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

[rkanodia]

Multiclassing into Wizard is going to be tricky. At low levels, it seems like a no-brainer for a Tactical Warlord to pick up either Thunderwave or Scorching Burst, but as you go up in levels, that attack is going to seem worse and worse since you don't have a free hand to hold an Orb/Staff/Wand, meaning you won't be getting the Implement bonus to attack rolls. A Warlock could use a wand, but there isn't any pact which is Int-focused, so Warlocks would probably be best off just adjusting their power selection to grab a multi-target attack or two.

In general, I think that the 'best' multiclass feats are going to be the ones that grant access to a class feature and don't depend on implements or stats. For instance, being able to use Hunter's Quarry once per encounter would be huge against Solo monsters, and it doesn't care what you are wielding.

 

[Mengu]

DM's are broken. They can do whatever they want.



Couple thing I noticed from heroic tier feats someone posted:

High end:

Durable: One of the best Defender feats IMO.
Dwarven Weapon Training: No brainer feat that pretty much dictates what weapon a dwarf should use, don't like it.
Tactical Assault: This is potent at low levels, loses some potency at higher levels.

Low end:

Far Shot: Does not seem feat worthy, needs another bonus.
Agile Hunter, Precise Hunter, Press the Advantage: Feats that rely on a critical which will come into play about once every milestone at heroic tier, need to do something a little more. Surprise Knock Down is a good example of a critical effect feat. The rest, not so much.
Wintertouched: Perfect feat for the fire elemental slayer rogue? I don't get this one.

 

[Imban]

So every argument concerning why x is better than y is a combat argument? (snip) Not every character has to be a min-maxed powerhouse.

How in the Sam Hill do you expect me to compare the power of two races in a game where essentially all of the rules are focused entirely on killing things and taking their stuff and not focus on how good those races are at killing things and taking things' stuff?

Skill bonuses are to be ignored?

You'll notice that I did not ignore their skill bonus - in fact, I specifically called them out as good at Diplomacy. However, it remains a fact that every race except humans gets a +2 bonus to each of two skills.

Based on Keep on the Shadowfell, Diplomacy is also less useful in 4e than it was in 3e. While there are actual rules for Diplomacy's use now, the one adventure which contains a published social encounter does not just test the party face's Diplomacy as you may expect, but instead it tests essentially arbitrary skills selected from among your entire party. As such, having a party face who is super at Diplomacy seems to be less of a contribution in the new edition.

 

[Darketower]

Based on Keep on the Shadowfell, Diplomacy is also less useful in 4e than it was in 3e. While there are actual rules for Diplomacy's use now, the one adventure which contains a published social encounter does not just test the party face's Diplomacy as you may expect, but instead it tests essentially arbitrary skills selected from among your entire party. As such, having a party face who is super at Diplomacy seems to be less of a contribution in the new edition.

Not to nitpick here, but the encounter you're referring to in KotS isn't a "social encounter" in the traditional sense. It's a test. He's evaluating the party's abilities, so he's asking relevant questions—which means he's testing your other skills. No matter how charismatic and diplomatic you are, you don't walk onto Jeopardy and try to sweet-talk Trebek into giving you the win.

 

[Dausuul]

Remember how Mystic Theurges were brokenly powerful, 3.5 Warlocks were grotesque because they got to blast at will, and 3.X Monks were the bomb?

So far, the only thing I've seen where there appears to be a convincing case for imbalance is the needlefang drake swarm. For the rest, I'll reserve judgement until we've all had time to see the new systems in action.

I'm sure there will be game elements that are teh broken, and others that are total weaksauce, but I'm willing to bet that most of the stuff that gets people up in arms on first reading will turn out to be quite reasonable in actual play.

 

[Imban]

Not to nitpick here, but the encounter you're referring to in KotS isn't a "social encounter" in the traditional sense. It's a test. He's evaluating the party's abilities, so he's asking relevant questions—which means he's testing your other skills. No matter how charismatic and diplomatic you are, you don't walk onto Jeopardy and try to sweet-talk Trebek into giving you the win.

So if you're not perceptive enough to describe him as a frickin' skeleton accurately (I mean, really...) he decides that you aren't worthy of his sword or life! and kills you.

I see...

 

[mmu1]

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

Well, a good thing in a sea of crap is still an aberration.

I actually agree with you, I was just trying to word my post in a non-confrontational manner. I've got enough arguments going on in other threads.

 

[Ander00]

Agile Hunter, Precise Hunter, Press the Advantage: Feats that rely on a critical which will come into play about once every milestone at heroic tier, need to do something a little more.

I get the feeling a warlord (who pretty much has to stand at the front-line to do his thing) utility power tied to the same condition, granting whoever scored the critical hit a pittance of temporary hit points and in the process provoking an OA, isn't exactly up to par either.


cheers

 

[Argyuile]

The greatsword is crap because its two handed and the One handed battle axe does the exact same damage.

 

[The Little Raven]

Since powers stay, by and large, level appropriate, this is a bad idea. You're giving characters extra powers (which are strong) at the cost of feats (which are weak). It changes the situation from 'maybe weak', to 'no-brainer'.

Agreed. My problem with multiclassing is that Paragon-tier multiclassing (in lieu of a paragon path) seems to be somewhat undesirable. For the price of 4 feats, you gain 3 powers over 10 levels (with the choice to swap an at-will for the secondary class's at-will). With a paragon path, you don't have to pay that feat cost to qualify, and you gain 3 powers and 3 class/path features over 10 levels. I understand that they don't want multiclassers to outshine their companions, but that just seems weak to me.