elder_basilisk, if I follow your complaint to its logical conclusion, I would never make a striker character for a pre-gen that wasn't a rogue or an archery ranger. I think that for the most part, none of the pre-gen characters fails in their assigned duties. But even "failure" can be and will be determined differently by everyone. At some point, you have to decide if you're going to showcase the game, or showcase the optimized version of the game. And I think WotC chose the former.
I disagree on your analysis of the Halfling Avenger, because I don't think you see what it is suppose to do later as it gets higher in level.
Forget damage output for a second. Think about what build it's going for. It's going for a persuit build. That means a lot of running around. That means that OA, more then likely. And against OA, the Halfling beats out the Elf, hands down. Your -1 AC becomes +1 AC without even adding feats, and when the halfling start stacking on their racials, they'll out AC a elf any day of the week.
Also, the racial for the Halfling gives them a slightly more defensive package, which is obviously the direction that you should take the halfling anyway.
For someone that wants to get around big people and to chase after a person, you could do much worse then a Halfling. Not saying the elf is not a go-to race for an avenger, but I understand the trick and reasoning behind the halfling avenger, and I'd be more then willing one at that table. (Maybe not that exact build, mind you, but I'd run one)
I find it funny that people think the pregens should be optimized beasts that someone will want to stick with. I find them to be the opposite in purpose, effective enough to fill their role, get someones first round in quickly and leave them wanting to play more, AND wanting to design their own better character. If you give a brand new character a very tightly optimized pregen what incentive to they have to read the powers of other classes and even their own and form their own ideas of how to play the character. I view pregens as nothing more than a tool to get a game going quickly, they should be mostly discarded after the first game or two they are used in.
elder_basilisk, if I follow your complaint to its logical conclusion, I would never make a striker character for a pre-gen that wasn't a rogue or an archery ranger. I think that for the most part, none of the pre-gen characters fails in their assigned duties. But even "failure" can be and will be determined differently by everyone. At some point, you have to decide if you're going to showcase the game, or showcase the optimized version of the game. And I think WotC chose the former.
That's not the complaint's logical conclusion. The logical conclusion of the complaint is that we will never make pregen characters who are destined to always be three steps behind the most obvious builds for their classes no matter how much retraining the player does.
The other logical conclusion is that pregens not be designed as throwaway characters that will leave new players thinking, "this guy sucks, even I could do better." Rather, pregens should be designed as characters that could be effectively played long-term if the player wants to.
Show players what to do if they want to build an effective character--not what not to do. They can figure that out on their own. And they can figure out how to do quirky concept characters on their own too. Such things have a lot more attraction to jaded, experienced players than to players who have not yet tried any of the archetypes.
This is an old argument, and one I have rehearsed many times even within groups I play with. I am constitutionally firmly on elder_basilisks side, but have over the years begun to hear the other viewpoint.
I see character generation as partly a puzzle to be solved (the stats), and partly a freeform creation(the background/personality). Part of my frustration with 3rd ed was that the puzzle aspect became so complex that unless you were highly motivated (and I was) your marvellous personality would become less and less combat effective. Many of the people I played with DIDN'T CARE. They would never, ever take weapon focus because it was "boring". They would come up with fascinating characters that they loved playing (to forestall the false dichotomy, I would argue that my characters had equally complex backstories and personalities - some people spend more time on BOTH aspects, it's not always one or the other)
Fortunately/unfortunately D&D isn't just improvised theatre, it is also a game. There are dice to be rolled. As the levels increased, the gap between my characters and other characters got larger. As a DM I had real trouble coming up with combats that would challenge the party when the "optimized" players were there without killing everyone when they weren't.
That was one of the reasons I love 4th ed. It is pretty darn easy to come up with a solid character. The "effectiveness curve" now shows significantly less standard deviation. The twinked characters are just as much fun to design, but don't dominate as they did before (obviously there are megatwinked characters, but we're not discussing that). Even the personality dominant characters still get to do cool things in combat EVERY session.
Wow, getting a bit off track there. Anyway, long story short, I agree w/the OP. Pregens should be working with the system, not against it. If you want a halfling avenger (and I would welcome you to my table if you did) you design it. Effectively you are asking people who know nothing about D&D to pick characters of varying ability (not huge at 1st, but if they love the character and want to continue it becomes significant) with no background knowledge.
It's actually more of a problem at low levels in 4th ed, I think, though 3rd ed by 5th or 6th starts to escalate differences. I suspect it comes down to options and choices, either they matter or they don't, and if they matter and we are making those choices for other people I reckon we should make sure they're basically solid.
OTOH - elder_basilisk - many players have genuinely no idea what we are talking about. They are genuinely "effectiveness-blind". They don't get maths, or don't want to spoil their roleplaying by looking at it. They aren't "wrong". Sometimes they will complain that they aren't having as much fun in combat as more effective characters, and then you can make suggestions (that they will STILL ignore). This becomes the DM's problem, and a good DM can ensure everyone has a good time. We may see it as an annoying roadbump that can be fixed, other people just don't mind.
a longtooth shifter pursuit avenger ... gives him +2 hp, +1 surge, +1 Fort over the halfling and qualifies him for hide armor proficiency and fighter multiclass (enabling him to take pitfighter as a paragon path if he so chooses) ... The stats are not the only significant disadvantage.
I think this is a perfect summary of your argument. You believe a -2 hp, and -1 to a couple defenses and -1 to your [W] is a significant disadvantage. Those that argue against you don't.
In addition, I think you discount the fun of being able to run right through large enemies squares (without provoking in Paragon). Not qualifying for one feat allows him to take others (e.g. Lost in the Crowd instead of Hide Proficiency, Shadow Initiate instead of fighter multiclass). The only real shame about halflings is that the Talenta Weapon Training feat requires the Talenta background benefit, which is unavailable in LFR. Talenta Weapons were a great addition for Halflings because they allow them to be respectable two-handed weapon users. That it's unavailable for Halflings but Xen'drik Weapon Training is available for drow is a real slap in the face.
Just because the snoozer, everyone-whose-read-the-charops-board-has-it options aren't available to a Halfling Avenger does not make them a bad choice.
a longtooth shifter pursuit avenger ... gives him +2 hp, +1 surge, +1 Fort over the halfling and qualifies him for hide armor proficiency and fighter multiclass (enabling him to take pitfighter as a paragon path if he so chooses) ... The stats are not the only significant disadvantage.
I think this is a perfect summary of your argument. You believe a -2 hp, and -1 to a couple defenses and -1 to your [W] is a significant disadvantage. Those that argue against you don't.
In addition, I think you discount the fun of being able to run right through large enemies squares (without provoking in Paragon). Not qualifying for one feat allows him to take others (e.g. Lost in the Crowd instead of Hide Proficiency, Shadow Initiate instead of fighter multiclass). The only real shame about halflings is that the Talenta Weapon Training feat requires the Talenta background benefit, which is unavailable in LFR. Talenta Weapons were a great addition for Halflings because they allow them to be respectable two-handed weapon users. That it's unavailable for Halflings but Xen'drik Weapon Training is available for drow is a real slap in the face.
Just because the snoozer, everyone-whose-read-the-charops-board-has-it options aren't available to a Halfling Avenger does not make them a bad choice.
No, what makes them a bad choice is that they are consistently behind the standard character that you would create if you were working with the system rather than against it in the most noticeable areas of the character (damage, AC, NADs, hit points, surges, riders) and always will be regardless of how much the player retrains. Furthermore, the character class--with the snoozer options--is generally considered to be a marginal performer in its core role which means that a subpar version will be even more noticeably reduced effectiveness. Now, that is fine for experienced players who have already tried or are not interested in the so-called snoozer options but is not something we should be trying to foist on new players who are familiar with neither LFR nor 4e D&D--you know, the players who are the primary markets for pregens. To the kind of player who is going to pick up a pregen to actually play, there is nothing boring or familiar about the so-called snoozer options. In fact, there is a decided advantage to the conventional options in that more of their observations of what other people are playing will be directly applicable to their character. If they see a power or feat in use and think, "that's cool," it will probably be cool for them too. Finally, the very conventionality of the character is an argument for its being a model for pregens. By definition, conventional characters are the ones that the most people play. Arguing for pregens to be unconventional in a deliberately suboptimal way is arguing that we should be trying to sucker new players into playing characters that most players are not interested in playing. After all, if most players were interested in playing them, they wouldn't be unconventional. The target market for pregens is not the jaded gamer or the indie gamer who looks down on D&D as too boring, too corporate, or lacking room for role-playing. Why, then, are we writing our pregens as though they were our target audience?
Now, we've addressed some general perceptions and "you think/they think" items. Let's look at some numbers to get some objective facts.
A quick note about my sample characters on this totem pole: None of them are especially optimized. There are no 20/16 or even 18/18 builds in evidence. Instead, their stats are what you get if you take the default stat array and apply it to any race with bonuses to both primary and secondary stats.
And for reference, a striker damage totem pole vs AC 15/ 13 NAD: 18 dex ranger with twin strike with a greatbow: 2 (.55*6.5+.05*12) + .7*3.5+.0975*6= 15.56 DPR 18 dex/16 str brutal scoundrel with piercing strike, backstabber, and a dagger (combat advantage is not figured into attack figures but sneak attack is in damage): .75*18.5+.05*27=15.225 18 Str barbarian with howling strike and a Mordenkrad: .55*16.5+.05*22+.05*.55*12+.05*.05*16=10.545 DPR 18 Wis avenger with overwhelming strike and a fullblade: .78*10.5+ .0975*22.5=10.38375 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with bond of pursuit and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*10.5+.0975*15= 9.25875 DPR 18 Charisma warlock with eldritch blast (Ref 13): .55*(5.5+3.5+4) + .05 *20= 8.15 DPR
Now, that itself doesn't look so bad (except for the warlock--and conventional warlocks are pretty much failures as strikers unless they figure out a way to reliably trigger the secondary damage on hellish rebuke or dire radiance--there are more than a few other warlock builds that players in general regard as successful strikers but they generally rely upon eldritch strike, basic attacks, or other manuevers that are working around the apparent intention of the warlock mechanics rather than working with them to create a dark magician who blasts things with magic).
This snapshot of the totem pole clearly shows why warlocks are often considered failures as damage-dealing strikers. The halfling avenger comes in next to the bottom, however at a disadvantage of about 11% vis a vis a normal avenger and almost 10% vis a vis the next loser on the list.
18 Str/16 Wis barbarian with Avalanche Strike and a Mordenkrad: .55*31+.05*43+.05*.55*12+.05*.05*16=19.57 DPR 18 dex/16 str brutal scoundrel with torturous strike, backstabber, and a dagger (combat advantage is not figured into attack figures but sneak attack is in damage): .65*25+.05*34=17.95 18 dex/16 Wis ranger with two fanged strike with a greatbow: 2 (.55*10.5+.05*16) + .7*3.5+.0975*6 +.36*3= 17.265 DPR 18 Wis avenger with Angelic Alacrity and a fullblade: .78*17+ .0975*32.5=16.42875 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with Angelic Alacrity and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*16+.0975*25=14.3175 18 Charisma warlock with Dreadful Word (Ref 13): .55*(16.5) + .05 *26= 10.375 DPR
Again, the conventional warlock stands out as a complete failure as a damage dealer but you will note that the halfling avenger is falling further behind the regular avenger as well. Also, the barbarian who was below the cookie cutter avenger has now moved to the top of the list. (Barbarians have access to more damaging encounter powers than most classes do).
Once again, the halfling is second to last, and has now fallen about 13% behind the regular avenger who occupies the second slot on the list.
If we move on to daily powers: 18 Wis avenger with Aspect of Might and a fullblade: .78*23.5+ .0975*46.5 +.1225*.5*23.5=24.303125 DPR 18 Str/16 Wis barbarian with Swift Panther Rage and a Mordenkrad: .55*28+.05*40+.4*.5*28+.05*.55*12+.05*.05*16=23.37 DPR 18 dex/16 Wis ranger with Hunt's End with a greatbow: .5*26+.1*46+.4*.5*23.5= 22.3 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with Aspect of Might and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*21.5+.0975*35+.16*.5*20.5=21.09625 DPR 18 dex/16 str brutal scoundrel with Pommel Smash, backstabber, and a dagger (combat advantage is not figured into attack figures but sneak attack is in damage): .65*23.5+.05*32+.3*.5*11.5=18.6 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with her printed 2W daily and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*16+.0975*25+.16*.5*16=15.5975 DPR 18 Charisma warlock with Curse of the Dark Dream (Ref 13): .55*(21) + .05 *34= 13.25 DPR
On this one, I cheated to give the halfling avenger as much oomph as she could be retrained to have. There's nothing wrong with the daily she was given but it provides a somewhat misleading placement in the daily version of the DPR totem pole. So I ran the numbers for both a 2W power and aspect of might (the obvious choice for avengers who want to do damage). Once again, the halfling avenger is behind the standard avenger--this time by nearly 17%. She does pull noticeably ahead of the brutal scoundrel (if she switches to aspect of might), but that is to be expected: dagger rogues don't get a lot of damage from daily powers and thus generally choose dailies for something other than damage. Also, once again, the warlock is shown to be a complete failure when it comes to dealing damage (though the daily offers significant control).
To me, the interesting thing about the DPR totem pole is how the various strikers other than the warlock move around and trade places. (Though I suppose my leaving out the TWF ranger may be partly responsible for that since minor action attacks give the TWF ranger a much higher encounter damage threshold if you assume he doesn't need to move and Jaws of the Wolf is a higher damage daily than any of the others I statted up). The default ranger has the most at-will DPR, the default barbarian, the most encounter damage, and the daily damage king is actually the default avenger. In short, even if damage were all one cared about when creating pregen characters, there would be good reasons to have characters other than just greatbow rangers (as was previously suggested on this thread). The halfling avenger, however, is consistently in the bottom half and only manages to beat out the loser-warlock and a rogue who is completely unsuited for a damage focused daily (give said rogue a rapier, doublesword, or, with the new "sneak attack with heavy blades" feat, a longsword or bastard sword and things will look different because he actually has a reason to take a 3W daily other than to give the striker's DPR totem pole a fair comparison point).
Another interesting thing is how it defies the received wisdom of the charop board, and at least my small corner of the LFR community which would have us believe that avengers are low damage "strikers" like warlocks. Instead, these numbers (which are derived from the DMG monster defense guidelines and conventional damage focused powers) put conventional avengers in the middle of the pack for at-will damage, on the low end for encounter damage (but, percentagewise, closer to the top than they were for at-will damage), and close to (see previous note about TWF rangers) the top of the pile for daily damage. Now I do think there are a few explanations for the perception. A. non-avengers get more advantage from attack buffs (including combat advantage) than avengers do. B. The various at-will re-roll cards skew the RPGA experience by making non-avenger at-wills significantly more accurate in actual play than these numbers would indicate. C. Barbarians who seem to be (slightly) below avengers in at-will DPR have an extra encounter power (usually swift charge) that gives them clear ownership of their damage while avengers' class based encounter power (divine guidance) leaves an ally with ownership of the damage generated D. High damage numbers are psychologically advantageous even if a relatively lower accuracy yields similar DPR. E. There are actual tactical advantages to high damage numbers too. A barbarian, for instance, is more likely to kill an enemy in one or two attacks than an avenger is. Good luck can enable a high variance striker like said barbarian to wreck an entire encounter almost singlehandedly. Similar luck for an avenger generates results that are a lot closer to the average. So, that's my theory on why conventional avengers have a reputation for low damage despite their better than expected placement on the striker damage totem poles.
The upshot is that while the halfling avenger is not unplayable, there is a significant difference between its offensive potential and that of either a conventional avenger or any other conventional striker (other than a conventional warlock) and we shouldn't be setting new players up with characters that will always be behind their more conventional peers in most easily perceptible fields. That's just setting them up for dissapointment.
To clarify once again, it is not my goal to convince the powers that be to go to the charop boards every time they want pregens. Rather, it is to ensure that we create pregens that throw down comparable numbers to the conventional characters used by most LFR players and which are able to be developed in the standard directions. In short, I would like to see more pregens like the wizard and the swordmage and fewer like the gnome cleric or halfling avenger.
EDIT: Revised the numbers to fix the errors noted by Sithobi and to include Rampage in the Barbarian's stats. This has the following effect on the analysis: The barbarian's at-will DPR edges out the avenger's at-will DPR once Rampage is included. This takes the barbarian from the second to last conventional striker to the middle in terms of rank, but the conventional avenger is still within a hair's breadth of his numbers. The warlock is still a loser but is no longer putting out half the damage of any other conventional striker on the at-will and encounter powers now that his stat modifier is added in. That said, last place in all categories behind a halfling avenger is still bad. Very bad.
And for reference, a striker damage totem pole vs AC 15/ 13 NAD: 18 dex ranger with twin strike with a greatbow: 2 (.55*6.5+.05*12) + .7*3.5+.0975*6= 15.56 DPR 18 dex/16 str brutal scoundrel with piercing strike, backstabber, and a dagger (combat advantage is not figured into attack figures but sneak attack is in damage): .75*18.5+.05*27=15.225 18 Wis avenger with overwhelming strike and a fullblade: .78*10.5+ .0975*22.5=10.38375 DPR 18 Str barbarian with howling strike and a Mordenkrad: .55*16.5+.05*22=10.175 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with bond of pursuit and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*10.5+.0975*15= 9.25875 DPR 18 Charisma warlock with eldritch blast (Ref 13): .55*(5.5+3.5) + .05 *16= 5.75 DPR
All of the attack numbers are off by 5%. Hitting on a 9(most of these) means you hit 60% of the time. One reason the Warlock showed terribly is because you forgot the stat mods. It should be more like(assuming an AC/NAD 1 higher for purposes of an even comparison, perhaps taking into account the higher level monsters generally prevalent in LFR) .55*(5.5+3.5+4) +.05*20=8.15, still the lowest...but not quite so bad.
18 Str/16 Wis barbarian with Avalanche Strike and a Mordenkrad: .55*31+.05*43=19.2 DPR 18 dex/16 str brutal scoundrel with torturous strike, backstabber, and a dagger (combat advantage is not figured into attack figures but sneak attack is in damage): .65*25+.05*34=17.95 18 dex/16 Wis ranger with two fanged strike with a greatbow: 2 (.55*10.5+.05*16) + .7*3.5+.0975*6 +.36*3= 17.265 DPR 18 Wis avenger with Angelic Alacrity and a fullblade: .78*17+ .0975*32.5=16.42875 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with Angelic Alacrity and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*16+.0975*25=14.3175 18 Charisma warlock with Dreadful Word (Ref 13): .55*(12.5) + .05 *22= 7.975 DPR
Once again, numbers off by 1, and no stat mod added in...but a terrible 10.375 damage, barely higher than its at-will.
If we move on to daily powers: 18 Wis avenger with Aspect of Might and a fullblade: .78*23.5+ .0975*46.5 +.1225*.5*23.5=24.303125 DPR 18 Str/16 Wis barbarian with Swift Panther Rage and a Mordenkrad: .55*28+.05*40+.4*.5*28=23 DPR 18 dex/16 Wis ranger with Hunt's End with a greatbow: .5*26+.1*46+.4*.5*23.5= 22.3 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with Aspect of Might and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*21.5+.0975*35+.16*.5*20.5=21.09625 DPR 18 dex/16 str brutal scoundrel with Pommel Smash, backstabber, and a dagger (combat advantage is not figured into attack figures but sneak attack is in damage): .65*23.5+.05*32+.3*.5*11.5=18.6 DPR The 18 Wis halfling avenger with her printed 2W daily and a warhammer & weapon focus: .7425*16+.0975*25+.16*.5*16=15.5975 DPR 18 Charisma warlock with Curse of the Dark Dream (Ref 13): .55*(21) + .05 *34= 13.25 DPR
The damage on the Warlock is correct here...and horrid.
With regard to the view of the Avenger: I have found that many tables I have played at do view Avengers as capable strikers, though there are relatively few of them compared to the huge number of rangers and barbarians.
I note, EB, that as well as forgetting warlock's stat mod to damage, you also haven't given him a damage boosting feat. There aren't many, but a few do exist (empowering shadows, reckless curse, hellfire blood for the conlock, as well as the fairly weak off-stat elemental damage feats).
I am yet to be convinced about the 'avenger damage sucks at high levels' theory. I haven't seen an avenger at high levels, but then nor have I seen the maths. A quick flick through the compendium suggests that barbarians get slightly better Ws than avengers through paragon, but the avenger can take a 3W power at every paragon level, and the barb 4W powers are very blah when it comes to secondary effects. The avenger also gets more accuracy and more crit opportunities.
The main reason for this perception is I think the charop fixation with multiattacks, and two notorious barbarian encounter powers. Take those out of the equation, and my hunch is that the avenger, rogue and barbarian are all pretty similar in terms of damage output, with the ranger ahead and the poor old warlock bringing up the rear (although making up for it, depending on your PoV, with the best status effects - but that's another debate). The sorc is a slightly special case, since they do good multitarget damage, but their single target is probably a bit behind the other guys.
For comparison: Wild sorcerer with 18Cha/16Dex & weapon focus: Chaos bolt at will 0.55*(5.5+8) + (0.05 * 18) = 8.325 Cha warlock with 18 Cha and reckless curse vs cursed target: Eldritch blast at will 0.60*(5.5+3.5+4) + (0.05 * 20) = 8.80
So the sorc comes out pretty weak in single target damage (and those are the most damaging powers I could find at level 1).
I will also note that it takes some degree of system mastery to really make twin strike pull a long way ahead of other strikers. Everyone on charop seems to assume a +50 static mod or something silly on twin strike. Now I'm sure it can be done (unsure how), but I think +15-20 is going to be more common amongst players without SM.
To clarify once again, it is not my goal to convince the powers that be to go to the charop boards every time they want pregens. Rather, it is to ensure that we create pregens that throw down comparable numbers to the conventional characters used by most LFR players and which are able to be developed in the standard directions. In short, I would like to see more pregens like the wizard and the swordmage and fewer like the gnome cleric or halfling avenger.
Fair enough. I will concede this point. I have enjoyed the journey, though.
