 2: Half-Elf Warlocks don't get good use out of their Dilettante power. Right now, choosing an at-will from another class and getting it as a per-encounter power is a pretty bogus deal - due to a crucial lack of Charisma or Constitution-based at-will powers, Half-Elf Warlocks pretty much just get a bogus choice. (Sure, they could take Thunderwave or Scorching Burst to kill mooks, but at that point you'd almost always be better off just being a Dragonborn.)

POINT 3: Hardly anyone gets good use out of their Dilettante power right now. While that's bound to get better when more books are out, the only one that leapt out as useful is taking the Cleric at-will Righteous Brand as a per-encounter power for fighter types, where it is probably even worth it.

POINT 4: Half-Elves have no passive racial bonuses worth talking about. "Good at diplomacy" is pretty much all of it, whereas everyone else gets things like attack and damage bonuses, free military weapon proficiencies, and defense bonuses. Sure, they get the ability to pick racial feats from any of three pools, but most of those are pretty underwhelming, and you're paying feats at this point, so...

POINT 5: Warlocks, the one class super-suited to Half-Elves right now, don't get Diplomacy as a class skill.

All good points... what if they had a choice of taking either an at will power as an Encounter power, or an Encounter power as a Daily power? I think that would be more useful...

 

[jc_madden]

So every argument concerning why x is better than y is a combat argument? Skill bonuses are to be ignored? Half-Elves look awesome to me. They are what they are supposed to be, they are the new jack-of-all-trades (remember the second part to the phrase?). Having more hitpoints is way good, no matter what class you take. Having Charisma is good, even if it's just to make a dump stat a little better. Not every character has to be a min-maxed powerhouse.

 

[Mirtek]

Yes, the bastard sword is superior to the greatsword. That's why its called a superior weapon and requires a specific feat to be proficient with it. Funny how that works.

Actually I don't think it's funny that a superior 1handed weapon is better than a military 2handed weapon, especially if there is no superior 2handed weapon being better than the 1handed bastardsword to fill the gap (at least according to what people tell).

From the limited info we have sword&board is just superior to 2handed.

A trade off would be less damage but more AC vs. more damage but less AC. But we get same damage and more AC, that doesn't sound balanced.

 

[frankthedm]

In a world where poison only lasts for a couple of rounds, level drain and ability damage is gone, and even the highest-level spells usually don't have negative effects that last for a whole encounter, it's an aberration.

It is one of the last bastions of sanity. You say aberration, I say of of the things 4e got right.

 

[DonAdam]

The bastard sword isn't necessarily the relevant comparison, because it requires a feat and if you do use it with a shield some of your fighter powers may suffer (i.e., reaping strike).

The problem with the greatsword is that it is strictly dominated by the longsword. You can wield a longsword 2-handed and get a +1 to damage. So it is a longsword (with slightly higher variance) but without the ability to hold something in your other hand and keep fighting should you need to. So its really just a loss in versatility with no offsetting gain.
Edit: I guess the gain is in multiple [W] powers. That makes it pretty close I guess. I think the suggestion (in the greatsword thread) of making the greatsword superior 2d6 gets around everything.

Half-elves just don't add up to the other races. Shame. A feat or a extra trained skill would probably do it. And I get the reason for the group diplomacy bonus. The less important reason is that it helps in skill challenges. The more important reason--as with the elf bonus--is that it means your racial power (in generic terms: good at diplomacy) doesn't go to waste if you're not your group's diplomacy monkey.

I'm not concerned about the multiclass feats. People need to get it out of their head that power swapping is weak. And you only pick up the feats for those powers you want to swap.

What I am concerned about is the multiclass paragon path option. You lose out on three (very good) abilities. I think they missed a golden opportunity to actually give you access to other class features, and it only would have taken a page or two. Maybe I'll post what I've been thinking on the house rules forum.

 

[Dragonblade]

Actually I don't think it's funny that a superior 1handed weapon is better than a military 2handed weapon, especially if there is no superior 2handed weapon being better than the 1handed bastardsword to fill the gap (at least according to what people tell).

From the limited info we have sword&board is just superior to 2handed.

A trade off would be less damage but more AC vs. more damage but less AC. But we get same damage and more AC, that doesn't sound balanced.

I see what you're saying. But I just don't have a problem with it. I disagree that a superior 1-handed weapon should be the equal to a regular 2-handed weapon. If it is truly superior, then it should be better then any similar regular weapon, 1 or 2 handed. Which it is.

Also, it can be argued that the bastard sword is not really a 1-handed weapon anyway since it can be used both ways.

As far as shield based vs 2 handed. I think they are on par. 2-handed fighters with power attack can do some significant bonus damage.

 

[The Sword 88]

From what I've seen and heard the great sword is weak and half elves are a little weak in combat but can still be very useful in other ways.

I am not sure about teleport.

I think the warlord seems noticably weaker than the cleric as well but the warlord seems so cool so that almost makes up for it.

Scalemail seems to be the best heavy armor choice as well.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I guess compared to a bastard sword which hits just as often for just as much damage but also lets you use a shield for +2 AC/Ref it sounds this bad.

I hope the books will reveal some other nifty 2handed benefits because I was planing to play a cleric of Kelemvor wielding a 2handed bastard sword in Living Forgotten Realms.

Well, a better comparison would be a Fighter with the Bastard Sword Feat using a shield, vs. a Fighter with the Power Attack Feat using a Greatsword

Bastard Sword: +3 to hit, 1d10+Str damage
Greatsword + Power Attack: +1 to hit, 1d10+3+Str damage

 

[Mirtek]

The bastard sword isn't necessarily the relevant comparison, because it requires a feat and if you do use it with a shield some of your fighter powers may suffer (i.e., reaping strike).

1. I really hope the fighter has some nifty 2handed only powers I don't know about
2. The 2handed fighter benefits I know of (including this cute tiny reaping strike bonus) are not worth the effort
3. Even so that would make if fine for fighters, but what about warlord, "retri palas" and melee clerics?

The problem with the greatsword is that it is strictly dominated by the longsword. You can wield a longsword 2-handed and get a +1 to damage.

While this is fine for basic and other 1[W] attacks, the static +1 is no longer equal once your powers start dealin 2[W] and more damage.

If the competition would only be between longsword and greatsword it would be OK. The longsword would offer the +2 AC/Ref from a shield while the greatsword would add nice damage on all powers with multiple [W] damage.

IMO it would even be ok if a 1handed BS+Shield deals the same damage as a 2handed greatsword IF there also were superior 2handed weapon to upgrade the 2handed style like the BS upgrades the sword&board style. Yet as I have been told there is no such 2handed superior weapon.

As far as shield based vs 2 handed. I think they are on par. 2-handed fighters with power attack can do some significant bonus damage.

Well I guess we have to wait and see if it's truly significant. Just from reading it on message boards, the +1 extra damage compared to the 1handed weapon with power attack doesn't sound as if it's worth the -2 AC/Ref


I think I will play my melee cleric of Kelemvor wielding his bastardsword 2handed anyway, no matter how much it's the inferior choice compared to wield it 1handed and grap a shield. Would just have been nice to have a build that is not inherently flawed