Invincible fighters

Am I the only one who finds it problematic that parry makes fighters near-impossible to kill?  I ran the numbers, a 4th level fighter with CON 14 and AC 17 (chainmail+shield) who uses dodge and both his expertise dice to parry can survive for 6.4 turns against a lvl 9 black dragon.  That's with all three of the dragon's attacks going at him.  A dragon 5 levels over him, designed to be a "tough" encounter for 9 PCs of his level.  Meanwhile, his 2.3 fighter buddies with longbows have no trouble dispatching the dragon without taking a scratch.  Just over a third of the party that should find it challenging, and only 1 of them ever takes damage.  At level 9, he can survive for 17.7 turns against the dragon's full brunt.  Am I the only one that thinks that needs to be revisited?  And that's the best case scenario, going solo against an at-level plesiosaurus (first non-wierd lvl 4 single-attacker I saw) who doesn't get multiple attacks to get around parry, he can survive 24 rounds.  Against an at-level Dark Adept or Dark Priest, he is on average invulnerable (only takes damage when he rolls crap parry and the monster rolls high damage, and even only 1 in 5 of those times because there's an 80% chance the monster'll miss).  And that's before I give him magic armor, or a cleric tossing heals at him.  And people complain 4e characters were too durable?
I do agree that parry seems powerful, but as I recall, nothing prevent the monster from switching target like in 4th ed with the marks. So, unless the monsters are all in a line in a corridor, this shouldn't happen.

That being said, I think it is still pretty stupid that one class can be that strong. Yes, the fighter is the class made to be the thoughest and strongest in direct combat (since he doesnt have any skills benefit like the rogue), but it could be at least normalized to his level.

What I mean by that is that I wouldnt be annoyed by a fighter lasting 6 rounds against a monster of his level. The problem is that it's a monster of 5 level over him...

Overall : good thinking my friend. 
a 4th level fighter with CON 14 and AC 17 (chainmail+shield) who uses dodge and both his expertise dice to parry can survive for 6.4 turns against a lvl 9 black dragon.  .... Am I the only one that thinks that needs to be revisited?


The developers have already acknowledged that monsters are not challenging. Last playtest they were overwhelmingly hard and now they are overwhelmingly easy.  The developers are looking for feedback to see what people think of these levels of mortality.
Well if the fighter doesn't have Mighty Exertion or Controlled Fall, the dragon can use the blue dragon method: breathweapon-grab-fly-drop.

But yeah fighters are tough.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

It essentially works out to granting yourself a whole whack of temporary hit points, every round, as a non-action.  Unless they tweak all of the numbers, it would indeed trivialize most threats at a personal level.

The metagame is not the game.

Wrecan:
Making monsters more powerful doesn't quite fix the problem.  As it stands, monsters tough enough to dent the fighter end up mashing the wizard into an unrecognizable pulp.  I can get behind fighters having twice as much HP, maybe even 2x HP and 1/2x hit chance, but when you add 7 THP/turn on top of that the differential is just unconscionable.  It needs to be taken down a ton.   
The only monster that I found to be as challenging as the challenge rating suggested is the Hydra. But then maybe I'm missing the trick on that one.
Am I the only one who finds it problematic that parry makes fighters near-impossible to kill?  I ran the numbers, a 4th level fighter with CON 14 and AC 17 (chainmail+shield) who uses dodge and both his expertise dice to parry can survive for 6.4 turns against a lvl 9 black dragon.  That's with all three of the dragon's attacks going at him.  A dragon 5 levels over him, designed to be a "tough" encounter for 9 PCs of his level.  Meanwhile, his 2.3 fighter buddies with longbows have no trouble dispatching the dragon without taking a scratch.  Just over a third of the party that should find it challenging, and only 1 of them ever takes damage.  At level 9, he can survive for 17.7 turns against the dragon's full brunt.  Am I the only one that thinks that needs to be revisited?  And that's the best case scenario, going solo against an at-level plesiosaurus (first non-wierd lvl 4 single-attacker I saw) who doesn't get multiple attacks to get around parry, he can survive 24 rounds.  Against an at-level Dark Adept or Dark Priest, he is on average invulnerable (only takes damage when he rolls crap parry and the monster rolls high damage, and even only 1 in 5 of those times because there's an 80% chance the monster'll miss).  And that's before I give him magic armor, or a cleric tossing heals at him.  And people complain 4e characters were too durable?


No, I've been complaining about this forever. Deadly Strike and Parry Need to go. They are the only two manuevers that a fighter should ever be using and they are both broken and ruin the expertise system. 
a 4th level fighter with CON 14 and AC 17 (chainmail+shield) who uses dodge and both his expertise dice to parry can survive for 6.4 turns against a lvl 9 black dragon.  .... Am I the only one that thinks that needs to be revisited?


The developers have already acknowledged that monsters are not challenging. Last playtest they were overwhelmingly hard and now they are overwhelmingly easy.  The developers are looking for feedback to see what people think of these levels of mortality.


This isn't a monster issue. This is a fighter issue. If you make monsters that can take on the fighter they will easily kill any party that doesn't have a fighter. Further this just encourages the DM to attack everyone else except the fighter who he knows is going to be pointless to waste an attack on.
Ok, so what level of damage reduction (through maneuvers like Parry) is acceptable?  How about if you roll all the dice and take the highest?

I personally don't see it being an issue.  In my game the fighters didn't even use Parry (the melee fighter preferred deadly strike and spring attack, and the ranged fighter preferred deadly strike and volley).

It can only be used once/round (and using it means you can't use any other reactions), and it only works against melee attacks.

So it becomes an issue of tactics, which I think is a good thing.  The PCs want to manipulate the battle so that the melee foes are attacking the fighter.  The enemy will want to get those melee foes attacking other targets, and hit the fighter with ranged attacks or spells.

When I see people say things like, "I ran the numbers for a Level X Blank vs a Blank, and the Blank could survive for X rounds!", I always think that they are missing the point.

First point: the Fighter SHOULD be tough.  That is his thing.  It would be like saying, "Guys, I ran the numbers, and Rogues are really good at picking locks...or Clerics are good at healing".  I guess this is a problem if you don't think that these should be the case, but I think it is a good thing for classes to have strengths.

Second: The dragon isn't just sitting there attacking.  What about breath weapon?  What about Darknes (good luck parrying when you can't see)?  What about just picking up the fighter and flying him 200 feet into the air?

Have you played with the fighter using Parry or is this all conjecture based on the numbers?  If you haven't, try playing it out.  The Fighter is tough, but he is only blocking a single melee attack each round, and at the cost of dealing extra damage or doing other maneuvers.
Ok, so what level of damage reduction (through maneuvers like Parry) is acceptable?  How about if you roll all the dice and take the highest?

I personally don't see it being an issue.  In my game the fighters didn't even use Parry (the melee fighter preferred deadly strike and spring attack, and the ranged fighter preferred deadly strike and volley).

It can only be used once/round (and using it means you can't use any other reactions), and it only works against melee attacks.

So it becomes an issue of tactics, which I think is a good thing.  The PCs want to manipulate the battle so that the melee foes are attacking the fighter.  The enemy will want to get those melee foes attacking other targets, and hit the fighter with ranged attacks or spells.

When I see people say things like, "I ran the numbers for a Level X Blank vs a Blank, and the Blank could survive for X rounds!", I always think that they are missing the point.

First point: the Fighter SHOULD be tough.  That is his thing.  It would be like saying, "Guys, I ran the numbers, and Rogues are really good at picking locks...or Clerics are good at healing".  I guess this is a problem if you don't think that these should be the case, but I think it is a good thing for classes to have strengths.

Second: The dragon isn't just sitting there attacking.  What about breath weapon?  What about Darknes (good luck parrying when you can't see)?  What about just picking up the fighter and flying him 200 feet into the air?

Have you played with the fighter using Parry or is this all conjecture based on the numbers?  If you haven't, try playing it out.  The Fighter is tough, but he is only blocking a single melee attack each round, and at the cost of dealing extra damage or doing other maneuvers.




I can see how some people feel that parry is too much, but as you say, it is against only one attack. 

I've been adding +2 to monster attacks, and most of the time when the fighter pushes forward and challenges the foes, I attack him.   Yes, once in a while, the monsters might target another PC, especially if another PC does something that shows him as a threat, or if the other PC moves too close to the monsters, but for the most part, I let the fighter draw the enemy to him.  Sometimes I ask the fighter (or anyone who wants to draw fire) to make an ability roll based on how they want to try to provoke attacks (strength to intimidate or flex muscle...intelligence to use witty speech...charisma to intimidate/bluff or use persuasive power, etc.)   If the PC rolls higher than the monster in this contest (they generally use either Int or Wis), then the monsters salivate and run for the fighter (unless they are really intelligent or more experienced and they realize that another target is a better choice).    This has been working well for our group.

The way to endanger the fighter is for the fighter to take on 2 or 3 or 4 opponents at one time.   The AC and hp differential between PCs kind of encourages this type of "Boromir" type behavior.   To me it is a style issue.   Some fighters relish the role, others don't want to be the walking target.    

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Ok, so what level of damage reduction (through maneuvers like Parry) is acceptable?  How about if you roll all the dice and take the highest?

Damage reduction is really not acceptable at the levels that expertise dice allow or as variable amounts that range from 3 to possibly 30 at 10nth level. To be honest no amount of variable damage reduction is really acceptable from my point of view.


I personally don't see it being an issue.  In my game the fighters didn't even use Parry (the melee fighter preferred deadly strike and spring attack, and the ranged fighter preferred deadly strike and volley).



How many players did you have? I would figure that two fighters in a game could really mess things up. One of the issues with volley right now is that it could do more damage than the original attack. But I think your fighters aren't playing fighters optimally. I still feel that a fighter should only ever use Deadly Strike or Parry. Few exceptions exist (such as low hit point monsters).


It can only be used once/round (and using it means you can't use any other reactions), and it only works against melee attacks.

I do believe the fact that you can only take 1 reaction per turn has not been taken into account. This does change the issue, espeicially against multiple creatures. Solo creatures may still be problematic.


So it becomes an issue of tactics, which I think is a good thing.  The PCs want to manipulate the battle so that the melee foes are attacking the fighter.  The enemy will want to get those melee foes attacking other targets, and hit the fighter with ranged attacks or spells.

When I see people say things like, "I ran the numbers for a Level X Blank vs a Blank, and the Blank could survive for X rounds!", I always think that they are missing the point. 

First point: the Fighter SHOULD be tough.  That is his thing.  It would be like saying, "Guys, I ran the numbers, and Rogues are really good at picking locks...or Clerics are good at healing".  I guess this is a problem if you don't think that these should be the case, but I think it is a good thing for classes to have strengths.

Second: The dragon isn't just sitting there attacking.  What about breath weapon?  What about Darknes (good luck parrying when you can't see)?  What about just picking up the fighter and flying him 200 feet into the air?


To my knowledge you can parry even if you are blind as the rules as I recall don't prohibit you from doing so.  Fighters should be tough, the question is whether this is an overpowered way of being tough. Further if the DM does have to attack you twice, it really just sets up a bad situation where you know you will have to waste an expertise dice at parry because the DM is going to assume you are going to use it and has taken that into account. It limits your ability to do anything else as the DM Either waistes one attack against you or attacks you twice virtually making certain you use Parry. Further given how deadly the game is, a fighter who isn't using parry just isn't being smart.


Have you played with the fighter using Parry or is this all conjecture based on the numbers?  If you haven't, try playing it out.  The Fighter is tough, but he is only blocking a single melee attack each round, and at the cost of dealing extra damage or doing other maneuvers.



For my part this has so far been just from a numbers standpoint. I'm waiting for another playtest packet to come out before I try running a game as I have been wanting monsters to get better before I start an actual game. In a lot of ways damage reduction has always been seen as overpowered since I started playing D&D, so this is largely a continuation from previous editions.

 
The way to endanger the fighter is for the fighter to take on 2 or 3 or 4 opponents at one time.   




Yes that is interesting hmmm I might say perhaps too realistic in some sense the parrying fighter feels like a high end fencer, but a zorro he isnt.

I am in agreement with those in wait and see mode because without monsters holding up there end of the bargain how can one tell. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm not seeing an issue.

The fighter can stand against a dragon for a while.  But unless it's a 10' hallway, the rest of the party is going down. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I'm not seeing an issue.

The fighter can stand against a dragon for a while.  But unless it's a 10' hallway, the rest of the party is going down. 


That is a good summary of the problem right there.
Damage reduction is really not acceptable at the levels that expertise dice allow or as variable amounts that range from 3 to possibly 30 at 10nth level. To be honest no amount of variable damage reduction is really acceptable from my point of view.

This is a few separate issues.  The first is that you feel the 3d10 is too much at level 10.  I haven't played level 10 characters yet, so I can't comment one way or another.
The second is the issue of variable damag reduction.  Do you really think that no amount of variable DR is acceptable?  What about 1d2?  Or 1d4?
So how do you think a maneuver like Parry should work?  Is the issue that you just don't like the maneuver at all?
How many players did you have? I would figure that two fighters in a game could really mess things up. One of the issues with volley right now is that it could do more damage than the original attack. But I think your fighters aren't playing fighters optimally. I still feel that a fighter should only ever use Deadly Strike or Parry. Few exceptions exist (such as low hit point monsters).

It was three players: fighter, fighter, and cleric.  The two fighters did not "really mess things up" at all, and I'm not sure I understand how it could.
I don't see how that is an "issue" with volley.  You attack additional targets equal to your ED, and on a hit each additional target takes 1 ED of damage.

"Aren't playing fighters optimally"?  Please don't take offense at this (because none is intended, honestly), but my players would laugh upon hearing that.  They play to have fun, and that doesn't involve finding the "optimal" action each round.  If there are two orcs side by side, the player with the archer wants to shoot them both.  The other guy really liked the idea of spring attack, and he used it often.  Maybe not optimal, but they had a lot of fun, so I call it a win.
To my knowledge you can parry even if you are blind as the rules as I recall don't prohibit you from doing so.

I see.  Well, I don't want to start a "thing", so I'll just say that you clearly have a very different play style than I do.  Nothing wrong with that, if we were all alike the world would be very boring.
My style of playing is that the rules are guidelines to a fun play experience.  As a DM, I don't need to turn to the rules to tell me what to do, nor would my players expect me to.  I'll use 4E as an example.  A 1st level wizard has the at-will spell Scorching Burst.  According to the text of the spell, you can't use it to light combustable items on fire.  But I would never tell my players that.  If one of them wanted to use the spell to start a fire, I would totally allow it.
Further given how deadly the game is, a fighter who isn't using parry just isn't being smart.

Piece of advice: calling people dumb isn't the best strategy.  As I said, my players all had fun.  And no one has died so far.
For my part this has so far been just from a numbers standpoint. I'm waiting for another playtest packet to come out before I try running a game as I have been wanting monsters to get better before I start an actual game.

This explains a lot. 
To everyone: while you can certainly think about the playtest packet, and run numbers, etc., please try to actually PLAY the game in order to give the best possible feedback.  These aren't simply thought experiments, it is a game that you should play.

I'm not seeing an issue.

The fighter can stand against a dragon for a while.  But unless it's a 10' hallway, the rest of the party is going down. 


Yeah, it's really the same problem 4e had if you optimized your defenses t make you nigh-untouchable, the enemies will just attack the rest of the party and ignore you, and since you're not taking some of the heat, the rest of the party dies even faster, leaving you alone. And when you're alone, the defenses only help you for so long.
I'm not seeing an issue.

The fighter can stand against a dragon for a while.  But unless it's a 10' hallway, the rest of the party is going down. 


Yeah, it's really the same problem 4e had if you optimized your defenses t make you nigh-untouchable, the enemies will just attack the rest of the party and ignore you, and since you're not taking some of the heat, the rest of the party dies even faster, leaving you alone. And when you're alone, the defenses only help you for so long.



Using protect some cant hurt.There have been discussing about how to do even more fighter party defense tools
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Ok, so what level of damage reduction (through maneuvers like Parry) is acceptable?  How about if you roll all the dice and take the highest?

I personally don't see it being an issue.  In my game the fighters didn't even use Parry (the melee fighter preferred deadly strike and spring attack, and the ranged fighter preferred deadly strike and volley).

It can only be used once/round (and using it means you can't use any other reactions), and it only works against melee attacks.

So it becomes an issue of tactics, which I think is a good thing.  The PCs want to manipulate the battle so that the melee foes are attacking the fighter.  The enemy will want to get those melee foes attacking other targets, and hit the fighter with ranged attacks or spells.

When I see people say things like, "I ran the numbers for a Level X Blank vs a Blank, and the Blank could survive for X rounds!", I always think that they are missing the point.

First point: the Fighter SHOULD be tough.  That is his thing.  It would be like saying, "Guys, I ran the numbers, and Rogues are really good at picking locks...or Clerics are good at healing".  I guess this is a problem if you don't think that these should be the case, but I think it is a good thing for classes to have strengths.

Second: The dragon isn't just sitting there attacking.  What about breath weapon?  What about Darknes (good luck parrying when you can't see)?  What about just picking up the fighter and flying him 200 feet into the air?

Have you played with the fighter using Parry or is this all conjecture based on the numbers?  If you haven't, try playing it out.  The Fighter is tough, but he is only blocking a single melee attack each round, and at the cost of dealing extra damage or doing other maneuvers.



I agree and disagree.  Running the numbers is essential to balancing the game, and it points out fallacies within the game.  Those fallacies need to be addressed by the developers.  So when someone says, I ran the math...  I tend to look at the numbers or verify them myself.  However, I'm not really interested in this class can last this long and that long against an opponent at this point of the playtest; I'm more interested in the balance between classes.  In my opinion, you have to balance the classes to level of comparable competence.  After you get that math right, you can start balancing the math in regards to enemies.

Now, crunching the numbers is just a straight fight without tactics or other considerations.  It just outlines the potential; it does not necessarily define the reality of the situation.  In that regard, other factors need to be put into the equation.  Sometimes, those factors don't fit into an equation all that well... 

So, use the math (which I don't think WotC necessarily have good math people) to balance the basic game.  Then you take all the other stuff into account and balance that.     
Don't forget to drink first.

Or was intoxicated removed?

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Ok, so what level of damage reduction (through maneuvers like Parry) is acceptable?  How about if you roll all the dice and take the highest?

I personally don't see it being an issue.  In my game the fighters didn't even use Parry (the melee fighter preferred deadly strike and spring attack, and the ranged fighter preferred deadly strike and volley).

It can only be used once/round (and using it means you can't use any other reactions), and it only works against melee attacks.

So it becomes an issue of tactics, which I think is a good thing.  The PCs want to manipulate the battle so that the melee foes are attacking the fighter.  The enemy will want to get those melee foes attacking other targets, and hit the fighter with ranged attacks or spells.

When I see people say things like, "I ran the numbers for a Level X Blank vs a Blank, and the Blank could survive for X rounds!", I always think that they are missing the point.

First point: the Fighter SHOULD be tough.  That is his thing.  It would be like saying, "Guys, I ran the numbers, and Rogues are really good at picking locks...or Clerics are good at healing".  I guess this is a problem if you don't think that these should be the case, but I think it is a good thing for classes to have strengths.

Second: The dragon isn't just sitting there attacking.  What about breath weapon?  What about Darknes (good luck parrying when you can't see)?  What about just picking up the fighter and flying him 200 feet into the air?

Have you played with the fighter using Parry or is this all conjecture based on the numbers?  If you haven't, try playing it out.  The Fighter is tough, but he is only blocking a single melee attack each round, and at the cost of dealing extra damage or doing other maneuvers.



I agree and disagree.  Running the numbers is essential to balancing the game, and it points out fallacies within the game.  Those fallacies need to be addressed by the developers.  So when someone says, I ran the math...  I tend to look at the numbers or verify them myself.  However, I'm not really interested in this class can last this long and that long against an opponent at this point of the playtest; I'm more interested in the balance between classes.  In my opinion, you have to balance the classes to level of comparable competence.  After you get that math right, you can start balancing the math in regards to enemies.

Now, crunching the numbers is just a straight fight without tactics or other considerations.  It just outlines the potential; it does not necessarily define the reality of the situation.  In that regard, other factors need to be put into the equation.  Sometimes, those factors don't fit into an equation all that well... 

So, use the math (which I don't think WotC necessarily have good math people) to balance the basic game.  Then you take all the other stuff into account and balance that.     



I agree, the math underpines.. but is indeed only the starting point
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

This is a few separate issues.  The first is that you feel the 3d10 is too much at level 10.  I haven't played level 10 characters yet, so I can't comment one way or another.The second is the issue of variable damag reduction.  Do you really think that no amount of variable DR is acceptable?  What about 1d2?  Or 1d4? So how do you think a maneuver like Parry should work?  Is the issue that you just don't like the maneuver at all?


Largely I don’t like the maneuver at all. While I may tolerate something like the Fighter gets 1 point of damage reduction at level 1 (obviously increases at certain levels) I am really against the idea of the fighter being able to have 30 points of damage reduction at any point in the game. So I think 4 points is too much at first level, so pretty much no amount of variable DR is acceptable to me. If an attack hits, it should do damage (on a side note if you have poison on a weapon any time you hit it should still have its effect, not related to parry but potentially related to maneuvers in general). It is possible that Parry isn’t so bad against multiple monsters, the issue is going to be solo monsters. You should be able to have a solo villain who can damage a fighter, otherwise it will cause problems as the villain who can challenge the fighter will kill other players, ultimately forcing a group to have a fighter.



I don't see how that is an "issue" with volley.  You attack additional targets equal to your ED, and on a hit each additional target takes 1 ED of damage.

The problem is that. a shortsword does 1d6 +str. You need a +4 str to equal the 1 expertise dice at level 10. Assuming expertise dice continue to increase your second attack will eventually do a d12 which will be higher than your normal attack.

"Aren't playing fighters optimally"?  Please don't take offense at this (because none is intended, honestly), but my players would laugh upon hearing that.  They play to have fun, and that doesn't involve finding the "optimal" action each round. 

I call that a win to. I don’t think I have ever made an optimal character in D&D, though granted I have typically always taken nearly identical feats with characters because I’ve found them to be the better feats, and with D&D Next if I play a cleric I’ll always be taking the healing options as not doing so just seems silly. But I would agree fun is what matters in the end. I’m just pointing out that killing one creature is better than doing damage to two creatures (unless you know your two buddies is going to come behind you and finish those two off).  I promise I really don’t give the game this kind of detailed analysis when I’m actually playing.

 I had no intention of calling anyone dumb, but when you are getting hit for 1d8 or 1d12 damage at first level, it just makes sense to use parry so you can stay in the fight longer. Granted this changes depending on how many monsters you have to face during one encounter.


While it is true that playing a game beats number crunching, there are some times numbers are important, such as when a single fighter or wizard can almost kill a dragon without the rest of the party. And I’ll still maintain that the problems with parry will become more noticeable as the parties level increases. Perhaps not so much in your gaming group because they seem to not care. I think I’ve just played with too many optimizers who would definitely find any such exploit that they can.

Make it so the dice used for Parry don't stack, so the most you'd get in protection is 10 at 10th level. If you're rolling more than one dice, you get the best. Is that a decent compromise?

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

So, use the math (which I don't think WotC necessarily have good math people) to balance the basic game.  Then you take all the other stuff into account and balance that.

Well, I think the math can't be taken in isolation.  I know you disagree, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, so I am happy to leave it at that.

Well, one more thing: there is no need to insult the developers.  It serves no constructive purpose.
Largely I don’t like the maneuver at all.

Thanks for being honest; it makes it so much easier to discuss the issue.  At this point all I can say is that I am sorry you don't like the idea of Parry.
I hope that you will at least try it out when you do run the playtest.
The problem is that. a shortsword does 1d6 +str. You need a +4 str to equal the 1 expertise dice at level 10. Assuming expertise dice continue to increase your second attack will eventually do a d12 which will be higher than your normal attack.

I'm still not seeing why that is a problem.
Why does the "primary" attack in a volley have to deal more damage?  Technically, in a volley, there is no "primary" attack. 
And what would be your solution?  Replace the ED damage with 1[W] damage?  This would penalize people using smaller weapons.  I really like the current use of ED because it makes weapon choice less vital.  The fighter with a shortsword isn't going to be much worse off at all than the fighter with a greatsword.
I promise I really don’t give the game this kind of detailed analysis when I’m actually playing.

Excellent!  Now give the current playtest rules a test drive, see how they feel behind the wheel!
I had no intention of calling anyone dumb, but when you are getting hit for 1d8 or 1d12 damage at first level, it just makes sense to use parry so you can stay in the fight longer.

Well, I am glad you had no intention.  Next time, don't say things like, "The smart option", etc.
As I said, no one has died so far.  When you run the playtest, perhaps you will have a different outcome.  Perhaps everyone will use Parry every round with all their dice.  Run it, and see how it goes!
While it is true that playing a game beats number crunching, there are some times numbers are important, such as when a single fighter or wizard can almost kill a dragon without the rest of the party. And I’ll still maintain that the problems with parry will become more noticeable as the parties level increases. Perhaps not so much in your gaming group because they seem to not care. I think I’ve just played with too many optimizers who would definitely find any such exploit that they can.

I disagree.  You can take a look at a monster stat block and get a rough sense of how strong/weak it is without the detailed number crunching.  And then actually playing it out gives you an actual sense of how it works.  Did it have too much trouble hitting?  Was its damage too low?  Did it have too many hit points?  Does it need more special attacks?  Etc.
And I firmly believe that the game should not be designed with the intent to block optimizers.  Firstly, such a game would end up being very boring, because there would be no choice.  As long as there is choice, people will decide that one choice is best, and thus optimization is born.  Second, this playstyle represents such an extreme that I don't think it should be primarily catered for, just like any other extreme.  There are people who rarely, if ever, have a fight in their D&D quests.  Should we remove nearly all the combat options?
Make it so the dice used for Parry don't stack, so the most you'd get in protection is 10 at 10th level. If you're rolling more than one dice, you get the best. Is that a decent compromise?

To me?  Sure.  But NightsLastHero has said that he dislikes any amount of variable (and even non-variable) DR.

First, dragons obviously need to level up a lot.

Second, stun or paralyze  or charm the fighter and he's in deep trouble. 
First, I did in fact take into account that the fighter can only parry once.  And the dragon is effectively three monsters, meant to be a challenge for 9, so it's not just a 1v1 fight.

Obviously my math wasn't intended to simulate an actual game.  I fully recognize that the dragon can go around and target the other monsters (although this isn't as trivial as you make it sound, if the PCs spread out enough that the dragon has to disengage from the fighter he loses valuable turns, and may never actually get to attack anyone but the fighter if they keep giving him the runaround).  I was too lazy to deal with breath attack, which would potentially reduce the damage/round (although not that much if he's also got lightning reflexes).  The math is just a simplification that suggests the problems faced in a real game of people who play to optimize.  As a simplification, it is imperfect.  The fighter might only last 15 rounds instead of 17.  He might also last 19 because he's got a cleric buddy that more than makes up for breath weapon.  But the fact that the math says 17 rounds means the reality is clearly a very long time, even though it probably isn't 17.7 rounds.  The math is evidence, not proof.  But also not worthless.

I fully agree that optimization and slavish adherence to RAW is not the only way to play, or the best way to play.  But the fact remains that an awful lot of people DO power game and DO slavishly adhere to RAW.  The game should be balanced for those people too, not just the people who don't care about "optimum" play or who take liberties with the rules.  This is, after all, the edition that's supposed to be trying to unite disparate play styles.  The fact is, RAW, a fighter who uses dodge and parry is more or less unkillable, and he can do an awful lot to use that to protect his party, too.  And while fighters should be tough, there must be limits to that toughness.  Conservatively, a fighter is about 8 times as tough as a wizard (2x HP, 1/2x hit chance, 1/2x damage thanks to parry).  Those are fairly conservative estimates of monster hit chance and parry DR (especially at levels when the ED jump), although now that the wizard get's d6s the HP gap is a bit smaller.  And that's not taking dodge into account, which is substantially more effective for a character with a high AC than it is for a character with a low AC.  Is 8x the right differential?  I don't think so.  I think that means that a hit that would frighten a level 10 fighter (200 HP, 16.5 parry, I figure you'd want at least 50 damage to get through to scare the guy, for 66.5 total) would one-shot kill a level 10 wizard (57-68 HP, depending on his CON).  I don't mind a scary hit to a fighter knocking a wizard into critical, but one shot killing is a step too far for me.  Add in monsters that are already too weak to challenge a party, and it's a recipe for boring play.  Can you "fix" the problem and still have fun by not using parry?  Apparently, but the "optimal" solution shouldn't be a boring one.  

Oh, and "highest of parry dice" is a lousy compromise.  It's the wrong scaling rate, it doesn't hold it's % of monster damage at high levels.  I'd sooner see something like DR = 1/2 the sum.  A lot depends on how they change monster damage and indeed the parry maneuver with this "fighter only, non-ED" thing they're talking about.  If it stops using the dice, then it doesn't have to follow their progression AND it has to be even further weakened to make up for the fact that it's no longer stopping you from using other maneuvers.  Here's hoping it's still some kind of a choice, because if it's just free DR then they'd be better off just giving more HP.
Yes, fighters are invincible in practical sense.

But this is because monsters are broken, and not because fighters are overpowered.  A Q&A directly stated that monsters were broken, and as we haven't seen any updates for them yet, they qualify as still broken.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The fighter still dies though right? It just takes a few seconds longer?

It coul use a look, but I think that should probably happen en masse when all the classes are hammered out. The current enemies definitely feel unfinished to me, balance wise. I sort of wish the math was a lot smaller at early levels though. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
wel the dragon trying a grab or disarm might be a good idea with it's 23 strength.

also using breath weapon and staying out of the fighters reach might work. 
Tactics don't matter much if you're at a 15% hit rate.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So, use the math (which I don't think WotC necessarily have good math people) to balance the basic game.  Then you take all the other stuff into account and balance that.

Well, I think the math can't be taken in isolation.  I know you disagree, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, so I am happy to leave it at that.

Well, one more thing: there is no need to insult the developers.  It serves no constructive purpose.



When the developers break the guidelines they stated with faulty math, it needs to get pointed out.  I'm pretty sure they have thicker skin that you think.  If they don't, they probably need a different job. 

However, the basic math still needs to add up.  If my average hit is 29.6 points in a single round, and your average damage is 18.1 points in a single round; that's a disparity.  You can look at it as being an isolated case, but it does spill out into the game as a whole.  If the ability designed for the most usage (and staple ability for the class from edition to edition) underperforms regularly, the class as a whole will underperform on the average.  I found that players usually don't like to underperform.  Now those ratings can be adjusted by other class features that we haven't seen yet, and that needs to be taken into account. 

But, designing a power that grants an average roll of 30.475 (50% chance of getting that score) when the maximum DC is suppose to be 25 (crunch the numbers for Skill Mastery if you don't believe me)...  That can't be fixed by adding stuff to the system.  It is poor design, and somebody on the design time failed to look at the basic premise of a power.  I knew the numbers were going to be out of whack on this before doing the math.  To me, that was an obvious no-brainer.

In another thread, a poster quoted a WotC book, granted its 3e book, that states that 4d6 drop the lowest die increases the average score from 10.5 to 11.5.  That is patently false.  A 4d6 drop the lowest die averages 12.2446 (I crunched the number; hell, I even talked to a professor in Mathematics about it).  Math has come out of this company that is just wonky.  Now, using an incorrect method, I can get to 11.5 (acutally 11.51 - 11.54 something; I forgot the exact value of doing it incorrectly).  That just tells me that the company is not paying attention to the math. 

Then you have a 4e power, Rains of Blow, that was printed in the PHB but needed an errata due to the math being broken.  You start painting a picture of a company that has difficulty with math. 

So, calling them out for incorrect math isn't a bad thing.  They are producing a product that they want you to buy.  That product should be the best product possible.  So, when they make a mathematical error, especially one that can potentially cascade throughout the game, that is just out there, it needs to be pointed out.  If they demostrate a history of performing bad calculations (or fail to consider basic calculations), the customer base should point it out.  And tell them that is unacceptable and not something that is going to be tolerated.  You can call it insulting.  I just call it being demanding of getting the basics right so they have a chance at producing a decent product.

Now, if WotC had isolated cases of bad math.  I probably wouldn't be "insulting."  However, we're talking of a systematic inability to do math.   
Tactics don't matter much if you're at a 15% hit rate.



grab and disarm are oposed strength checks so totaly ignore having to hit Ac.
Ok, so you make it so they can't hit you either, but you still can't hit them.  Now what?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ok, so you make it so they can't hit you either, but you still can't hit them.  Now what?

The fighter dies a slow death.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

You sure about that?  He can still punch you.  With a vastly superior hit rate to you.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
You sure about that?  He can still punch you.  With a vastly superior hit rate to you.

If the fighter stops using his action to dodge, or uses his dice offensivly, then he dies quicker.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

You sure about that?  He can still punch you.  With a vastly superior hit rate to you.

If the fighter stops using his action to dodge, or uses his dice offensivly, then he dies quicker.



Why even bother using the dice offensivly? I mean, in any game where I can play a tank that is merely invincible, I do it. Enemies can't hit you and you hit them for a smal amount of dmg. Results? They die slower than if you have played offensivly, but you are sure to survive the fight, which wouldn't be true if you had played offensivly.

This is exactly the kind of problem the author of this thread showed up.
 
You sure about that?  He can still punch you.  With a vastly superior hit rate to you.

If the fighter stops using his action to dodge, or uses his dice offensivly, then he dies quicker.



Why even bother using the dice offensivly? I mean, in any game where I can play a tank that is merely invincible, I do it. Enemies can't hit you and you hit them for a smal amount of dmg. Results? They die slower than if you have played offensivly, but you are sure to survive the fight, which wouldn't be true if you had played offensivly.

This is exactly the kind of problem the author of this thread showed up.
 



There is a guy on Enworld threads who does number crunching with a computer program he devised.   He ran a party of dwarven fighters through thousands of hypothetical encounters, changing the encounter difficulties, and other variables in different runs.   He acknowledges that it is much more likely that the party continues further and succeeds more often (even against more difficult encounters) when the fighters use Parry instead of Deadly Strike.   I loved reading his posts...forgot his name though.   As you say, SatLeBaron, this is definitely something to consider.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I would rather that the same CHARACTER is not capable of both dealing and absorbing more damage than any other.

I don't mind if a character can be built  that is nearly impossible to kill with a similar level monster that just slugs away in melee (I often play this type of character myself). The enemies can also use ranged attacks, charm effects, run away, complete the ritual, kill the character's friends, etc.

The same super-durable Parry-using character should not, IMO, just flip a switch (use Deadly Strike) and decide he wants to one-shot enemies this fight, or this round, at-will.

Even if the Fighter is going to cover any type of mundane melee focused concept, I don't think a single Fighter being either the deadliest or most durable (depending on the player's whim that round) is the way to go.

Where does this leave the other melee classes if the fighter is always going to be so much more capable?
Am I the only one who finds it problematic that parry makes fighters near-impossible to kill?  I ran the numbers, a 4th level fighter with CON 14 and AC 17 (chainmail+shield) who uses dodge and both his expertise dice to parry can survive for 6.4 turns against a lvl 9 black dragon.  That's with all three of the dragon's attacks going at him.  A dragon 5 levels over him, designed to be a "tough" encounter for 9 PCs of his level.  Meanwhile, his 2.3 fighter buddies with longbows have no trouble dispatching the dragon without taking a scratch.  Just over a third of the party that should find it challenging, and only 1 of them ever takes damage.  At level 9, he can survive for 17.7 turns against the dragon's full brunt.  Am I the only one that thinks that needs to be revisited?  And that's the best case scenario, going solo against an at-level plesiosaurus (first non-wierd lvl 4 single-attacker I saw) who doesn't get multiple attacks to get around parry, he can survive 24 rounds.  Against an at-level Dark Adept or Dark Priest, he is on average invulnerable (only takes damage when he rolls crap parry and the monster rolls high damage, and even only 1 in 5 of those times because there's an 80% chance the monster'll miss).  And that's before I give him magic armor, or a cleric tossing heals at him.  And people complain 4e characters were too durable?

So a skilled warrior using his action and expertise dice to focus only on defense is hard to kill??

You don't say!

Maybe your numbers would be better off using zombies instead of intelligent monsters. No dragon is going to spend 64 rounds attacking the fighter in the exact same way and failing every time. The new Wizard spell Burning Hands is an at-will aoe that deals 1d6 damage. That means he can technically kill like 7 kobolds/round forever and ever. But these situations don't actually happen if you play the game correctly. This is more of a common sense thing. It's the DM's responsibility to not play intelligent monsters as mindless XP fodder.

That argument aside, I'm perfectly okay with the Fighter being that durable. That's his job. And think about the awesomely epic roleplaying opportunities here! Say the party has to complete some goal but there's a Big Bad Evil Guy in the way. The Fighter says, "I'll hold him off, you guys go do the XXXX!" The Cleric toss his a quick buff and the party leaves him to go finish the task at hand. That's a Fighter doing what a Fighter does best.

Please introduce yourself to the new D&D 5e forums in this very friendly thread started by Pukunui!

 

Make 5e Saving Throws better using Ramzour's Six Ability Save System!

 

Lost Mine of Phandelver: || Problems and Ideas with the adventure ||  Finding the Ghost of Neverwinter Wood ||

Giving classes iconic abilities that don't break the game: Ramzour's Class Defining Ability system.

Rules for a simple non-XP based leveling up system, using the Proficiency Bonus

 

The problem I see with ED is that they are "full attack" all over again - the best way to do damage or parry is to not use them to move or do anything else cool. Which means that combats become static again. A solution to that - make all manouvers only allowed to use 1 die maximum. That helps parry out, since it can't be run with 3d10. However, perhaps it's too heavy handed and the "use the largest die" is better?
Sign In to post comments