The poisons that can be applied to 5 pieces of ammunition generally last for an entire encounter on a melee weapon - ie, if you poison your sword with one of these then it takes effect on every hit for the rest of the encounter.
Pay close attention to the power description, it will tell you whether the poison lasts for the next hit only or if it lasts for all hits until the end of the encounter when applied to a melee weapon.
The poisons that can be applied to 5 pieces of ammunition generally last for an entire encounter on a melee weapon - ie, if you poison your sword with one of these then it takes effect on every hit for the rest of the encounter.Pay close attention to
Also, heavy paladins can't ride horses. (warforged, dragonborn).
You should add a Multiclass Mount feet chain.Cause right now, mounts don't work all that well.Also, heavy paladins can't ride horses. (warforged, dragonborn).
Dragonborn should ride dinosaurs, and warforged should ride robo-horses, or, failing that, larger warforged.
Racial mount feats would be kinda cool, actually.
Dragonborn should ride dinosaurs, and warforged should ride robo-horses, or, failing that, larger warforged.Racial mount feats would be kinda cool, actually.
Warforged and Dragonborn being unable to ride is an artefact of the rather-stupid-in-general encumbrance rules.
Honestly, I'm almost inclined, for that reason, to say that a bag of holding should be a character feature. Plenty of people have such ridiculous amounts of stuff that they'd have to have SOME kind of magic bag to fit it all in. WHy not just make it a default assumption of the system?
Warforged and Dragonborn being unable to ride is an artefact of the rather-stupid-in-general encumbrance rules.Honestly, I'm almost inclined, for that reason, to say that a bag of holding should be a character feature. Plenty of people have such rid
Warforged and Dragonborn being unable to ride is an artefact of the rather-stupid-in-general encumbrance rules.
Honestly, I'm almost inclined, for that reason, to say that a bag of holding should be a character feature. Plenty of people have such ridiculous amounts of stuff that they'd have to have SOME kind of magic bag to fit it all in. WHy not just make it a default assumption of the system?
In my party, at least two (maybe three) characters are heavy enough to be a heavy load for a horse while Naked. The encumberence rules would be fine, if it wasn't entirely possible for this to occur.
My Goliath, and at least one of the Drasgonborn. Both dragonborn ARE heavy loads, because the one i'm not sure of pantless wears Platemail.
In my party, at least two (maybe three) characters are heavy enough to be a heavy load for a horse while Naked. The encumberence rules would be fine, if it wasn't entirely possible for this to occur.My Goliath, and at least one of the Drasgonborn.
Warforged and Dragonborn being unable to ride is an artefact of the rather-stupid-in-general encumbrance rules.
Honestly, I'm almost inclined, for that reason, to say that a bag of holding should be a character feature. Plenty of people have such ridiculous amounts of stuff that they'd have to have SOME kind of magic bag to fit it all in. WHy not just make it a default assumption of the system?
I actually brought this up in my original post in the thread - nobody really uses the encumbrance rules because they don't make a lot of sense and really just don't work very well. (I think armor check penalty might need some reworking, too, but really encumbrance is the biggest offendor in the 'rules that get ignored the most' category). Glad somebody showed up to agree, since that'll give the point some good weight behind it
I actually brought this up in my original post in the thread - nobody really uses the encumbrance rules because they don't make a lot of sense and really just don't work very well. (I think armor check penalty might need some reworking, too, but real
Maybe mounts should be able to carry up to 20X their strength score as a normal load, at the least, instead of the 10x strength. They could be given some trait called "quadrupedal" which doubles their normal load or patch the mount rules to enable such. This would allow for lower level mounts to be able to actually be used by such by those wearing heavy armor, instead of needing to have a Saddle of Strength.
Maybe mounts should be able to carry up to 20X their strength score as a normal load, at the least, instead of the 10x strength. They could be given some trait called "quadrupedal" which doubles their normal load or patch the mount rules to enable s
190 lbs for normal horses, and 210 for warhorses? I feel sorry for all the horses my fat ass has ridden, then. Or were you referring to the doubled scores?
Even a 50% increase (285, 315) would be somewhat useful, but still limit plate wearers to sturdier mounts. (Unless they invested in a saddle of strength).
Still, having to have a draft animal (earlier levels) or bag of holding/handy haversack makes the whole thing costlier than it should be.
190 lbs for normal horses, and 210 for warhorses? I feel sorry for all the horses my fat ass has ridden, then. Or were you referring to the doubled scores?Even a 50% increase (285, 315) would be somewhat useful, but still limit plate wearers to stu
@WoTC Reps: Please make a note of the discussion regarding Call Celestial Steed, here. Leaving viable mounts available to only one (sub)class is probably not the best move. Either the whole party is mounted, or none of them are is generally the way it plays out. Due to the math involved in leveling, "viable" mounts have very specific needs which should be addressed. I'm not saying that everyone needs the kind of special mounts available to Cavaliers (and now only Cavaliers), but some kind of support or option to make a party a mounted one seems warranted.
I would like to add in regard to the Stealth Errata move. I would be very happy if this practice simply came to an end. If there is an area that someone feels needs a change, announce it. Give a reason. Be official. Making a rules change in the fashion this was done is simply shady, and (IMO) counter-productive to the longevity of the games popularity.
@WoTC Reps: Please make a note of the discussion regarding Call Celestial Steed, here. Leaving viable mounts available to only one (sub)class is probably not the best move. Either the whole party is mounted, or none of them are is generally the way i
190 lbs for normal horses, and 210 for warhorses? I feel sorry for all the horses my fat ass has ridden, then. Or were you referring to the doubled scores?
Horse is 237, Warhorse is 262. (Quadrapeds do get a bonus, i think 50%).
a real life horse can carry roughly 30% of their body weight without much issue, now if a horse was to carry a 500 pound suited n booted goliath knight in plate, it would need to rest every other day or every 3rd day otherwise you risk injuring the horse. but a dragonborn or warforged shouldent pose any problem.
mind you im assuming its going to be a large built for battle horse 1300 pounds. a race horse may hurt himself because they are not bred to carry large loads.
a D&D horse follows encumberance rules, witch mean that a D&D horse can only carry 190 pounds, witch is slightly higher then the weight of your avrage american male. (not including equipment) and a warhorse can only carry 210 pounds, witch is ubsurd because warhorses are meant to carry large men and be decked in plate armor and these horses are bred to do this, even the goliath knight would not pose too much of an issue to a warhorse
that said, i think all mounts should level, just they need to have some sort of gold sink to do so (essentially you must pay for him to level, otherwise the cavilier's mount feature is pretty useless)
a real life horse can carry roughly 30% of their body weight without much issue, now if a horse was to carry a 500 pound suited n booted goliath knight in plate, it would need to rest every other day or every 3rd day otherwise you risk injuring the h
I'm sure someone's mentioned how it sucks having Melee focused classes that are more incompetent than several casters when it comes to OA/MBAs. Sure, there's melee training, and that's "something".
But I'm not sure if it's been mentioned that in a game with iconic flying enemies that favor ranged attacks (Dragons, Beholders, Flameskulls), it's really poor design to have Melee focused classes that are even more incapable of a ranged attack. Str or Dex based melee classes generally have to switch out weapons (2 minors) so they are always better off focusing on any grounded opponents first or risk OAs since they can't move. For Con, Int, Wis, or Cha melee classes (and there are some that don't even have Str or Dex as a secondary), it's not even worth doing that. An enemy that can fly 6 squares up and still attack is practically invulnerable to a wholly melee party, and that fact leads to immense difficulty when designing encounters for organized play.
3.x mostly avoided this issue because every melee class was either Str or Dex based and could achieve both a higher number of attacks/round and a statistically higher hit rate due to lower enemy defenses and less need for immense specialization in one weapon type. 3.x also had a more accessible set of what are now called Implements: Wands of Magic Missile, Lightning Bolt, and Burning Hands (and Cure Light Wounds) were practically Standard Adventuring Kit. While every PC was given the ability to heal themselves every encounter, the ability to remain useful at range was significantly lessened to the point where the non-physical melee classes are better off hiding so they aren't a liability, and that doesn't make things very fun for that player.
Since I think most people agree that the Melee Training feats are a bad fix for Melee Classes to gain an MBA, I wouldn't recommend adding an equally weak Ranged Training as a feat (no one would take it).
Red: Help me! Completely Ineffective at Range 6+ Purple: If I have nothing better to do, it's better than running away. Str/Dex Secondary and have to Swap Weapons Black: This is why I had a Grasping Javelin. Str/Dex Primary and have to Swap Weapons Blue: Do I have to? FINE! Some Ranged Powers and/or Str/Dex Primary and don't have to swap Light Blue: This is my boom stick. Ranged Optimal Gold: Get back here, I'm not done Killing you yet. Has RBA Powers.
(I realize these are not the standard definitions, I just wanted to apply a recognizable scale)
Swordmages are weird, because even though they lack decent ranged powers (there's 3 pre Epic), all they have to do is get in range to mark and they can enforce at range. Warlords ... I've seen lazylords with no ranged powers, but there's also builds that use a Bow and all ranged powers, I could probably rate them part-gold as well since they can grant a RBA at-will with Direct the Strike. And then Wizards, technically have a RBA, but I'm not really counting that, they're Gold at range because.
I'm sure someone's mentioned how it sucks having Melee focused classes that are more incompetent than several casters when it comes to OA/MBAs. Sure, there's melee training, and that's "something".But I'm not sure if it's been mentioned that in a ga
Just a quick chime on the races and mounts aspect:
Personally, I think there's plenty of dev space for material along the lines of what we saw in the Dragonborn and Tiefling splatbooks. Since the other race books seem to have taken to the sideline, why not parse that material into the Dragon releases? Or, alternately, go all out on a Races of D&D handbook, on a similar vein with the Class Compendium.
As for mounts and mounted combat, the current system is far from what they should be; others have already stated the silliness involved in relegating an effective feature to a single subclass (as well as the churlishness involved in underhanded errata). We want mounts, it's that simple. So go back to the boards and start working on options that are just as epic and awesome as the Cavalier's inalienable steed.
Let's see a fully mounted campaign, with functional material and clarified rulings. Let's have that massive, epic battle setting or adventure string where you start with horses and mules and ponies and end with massive fights on the wings of a leviathan-sized beast (Storm the Zaratan! Invaded the Tarrasque City! What's that, a Dracolich Citadel?). Seriously, you have a game that lends itself to the more memorable qualities of science fiction, fantasy, and pulp; why not indulge a little?
Oh, and one last thing:
You have here an active, vocal, and passionate customer base. Learn to use it properly.
This thread, for example, is a good start.
Just a quick chime on the races and mounts aspect:Personally, I think there's plenty of dev space for material along the lines of what we saw in the Dragonborn and Tiefling splatbooks. Since the other race books seem to have taken to the sideline, w
Most of the Essentials classes actually manage this fairly well. The Warpriest is the exception who has a bit of difficulty. The Sentinel does too if you don't build him with an o-Druid at-will. The Blackguard does if you go that CHA route. The Executioner is fine if you chose the ranged version, a little more difficult if you chose melee, but even then he can quick swap for a hand crossbow, or use a dagger. I'm pretty sure I missed some classes, too.
BlackguardCavalierExecutionerHexbladeHunterMageScoutSentinelSlayerThiefWarpriestMost of the Essentials classes actually manage this fairly well. The Warpriest is the exception who has a bit of difficulty. The Sentinel does too if you don't build hi
and not EVERY combo is available (for example, Dragonmarks and their shenanigans are right out).
Granted, this one is probably strictly because Dragonmarks are very, very much Eberron-specific in flavor, so much so that they'd be impossible to reconcile with the (L)FR setting.
Actually I have to disagree: "You have a magic tatoo" - done.
The background fluff of Dragonmarks is very much Eberron-specific, the concept of a magic tatoo is pretty generic.
Granted, this one is probably strictly because Dragonmarks are very, very much Eberron-specific in flavor, so much so that they'd be impossible to reconcile with the (L)FR setting.[/quote]Actually I have to disagree: "You have a magic tatoo" - done.T
and not EVERY combo is available (for example, Dragonmarks and their shenanigans are right out).
Granted, this one is probably strictly because Dragonmarks are very, very much Eberron-specific in flavor, so much so that they'd be impossible to reconcile with the (L)FR setting.
Actually I have to disagree: "You have a magic tatoo" - done.
The background fluff of Dragonmarks is very much Eberron-specific, the concept of a magic tatoo is pretty generic.
It would probably be better to leave it as a "magic birthmark". Its slightly different design space than a tatoo.
Granted, this one is probably strictly because Dragonmarks are very, very much Eberron-specific in flavor, so much so that they'd be impossible to reconcile with the (L)FR setting.[/quote]Actually I have to disagree: "You have a magic tatoo" - done.T
actually, having something very much like call celestial steed is necessary for mounted combat to be at all functional. If your mount doesn't scale with your character, and if you cant get it back when it dies, then it simply doesn't work.
Mounts are the only equipment in 4e that is easily destroyed by enemies. It's the only equipment that gets damaged or dead when you get caught in blasts. There's a reason why the designers basically took sundering out of the game when 4e roled around, and that's that sundering is anti-fun.
So you make a bunch of feats to make mounted combat more cool, and release some cooler mounts. If the mounts don't scale, then they automatically become useless in a few levels, and I can't even pay to have them augmented like I can with a magic sword if I feel attached to it.
Even if it does scale, it still will die on occasion, and when it does any investment I put into it is completely down the toilet until I can replace it. feats, items, etc. The more I focus on mounted combat, the more I've given myself an easily exploitable achille's heel.
So yeah, re-summonable steeds, or change the rules for mounted combat such that mounts can't be attacked & don't take damage. Treat the mount and the rider as a single creature for the purpose of all attacks, with all damage going to the rider. If the rider is brought to zero hit points, the attacker can choose for both the rider and the steed to be dead, or for one to be dead and the other merely unconcious, etc.
actually, having something very much like call celestial steed is necessary for mounted combat to be at all functional. If your mount doesn't scale with your character, and if you cant get it back when it dies, then it simply doesn't work.Mounts are
a D&D horse follows encumberance rules, witch mean that a D&D horse can only carry 190 pounds, witch is slightly higher then the weight of your avrage american male. (not including equipment) and a warhorse can only carry 210 pounds
Again, according to the compendium.
Horse can cary 237, and warhorse 262.
And according to google, a real horse can carry 240.
So it's accurate.
However, in the land of magic, you can easily add "goliath horse" that can carry 300.
Again, according to the compendium.Horse can cary 237, and warhorse 262.And according to google, a real horse can carry 240.So it's accurate. However, in the land of magic, you can easily add "goliath horse" that can carry 300.
@ malisteen: I agree. Versimilitude is fine--to a point. At the end of the day, however, it is a game, and I would expect fun and functionality to be the guiding watchwords.
Along those lines: a Nightmare Steed for Blackguards. Still waiting.
The treat as a single creature idea is interesting, by the way. It might serve especially well in full-on mounted campaigns (or encounters).
@Nausicaa: Aurochs. Or Yaks. Or, alternately, giant battle rams. Regardless, stinky cheese for goodness is canonically involved.
@ malisteen: I agree. Versimilitude is fine--to a point. At the end of the day, however, it is a game, and I would expect fun and functionality to be the guiding watchwords. Along those lines: a Nightmare Steed for Blackguards. Still waiting. T
190 lbs for normal horses, and 210 for warhorses? I feel sorry for all the horses my fat ass has ridden, then. Or were you referring to the doubled scores?
Horse is 237, Warhorse is 262. (Quadrapeds do get a bonus, i think 50%).
a D&D horse follows encumberance rules, witch mean that a D&D horse can only carry 190 pounds, witch is slightly higher then the weight of your avrage american male. (not including equipment) and a warhorse can only carry 210 pounds
Again, according to the compendium.
Horse can cary 237, and warhorse 262.
And according to google, a real horse can carry 240.
So it's accurate.
However, in the land of magic, you can easily add "goliath horse" that can carry 300.
Ah, see, I was just going off their monster block strength scores and extrapolating from the rules for characters. I hadn't seen that line.
Horse is 237, Warhorse is 262. (Quadrapeds do get a bonus, i think 50%).Real world suggest 240. Though the real answer, is to ride a dwarf. [/quote]Again, according to the compendium.Horse can cary 237, and warhorse 262.And according to google, a re
There are real riding horses capable of carrying up to 300 lbs and probably more. I know, because I've ridden them.
Granted, it's just a trail you ride on fairly slowly because we weren't great riders, and you have to call the ranches ahead of time and ask (some don't allow people heavier than 250 on their horses), but they do exist.
With the saddles and gear plus my body weight, the horse was carrying at least 300 (I weighed about 280 at the time if you're curious).
I'm pretty sure that workhorses could carry more (they're bred for strength and stamina and not necessarily speed).
There are real riding horses capable of carrying up to 300 lbs and probably more. I know, because I've ridden them.Granted, it's just a trail you ride on fairly slowly because we weren't great riders, and you have to call the ranches ahead of time a
Please... A discussion of Mounts belongs in a different thread, possibly a different forum but as it happens there is a thread in this forum discussing mounts, and a possible alt feat tree for their acquisition (which is a good idea, and warrants discussion, just not here).
Please... A discussion of Mounts belongs in a different thread, possibly a different forum but as it happens there is a thread in this forum discussing mounts, and a possible alt feat tree for their acquisition (which is a good idea, and warrants dis
@ malisteen: I agree. Versimilitude is fine--to a point. At the end of the day, however, it is a game, and I would expect fun and functionality to be the guiding watchwords.
Along those lines: a Nightmare Steed for Blackguards. Still waiting.
The treat as a single creature idea is interesting, by the way. It might serve especially well in full-on mounted campaigns (or encounters).
@Nausicaa: Aurochs. Or Yaks. Or, alternately, giant battle rams. Regardless, stinky cheese for goodness is canonically involved.
That'd be great. but none of those exist as cheap, low level, just for traveling mounts.
That'd be great. but none of those exist as cheap, low level, just for traveling mounts.
Please... A discussion of Mounts belongs in a different thread, possibly a different forum but as it happens there is a thread in this forum discussing mounts, and a possible alt feat tree for their acquisition (which is a good idea, and warrants discussion, just not here).
The point of the mounts conversation is that mounted combat - something cool and iconic that D&D characters should be able to do if they want with minimal fuss - is something that fails in D&D, due largely to the fragility & lack of scaling on the mounts. The cavalier, for the first time in 4e, made mounted combat a workable character gimmick specifically because it bypassed that problem. The bitterness over that option being retroactively restricted back to only the cavalier should tell the designers that there needs to be a non-class restricted way to access the same quality of mount.
so, as on topic as it gets the following go on the 'what works' and 'what fails' lists:
What Works: cavalier's mount
What Fails: mounts as non-scaling, killable equipment
The point of the mounts conversation is that mounted combat - something cool and iconic that D&D characters should be able to do if they want with minimal fuss - is something that fails in D&D, due largely to the fragility & lack of scaling on the mo
Please... A discussion of Mounts belongs in a different thread, possibly a different forum but as it happens there is a thread in this forum discussing mounts, and a possible alt feat tree for their acquisition (which is a good idea, and warrants discussion, just not here).
Let's not forget, this actually going to be gone through and analyzed by the people who make the game. Don't make them regret that decision.
What can forum posters do to make those people "regret" reading this thread? Mount combat isn't up to snuff (i.e. It fails).
Edit: Not speaking on Rick Rolls and what not here. People are talking about D&D. What will they regret upon reading conversation about D&D?
+1Let's not forget, this actually going to be gone through and analyzed by the people who make the game. Don't make them regret that decision. [/quote]What can forum posters do to make those people "regret" reading this thread? Mount combat isn't up
What can forum posters do to make those people "regret" reading this thread? Mount combat isn't up to snuff (i.e. It fails).
This is my idea (ie, don't attribute this to Marcotic if you get mad at it ), but the original post asked for what failed and what didn't, in pretty simple terms. While a small amount of discussion is expected on a forum, the developer slogging through 91 pages of gripes and complaints and arguements about the various points being raised would *undoubtedly* start to get a bit tired of them, don't you think? If they're taking the time to read through the whole thread, the least we can do is be civil and keep the thread as cut-and-dried as possible by taking discussions to other threads instead.
On-topic, the single biggest "what doesn't work" point for me is the inconsistency in definitions. Attack vs. Attack Power vs. Attack Roll and MBA vs. May be used as an MBA vs. may be used instead of an MBA are the two most recent examples I've seen while browsing the rules forum, but others have been mentioned in this thread. RAW rulings rely on precise wording, and when the verbage gets confusing or misleading you tend to get confusion and anger at the gaming table.
This is my idea (ie, don't attribute this to Marcotic if you get mad at it ), but the original post asked for what failed and what didn't, in pretty simple terms. While a small amount of discussion is expected on a forum, the developer slogging throu
What can forum posters do to make those people "regret" reading this thread? Mount combat isn't up to snuff (i.e. It fails).
This is my idea (ie, don't attribute this to Marcotic if you get mad at it ), but the original post asked for what failed and what didn't, in pretty simple terms. [...]
Basically what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to marginalize mounted combat fail, but 10+ post on the subject warrants its own thread IMO and shouldn't be in this one. Keep argurments outta here! is what I should have said.
This is my idea (ie, don't attribute this to Marcotic if you get mad at it ), but the original post asked for what failed and what didn't, in pretty simple terms. [...][/quote]Basically what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to marginalize mounted
I think Mounts might suffer the same problem Rituals and Alchemy do. They both bleed gold that normally you'd want to spend on items with bonuses that can't ever be taken away from you. Inherent Bonuses is probably a good step in the right direction, there, in making these objects more reasonable to buy.
I think Mounts might suffer the same problem Rituals and Alchemy do. They both bleed gold that normally you'd want to spend on items with bonuses that can't ever be taken away from you. Inherent Bonuses is probably a good step in the right direction,
To be honest, I think we achieved critical mass with Herid_Fei's summary awhile back. . Short of linking to the follow-up threads in the initial post, it may be about time to close up shop with this one.
To be honest, I think we achieved critical mass with Herid_Fei's summary awhile back. ;). Short of linking to the follow-up threads in the initial post, it may be about time to close up shop with this one.
Three and a half weeks and 900+ posts later, things are finally slowing down. You guys are amazing. Now we need to hire an intern to sift through all of this raw data and collate it into a meaningful presentation.
Steve
Three and a half weeks and 900+ posts later, things are finally slowing down. You guys are amazing. Now we need to hire an intern to sift through all of this raw data and collate it into a meaningful presentation.Steve
There's some points worth looking at still floating around in there - controllers in general having a lack of standards, binders in particular being terrible, leaders in general working wel, mounted combat not working well due to the specific issue of mounts existing as killable, non-scaling equipmnet and call celestial steed providing an example of mounts that work and thus make mounted combat work (hence the annoyance when access to them was removed to other paladins / multiclasses) - and that's just conversations I've been involved with directly.
So it still seems like an intern or two sifting through (more then one set of eyes & judgments would be useful) would be worthwhile, although yeah Herid's summary is a fantastic start.
There's some points worth looking at still floating around in there - controllers in general having a lack of standards, binders in particular being terrible, leaders in general working wel, mounted combat not working well due to the specific issue o
Three and a half weeks and 900+ posts later, things are finally slowing down. You guys are amazing. Now we need to hire an intern to sift through all of this raw data and collate it into a meaningful presentation.
I know I'm just sharing my own personal pipe dream, but it seems as though some classes (Fighter, Wizard) get support every month when other classes (Sorc is the one that strikes close to my heart) haven't gotten anything in months. Even worse - in those months they've actually taken a step back due to rules updates.
So what doesn't work? There's a lack of support for many classes that are in desperate need of it. Can those classes please get some more material?
I know I'm just sharing my own personal pipe dream, but it seems as though some classes (Fighter, Wizard) get support every month when other classes (Sorc is the one that strikes close to my heart) haven't gotten anything in months. Even worse - in t
1)Daily powers that actually feel worthy: Stand the Fallen, Wrath of Battle, etc. There are plenty of them that you feel as though you made a big shift in the encounter to your favor which is both statisfying and well designed.
2)Adjustable racial stats: even though there is a lot of repeating with some combos it is nice not to be hogtied to certain races because you want to play a certain class and vice versa.
3)Hybrids, while not perfect, drastically increased the amount of possible character combinations. They also hardly ever lead to an overall 'verticle' power increase. Most of the time they allow for more of a 'horizontal' power increse allowing you to cover more needs of a party at a slightly less efficient rate.
4)Non standard/move action power availibility. Going back to PHB1 it was very hard to find any of these at all unless you looked at utilities and even then it was quite rare. Now it seems as though most characters have options to choose plenty of attack or utility powers that are IA's, OA's or minors. Utilizing these powers properly was always key from a CO POV and its nice to see a lot of variety with them now.
5)ED with stat boosts. Goes a long way to alleviate some of the math problems. From a mechanics POV every single ED with a stat boost at 21 is superior to any other ED with maybe 2 exceptions that I can think of. They are good, people like stat boosts, and you can tell just from looking at guide books on this forums with how they are rated.
6)PP with AP features that are additive to the standard action, not a replacement. Can not stress this enough. People love doing AP's for extra actions almost in conensus.
7)Wizards and Invokers as controllers. Psions are not far behind but Wiz and Invokers seem to perfectly embrace the controller roles. There are good amount of options so not every Wiz and Inv is the same thing and yet they can still offer a good controller feel to the party. Learn what you did right with their powers and try to build on that. Controller lovers beg you.
8)PHB1 classes in general. All of them have sizable and ample support to be welcomed additions to any group. I have never heard a group complain when they hear someone wants to play a class from PHB1. I can't say the same about any other book.
What works: 1)Daily powers that actually feel worthy: Stand the Fallen, Wrath of Battle, etc. There are plenty of them that you feel as though you made a big shift in the encounter to your favor which is both statisfying and well designed.2)Adjustab
Three and a half weeks and 900+ posts later, things are finally slowing down. You guys are amazing. Now we need to hire an intern to sift through all of this raw data and collate it into a meaningful presentation.
In light of the recent L&L article, I'd just like to take the time to say again:
What Works: Leaders. Leaders in 4e provide an extremely wide range of character concepts and play styles while all delivering on their party role and contributing satisfactorily to the game. Some could use more options - strclerics, runepriests, artificers inparticular - but as it is there are no bad leaders, despite the fact that leader classes display far more variety than any of the other roles. Maximum playstyle variety with minimal power differences between the top end and the bottom end.
Leaders in 4e work, and it would be great if classes from the other roles worked more like them, with more gameplay and styalistic differences between classes, but smaller gaps between classes in terms of the power they bring to the table.
In light of the recent L&L article, I'd just like to take the time to say again:What Works: Leaders. Leaders in 4e provide an extremely wide range of character concepts and play styles while all delivering on their party role and contributing satisf
I agree with Mr. Malisteen. I can't think of a leader that would get put on the "Bad" list. There's the Runepriest and Strength Clerics with their low options, and Artificers with low feats, but overall each class can be played well and people can have fun playing them.
I agree with Mr. Malisteen. I can't think of a leader that would get put on the "Bad" list. There's the Runepriest and Strength Clerics with their low options, and Artificers with low feats, but overall each class can be played well and people can ha
I agree with Mr. Malisteen. I can't think of a leader that would get put on the "Bad" list. There's the Runepriest and Strength Clerics with their low options, and Artificers with low feats, but overall each class can be played well and people can have fun playing them.
Sentinal. Sentinals are the suck as a leader class. Slapping a "Healing Word" on a striker does not a leader make. Warpriest comes in right ahead but gets a pass from access to all the cleric goodness.
Sentinal. Sentinals are the suck as a leader class. Slapping a "Healing Word" on a striker does not a leader make. Warpriest comes in right ahead but gets a pass from access to all the cleric goodness.
Sentinal is on the bad list, for two primary reasons:
First, its encounter power. Even ignoring the fact that it only gets one repeated encounter power, which is an inexcusable design failure in and of itself as the ability to respond to a variety of situations is essential to its role, the one power that the Sentinal gets is a significantly sub-par power. Yes, it superficially reads like equivalent leader powers from other classes, but giving your beast an attack just isn't going to match up to granting the striker an attack unless your beast is equivalent to an optimized striker, which it isn't. (And if it was, they'd instead be overpowered for fully covering two roles.) It should have at the least been an option of your beast or an ally.
Second, its level 16 paragon path feature is entirely a flavor benefit, and worse still, it's a flavor benefit that can be duplicated by an item that is at that point so cheap as to be free. This means that for all intents and purposes, a Sentinal who takes its native paragon path does not receive a level 16 feature.
Sentinal is on the bad list, for two primary reasons:First, its encounter power. Even ignoring the fact that it only gets one repeated encounter power, which is an inexcusable design failure in and of itself as the ability to respond to a variety of
I'm repeating myself from earlier in this thread, but I noticed that what I think is the single biggest long term rules failure didn't make it into the compilation in post 1.
Readied actions can be used to circumvent immedaite actions including most defender punisment for disobeying marks. In every game I've played in there has either been a houserule fixing this or a gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. Any rule that forces groups to make a houserule is a really bad rule and should be fixed.
I'm repeating myself from earlier in this thread, but I noticed that what I think is the single biggest long term rules failure didn't make it into the compilation in post 1.Readied actions can be used to circumvent immedaite actions including most d
I agree with Mr. Malisteen. I can't think of a leader that would get put on the "Bad" list. There's the Runepriest and Strength Clerics with their low options, and Artificers with low feats, but overall each class can be played well and people can have fun playing them.
Sentinal. Sentinals are the suck as a leader class. Slapping a "Healing Word" on a striker does not a leader make. Warpriest comes in right ahead but gets a pass from access to all the cleric goodness.
I've had a lot of fun with mine, and I just hit 11 with her. I know a lot of other people who have enjoyed the class as well. It plays just fine as a leader, at least through the first half of the game, as long as you recognize it's a jack of all trades sort of class.
With that said, combined strike does need some love, and the animal companion attack is fine for heroic tier, but it needs to scale better at higher tiers. Honestly, it would be balanced if combined strike gave the animal 2 attacks at paragon and 3 at epic.
Sentinal. Sentinals are the suck as a leader class. Slapping a "Healing Word" on a striker does not a leader make. Warpriest comes in right ahead but gets a pass from access to all the cleric goodness.[/quote]I've had a lot of fun with mine, and I ju
The point of the mounts conversation is that mounted combat - something cool and iconic that D&D characters should be able to do if they want with minimal fuss - is something that fails in D&D, due largely to the fragility & lack of scaling on the mounts. The cavalier, for the first time in 4e, made mounted combat a workable character gimmick specifically because it bypassed that problem. The bitterness over that option being retroactively restricted back to only the cavalier should tell the designers that there needs to be a non-class restricted way to access the same quality of mount.
so, as on topic as it gets the following go on the 'what works' and 'what fails' lists:
What Works: cavalier's mount
What Fails: mounts as non-scaling, killable equipment
Yeah, this. And speaking of Cavaliers:
What Fails: Righteous Radiance.
Yeah, this. And speaking of Cavaliers:What Fails: Righteous Radiance.
I'm repeating myself from earlier in this thread, but I noticed that what I think is the single biggest long term rules failure didn't make it into the compilation in post 1.
Readied actions can be used to circumvent immedaite actions including most defender punisment for disobeying marks. In every game I've played in there has either been a houserule fixing this or a gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. Any rule that forces groups to make a houserule is a really bad rule and should be fixed.
If you think that's bad, read the rules for LoS, LoE, Cover, Concealment, and Obscuring. By the rules, you have no LoE to (or from) anything when in a 5' space between pillars because it's impossible to draw lines that don't touch blocking terrain from any of your corners because all of your corners are touching the pillars.
If you think that's bad, read the rules for LoS, LoE, Cover, Concealment, and Obscuring. By the rules, you have no LoE to (or from) anything when in a 5' space between pillars because it's impossible to draw lines that don't touch blocking terrain f
I'm repeating myself from earlier in this thread, but I noticed that what I think is the single biggest long term rules failure didn't make it into the compilation in post 1.
Readied actions can be used to circumvent immedaite actions including most defender punisment for disobeying marks. In every game I've played in there has either been a houserule fixing this or a gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. Any rule that forces groups to make a houserule is a really bad rule and should be fixed.
If you think that's bad, read the rules for LoS, LoE, Cover, Concealment, and Obscuring. By the rules, you have no LoE to (or from) anything when in a 5' space between pillars because it's impossible to draw lines that don't touch blocking terrain from any of your corners because all of your corners are touching the pillars.
Not to mention that if you follow the directions for determining cover, you end up hidden behind yourself. The corner-to-corner thing just doesn't work.
If you think that's bad, read the rules for LoS, LoE, Cover, Concealment, and Obscuring. By the rules, you have no LoE to (or from) anything when in a 5' space between pillars because it's impossible to draw lines that don't touch blocking terrain f
Please add "Gaze into Nothing" (Star pact hexblade encounter 7) to the list of powers with Dazing Rebuke Syndrome. This one is particularly bad because star pact hexblades are stuck with the power and it is completely worthless.
Please add "Gaze into Nothing" (Star pact hexblade encounter 7) to the list of powers with Dazing Rebuke Syndrome. This one is particularly bad because star pact hexblades are stuck with the power and it is completely worthless.
Kobolds PC's are cripples. They need Darkvision like all their NPC bretheren.
Actually, expanding that: Darkvision is severely overcosted for its practical value in play. It should be something you pay a background for or get as a bonus L11 feature on a paragon path, not cost a feat or several real racial features to get.
Actually, expanding that: Darkvision is severely overcosted for its practical value in play. It should be something you pay a background for or get as a bonus L11 feature on a paragon path, not cost a feat or several real racial features to get.
I don't remember this issue being brought up yet, but we're nearing a thousand posts, so I may have just missed it...
I don't think the way minions interact with automatic damage is quite right. I know that minions, by definition, should be easy to kill, but what we have right now in the game is, well, overkill. There are too many zones, stances, auras and whatnot which work as sources of continuous damage, are quite effective against standard monsters, and just happen to annihilate any minion in sight as an afterthought.
To be clear, I'm fine with area attacks, multiattacks, and definitely stuff like cleave being great at slaughtering minions. But when all minions in an encounter can suddenly be negated just because someone popped a daily (or chose the monk class), I'm a bit more worried. For many of these powers, the number of minions in a fight isn't much of a factor, either - even if you double or triple them, they all get killed without effort all the same.
Recent monster design where most minions have a death trigger manages to mitigate, but not completely solve, this problem. What I'd really like to see is minion killing requiring actual attack rolls. Something like:
Minion Resilience: Whenever a minion takes damage from a source other than a hitting attack, make a saving throw. If it saves, the damage is negated, and the minion is knocked prone.
This would have the (very) unfortunate side effect of neutering Magic Missile, but otherwise I think it could work.
I've seen other approaches to this issue around there, like giving minions small amounts of damage resistance, or having "elite minions" that can take multiple hits. I don't particularly like those, but they are also options to consider.
I don't remember this issue being brought up yet, but we're nearing a thousand posts, so I may have just missed it...I don't think the way minions interact with automatic damage is quite right. I know that minions, by definition, should be easy to ki
That's wholly intentional, and one of the few areas where the Monk genuinely excels.
I do agree that if the system were to be reworked with tighter math scaling, having minions gain HP at a slow rate (like, say, 1+1/2 level) and scaling "effect" damage powers so that they wouldn't meet it without some sort of role so as to make things less certain would be neat. But then, I think in an improved system having the importance of your damage mods exceed your damage dice should be a gimmick of specific character classes, not the norm.
That's wholly intentional, and one of the few areas where the Monk genuinely excels.I do agree that if the system were to be reworked with tighter math scaling, having minions gain HP at a slow rate (like, say, 1+1/2 level) and scaling "effect" damag
Not to mention that if you follow the directions for determining cover, you end up hidden behind yourself. The corner-to-corner thing just doesn't work.
True, but it has massive benefits of simplicity and clarity over the "DM estimates degree of cover" idea, and it almost succeeds.
Change LoS/LoE to something like " a Line of XXX goes from anywhere in your space to anywhere in the target's space, and is valid if it does not touch or pass through things that block a line of XXX anywhere; the obvious places to check are at the corners of a creature's space, since they are the extremities most likely to be in view, but remember that moving slightly away from a corner may avoid touching a blocking feature that the creature is adjacent to". Change cover to allow for the fact that spaces are three dimensional (i.e. they have eight corners, not four), and Superior Cover should happen more frequently (for example, any creature stood beside a corner currently cannot get superior cover; if a target has cover and the centre of the target's space has no LoE to the attacker, the target should have Superior Cover, perhaps). Finally, consider making allies of the target a specific exception to a "creatures do not give cover" rule (or just have all creatures give cover, but not concealment - see below).
Also - make clear whether cover should normally give concealment as well; i.e. should cover provide concealment as long as the object giving cover is not transparent or a creature? If so, could stealth work off concealment only, removing the cludginess of "allies give cover but not for the purposes of stealth"?
True, but it has massive benefits of simplicity and clarity over the "DM estimates degree of cover" idea, and it almost succeeds.Change LoS/LoE to something like " a Line of XXX goes from anywhere in your space to anywhere in the target's space, and
we need to hire an intern to sift through all of this raw data and collate it into a meaningful presentation.
I've compiled all the suggestions related to DMs up to this point in my blog here. Timmeh is working on a similar list on player issues in his blog here. Also, the initial post has a decent recap of many of the issues.
I've compiled all the suggestions related to DMs up to this point in my blog here. Timmeh is working on a similar list on player issues in his blog here. Also, the initial post has a decent recap of many of the issues.
This thread is pretty massive, so I don't know if this will get seen or lost amongst the wash, but here we go.
Damage Feats
Damage Feats are some of the most critical elements of the overall system - most characters will choose options to increase their damage if available to do so. Damage Feats are quite popular overall, but their basic design structure varies wildly.
What I beleive should be done is the various damage feats need to utilize Weapon(implement) Focus as the basic standard of what a feat should be able to do. If a feat simply does not remotely compete with weapon focus, then it should be reviewed for an update.
There are some feats which compete directly with WF (due to feat bonus) which should receive potentially extra scrutiny. I am sure Atthere are some that I am missing, but this should give a good start point for discussion.
Backstabber At Heroic grants +2 once per turn (4 on a crit), then 3(6) and 5(10) during later tiers. Competitive with WF, scales just fine. I don't see anything wrong with BS other then it should probably just be a class feature - every rogue wants this feat - when every member of a class takes a feat, that should not be a feat, it should be a class feature.
Lethal Hunter At Heroic grants +1 once per round (2 on crit), then 2(4) and 3(6) for later tiers. Terrible feat. Given the limitations on quarry, weapon focus is far and away a better choice. While it does stack with WF, the fact that it gives out 5 damage over a 5 round fight (+ scaling) is really insufficient. Just make if a class feature and be done with it. Make SA, HQ and Warlock's curse all d8 damage and move one.
Painful Oath At Paragon +Wis Necro/Radiant once per turn. Likely 6 or 7 damage, becomes 8/9/10 in Epic. Massively better then weapon focus, so good every Avenger takes it since Avenger's rarely make more then one attack per round. Avenger's need the damage, but shouldn't cost a feat for what shoul be a class feature. Make this a class feature and move on.
Dual Implment Caster Deals +enhancement bonus as damage for all arcane attacks, the damage is fine, but the stat requirements are not. This is a definite upgrade for all Arcane damage dealers, but the opportunity cost is different. Strength sorcerer's have to increase an off stat to get this feat, Dex Sorcerer's do not. Warlock's and Wizards are also affected differently based on their primary/secondary build. Requiring two stats to be 13 should be explored. Not sure which two, I think this feat was written for Warlock's but it the Sorcerers who use it the most. 13 Str and then 13 Dex or Int would be fine with me.
Righteous Rage of Tempus The other must have feat for every Avenger or battle cleric. At mid heroic this feat is worth 15-20 damage once per combat, compared to WF +1 per hit. At mid Paragon it is worth 40-45 damage versus WF 2 per hit, and at Mid Epic it is worth 65-70 damage versus WF 3 per hit. Yes all that damage is lost if the attack misses, but an Avenger will make between 4 and 6 attacks in a combat, this feat way overshadows WF. Making Painful Oath a class feature should help to ease the pain of RR getting nerfed (again!).
Silvery Glow Deals +2/+3/+4 damage with Frost/Radiant attacks, replaces both WF an IF. Great for weapliment users, combos with two dominant elemental themes. This is the feat that other elemental feats should compete with - if they are not as good as Silvery Glow, they should be buffed. It does require the Sehanine restriction which is a minor restriction, but does eliminate comboing with things like RRoT - such restrictions are a good design element going forward.
Knife in the Dark Deals +4/+5/+6 damage to foes within Cloud of Darkness - replaces WF or IF. A very interesting choice in Heroic - two successful hits with KitD versus 8 hits with WF. The feat scales poorly - given its limiting nature it should scale then WF/IF in order to maintain meaningful choice. At Epic those same two hits does 12 damage, versus four WF/IF attacks - the feat is no longer competitive. Should scale either 4/7/10 or perhaps 4/8/12.
Tempest Magic Deals +1/+2/+3 damage, replaces IF, deals double when bloodied. Clearly better then IF if your theme is Thunder/Lightning, this is another good example of what the elemental feats should do.
Devastating Critical At paragon deals 1d10 damage on a crit. This is nearly the epitome of what needs to change. This feat is terrible. Daggermaster's and Avenger's are the clear designer's for this feat, and it is terrible for them. Let's say a daggermaster hits 75% of the time with a 15% chance to crit. So out of 20 attacks, he hits 15 times and deals +30 damage for WF. The three times that he crits, he instead deals +16.5 damage, and that damage is more likely to be wasted since the creature may be dead from the other maximized damage. A terrible feat - the avenger numbers are even worse, and for normal PC's this feat is every bit a trap.
Making this a Heroic feat that is +1d12 per tier is still a bad feat for most PC's, but at least the daggermaster gets more use out of it then WF (39 vs 30 over 15 attacks).
Rogue Weapon Mastery This is the only feat that I know of that is even worse then Devastating Critical. Also for the daggermaster, but a High Crit dagger does +5 damage on a crit at Paragon, +7.5 at Epic. Same 15 attacks for the daggermaster, WF generates 30 damage, RWM generates 15. Ridicuously terrible for a feat that should give actual utility to the dagger specialist. Keep the high crit property, but have it increase the damage die of dagger's one size so they become d6. Now it is at minimum on part with WF (30 versus 30 if all attacks wer 1W - any 2W attacks in those 15 attacks give the edge to the RWM).
Well those are all the ones that I regularly deal with, if I see more I will post them.
This thread is pretty massive, so I don't know if this will get seen or lost amongst the wash, but here we go. Damage FeatsDamage Feats are some of the most critical elements of the overall system - most characters will choose options to increase the
Outline the precise differences between an Attack and an Attack Power - provide examples using Rain of Steel and Twin Strike.
Immediate Actions - clean up their trigger usage into two precise camps - Interupts and Reactions. Provide examples with combat challenge, disruptive strike, and an arcane interupt.
Damage while moving - add an addendium that forced movement can only trigger a given damage effect 1/turn.
DefinitionsPlease give us a better definitions page. Outline the precise differences between an Attack and an Attack Power - provide examples using Rain of Steel and Twin Strike.Immediate Actions - clean up their trigger usage into two precise camps
The current magic item system is a patchwork quilt of confusion. It is an absolute disaster - easily the weakest part of the entire system and the one most in need of a total overhaul.
Deal with Item based damage bonuses - add a property to all arm items of +1/+2/+3 item bonus to damage and remove the various Bracers from the game.
Have an intern generate a list of common an rare items for review. Review the list and implement an actual listing of common an uncommon items. The list needs to make sense from both a mechanical and world building point of view.
Add an addendium to the wealth guidelines that PC's are expected to have L/2 commons, L/2 uncommons, an 1 per Tier Rare Items. Most of the ridiculous item combos disappear when a level 16 character can only have 8 uncommon items.
Magic ItemsThe current magic item system is a patchwork quilt of confusion. It is an absolute disaster - easily the weakest part of the entire system and the one most in need of a total overhaul. Deal with Item based damage bonuses - add a propert
Kobolds PC's are cripples. They need Darkvision like all their NPC bretheren.
Actually, expanding that: Darkvision is severely overcosted for its practical value in play. It should be something you pay a background for or get as a bonus L11 feature on a paragon path, not cost a feat or several real racial features to get.
I have to agree here. As a rule, enemies that you encounter in dark places have darkvision anyways, so an all darkvision party gains very little as a heroic party (as opposed to a villainous party, which could make better use of tactics like ambushing people in the dark).
On the subject of OA/Imm on your turn, I think most of the abuses go away if you count a readied action as being part of the turn of the person who readied the action for the purpose of allowing/disallowing OA/Imm. That way you can't ready to avoid mark punishment, but you still can't, say, use Reposte Strike or White Lotus Master Reposte to counterattack someone taking an OA against your movement on your own turn. In other words, it keeps the tactical limitation that is intended (that responses on your turn can creep into the opening created by you being too busy doing something proactive to also respond) without the abuse that I feel is unintended (that anyone can just ready to negate most defenders, and a variety of monster powers). Add to that something like 'any penalty or limitation that ends at the end of your turn, such as a (save ends) effects that you save against at the end of your turn, applies to any readied action', to put an end to shinanegans like readying to charge when you aren't immobilized/blinded and so forth.
Actually, expanding that: Darkvision is severely overcosted for its practical value in play. It should be something you pay a background for or get as a bonus L11 feature on a paragon path, not cost a feat or several real racial features to get.[/quo
There are some feats which compete directly with WF (due to feat bonus) which should receive potentially extra scrutiny. I am sure Atthere are some that I am missing, but this should give a good start point for discussion.
QFT. WF/IF exist, having feats that give out the same WF/IF bonus situationally is just a waste of good design space.
Backstabber At Heroic grants +2 once per turn (4 on a crit), then 3(6) and 5(10) during later tiers. Competitive with WF, scales just fine. I don't see anything wrong with BS other then it should probably just be a class feature - every rogue wants this feat - when every member of a class takes a feat, that should not be a feat, it should be a class feature.
Lethal Hunter At Heroic grants +1 once per round (2 on crit), then 2(4) and 3(6) for later tiers. Terrible feat. Given the limitations on quarry, weapon focus is far and away a better choice. While it does stack with WF, the fact that it gives out 5 damage over a 5 round fight (+ scaling) is really insufficient. Just make if a class feature and be done with it. Make SA, HQ and Warlock's curse all d8 damage and move one.
Disagree completely. Every Rogue/Ranger wants these feats, but not every ROG/RNG needs these feats to make the class work. Spend a feat, get a benefit. This is what a feat is supposed to do.
Painful Oath At Paragon +Wis Necro/Radiant once per turn. Likely 6 or 7 damage, becomes 8/9/10 in Epic. Massively better then weapon focus, so good every Avenger takes it since Avenger's rarely make more then one attack per round. Avenger's need the damage, but shouldn't cost a feat for what shoul be a class feature. Make this a class feature and move on.
This one, on the other hand, needs to be a class feature. Thats more a comment on the weakness of the Avengers class feature than a condemnation of the feat as written. If Avenger powers scaled at a decent rate to keep OoE at the same value, PO would be the equivalent feat as BS and DH.
Dual Implement Caster Deals +enhancement bonus as damage for all arcane attacks, the damage is fine, but the stat requirements are not. This is a definite upgrade for all Arcane damage dealers, but the opportunity cost is different. Strength sorcerer's have to increase an off stat to get this feat, Dex Sorcerer's do not. Warlock's and Wizards are also affected differently based on their primary/secondary build. Requiring two stats to be 13 should be explored. Not sure which two, I think this feat was written for Warlock's but it the Sorcerers who use it the most. 13 Str and then 13 Dex or Int would be fine with me.
Good feat, drop the prereqs and open it up outside Arcanes. There are other power sources that need to do damage.
Knife in the Dark Deals +4/+5/+6 damage to foes within Cloud of Darkness - replaces WF or IF. A very interesting choice in Heroic - two successful hits with KitD versus 8 hits with WF. The feat scales poorly - given its limiting nature it should scale then WF/IF in order to maintain meaningful choice. At Epic those same two hits does 12 damage, versus four WF/IF attacks - the feat is no longer competitive. Should scale either 4/7/10 or perhaps 4/8/12.
Make it an untyped bonus. Its too situational to compete with Focus any other way.
QFT. WF/IF exist, having feats that give out the same WF/IF bonus situationally is just a waste of good design space. Disagree completely. Every Rogue/Ranger wants these feats, but not every ROG/RNG needs these feats to make the class work. Spend a f
Knife in the Dark Deals +4/+5/+6 damage to foes within Cloud of Darkness - replaces WF or IF. A very interesting choice in Heroic - two successful hits with KitD versus 8 hits with WF. The feat scales poorly - given its limiting nature it should scale then WF/IF in order to maintain meaningful choice. At Epic those same two hits does 12 damage, versus four WF/IF attacks - the feat is no longer competitive. Should scale either 4/7/10 or perhaps 4/8/12.
Make it an untyped bonus. Its too situational to compete with Focus any other way.
Regardless it's a very bad feat since you should be focusing fire on enemies and using CoD ontop of enemies makes it harder for your allies to hit them; Even at +10 damage (+7 higher than Focus), -5 for allies to hit your target is not really a worthwhile trade unless you can guarantee killing it.
Make it an untyped bonus. Its too situational to compete with Focus any other way.[/quote]Regardless it's a very bad feat since you should be focusing fire on enemies and using CoD ontop of enemies makes it harder for your allies to hit them; Even at
we need to hire an intern to sift through all of this raw data and collate it into a meaningful presentation.
I've compiled all the suggestions related to DMs up to this point in my blog here. Timmeh is working on a similar list on player issues in his blog here. Also, the initial post has a decent recap of many of the issues.
Yet more evidence that we have an amazing community. Our thanks to Wrecan and Timmeh for compiling, and to KilpatDS for keeping things on track, and everyone who contributed. I've forwarded numerous links to the design and development teams so they know where to find everything.
As before, that doesn't mean you need to end the conversation; it just means, this is one of those "before and after" break points. I'll keep dipping in here to see whether anything major gets added and pass those points on to R&D. I expect that we'll unpin the thread at the end of the week, and let it float for as long as people keep contributing.
Steve
I've compiled all the suggestions related to DMs up to this point in my blog here. Timmeh is working on a similar list on player issues in his blog here. Also, the initial post has a decent recap of many of the issues.[/quote]Yet more evidence tha
On Knife in the Dark, I think removing the Feat Bonus and scaling it 3/4/5 instead of 4/5/6 would be fine - it is a very situational bonus with a built in duration - that is why it needs odd scaling.
On Knife in the Dark, I think removing the Feat Bonus and scaling it 3/4/5 instead of 4/5/6 would be fine - it is a very situational bonus with a built in duration - that is why it needs odd scaling.
One thing I see complained about is "lack of choice" when it comes to Essentials. Another issue that goes way back to earlier editions is the desire to move away from classes. I think we can have the best of both worlds.
What if character can be built by selecting say, any power of the same level. That is, rather than have powers sorted by class, have all powers open and available. (Still by level to keep the balance of 4e.) Character classes could become character packages. (Or builds.) You could build your own character from scratch or, take the fighter package which has powers a,b and c. A cleric package would give you powers d, e, and f. A paladin could get powers a, e and g. (Combining some from fighter, cleric and something for the paladin.
One thing I see complained about is "lack of choice" when it comes to Essentials. Another issue that goes way back to earlier editions is the desire to move away from classes. I think we can have the best of both worlds.What if character can be built
It takes away the ability to distinguish between competencies when everyone can do everything. It's a lot harder to have a toon who's better at this or that when the best of anything is available to anyone. It's also a lot harder to make more esoteric concepts work - ie, pet classes for instance - when everything has to be functional for everyone.
I really think far too much is lost when you take classes out of the equation and instead just let any character pick any power.
It takes away the ability to distinguish between competencies when everyone can do everything. It's a lot harder to have a toon who's better at this or that when the best of anything is available to anyone. It's also a lot harder to make more esote
I don't even think it's a good direction for the future. It's been done in plenty of other systems - gurps, besm, etc. My experience is that more is lost then gained in terms of character variety.
I don't even think it's a good direction for the future. It's been done in plenty of other systems - gurps, besm, etc. My experience is that more is lost then gained in terms of character variety.
I think a limited version using 'superclasses' can work, but just opening up the floodgates and letting anyone pick anything would be a problem.
For example, as in 2E, you might have the "Warrior" superclass, which would include the Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Warlord, and Barbarian classes. There are a lot of ways to do it, but basically, you would allow those classes to blur the lines between each other via power/feat selection; however, a fighter would still be unable to pick anything from a wizard or other superclass.
I think a limited version using 'superclasses' can work, but just opening up the floodgates and letting anyone pick anything would be a problem.For example, as in 2E, you might have the "Warrior" superclass, which would include the Fighter, Paladin,
I completely agree, the character classes add a level of distinctiveness to abilities.
If everything is available to everyone, in one way or another, the game will lose a lot of flavour.
Same thing if there is little customization available, based on class, which is why I don't really like Essentials. Almost no choices for powers for most of the classes.
Essentials could easily be replaced with premade characters that are simple to play and mostly equipment independant.
I completely agree, the character classes add a level of distinctiveness to abilities.If everything is available to everyone, in one way or another, the game will lose a lot of flavour.Same thing if there is little customization available, based on c
I've thought about the generic power list idea myself, and as far as I can tell there is only one real advantage to it: it would give less popular classes more support. You wouldn't have to worry about how badly supported the Runepriest is if you can just poach from the cleric's list.
But custom lists offer a lot of advantages. The big one is that you can build their class features right into the class, not only in terms of what the powers do (i.e., wizard powers have more controllery effects) but also in style (invoker powers are more party friendly) and in having unique rules specific for the class (such as the monk's full discipline powers). It's true that you end up with duplication across classes (quickly, what utility power lets you shift your move once per encounter?), but if all the classes were sufficiently supported, it would be a small price to pay.
Also, trying to balance powers is easier if you go by class.
I've thought about the generic power list idea myself, and as far as I can tell there is only one real advantage to it: it would give less popular classes more support. You wouldn't have to worry about how badly supported the Runepriest is if you can
Going classless is not a productive route. Additionally, themes already provide that sort of functionality when there's a mechanic that's not broad enough to be its own class.
Going classless is not a productive route. Additionally, themes already provide that sort of functionality when there's a mechanic that's not broad enough to be its own class.
Going classless will pretty much see most people using the exact same powers and builds. Storm of Blades and Hurricane of Blades come to mind in particular not to mention Twin Strike for almost any strength class. Good in theory I think, bad in practice with the current system.
Going classless will pretty much see most people using the exact same powers and builds. Storm of Blades and Hurricane of Blades come to mind in particular not to mention Twin Strike for almost any strength class. Good in theory I think, bad in pra
Very minor issue here, but there seems to have been a design shift when it came to defenses against Opportunity Attacks. In the PHB 1, all defensive bonuses (Halfling's Nimble Reaction, Artful Dodger Rogue, Defensive Mobility feat) only provided a bonus to AC against opportunity attacks, while once the PHB3, things like the Ardent's Mantle of Clarifty provide a bonus to all defenses against opportunity attacks. Against monsters with OAs that target defenses other than AC, the PHB 1 content isn't helpful at all. Is everything working as-intended? I suspect it is, since the overwhelming majority of monsters target AC with their opportunity attacks, but it would be nice to hear from the higher-ups (and have better odds at dodging wraiths, I suppose).
And while I'm on the subject, defensive immediate interrupt/reaction abilities (halfling's second chance, wizard's shield) can't help defend against attacks such as OAs that you provoke during your turn.
Very minor issue here, but there seems to have been a design shift when it came to defenses against Opportunity Attacks. In the PHB 1, all defensive bonuses (Halfling's Nimble Reaction, Artful Dodger Rogue, Defensive Mobility feat) only provided a b
Going classless will pretty much see most people using the exact same powers and builds. Storm of Blades and Hurricane of Blades come to mind in particular not to mention Twin Strike for almost any strength class. Good in theory I think, bad in practice with the current system.
This is why everybody plays barbarians right now.
With a classless system, there's still room for people specialize into the different roles, but it'd be a nightmare to set it up correctly.
If it were to be completely redone, I'd be interested to see a system where role = class, and theme = power source. I don't think it's worth wotc's time to look into that. D&D isn't GURPS.
This is why everybody plays barbarians right now. With a classless system, there's still room for people specialize into the different roles, but it'd be a nightmare to set it up correctly. If it were to be completely redone, I'd be interested to see
Right, like I said, its good in theory. They would pretty much have to scrap everything though and build it from the ground up. In the current system of d&d, it just doesn't work or have room. I've seen plenty of games where it does work though, but like you said, its d&d, and its a class based system. I'm personally for classes, but it doesn't mean it can't work if it was built around the concept.
Right, like I said, its good in theory. They would pretty much have to scrap everything though and build it from the ground up. In the current system of d&d, it just doesn't work or have room. I've seen plenty of games where it does work though, b
No, it really isn't good in theory. Classless works in the context of games that have either a much more limited total scope, or a much looser mechanical structure. Trying to build a crunchy RPG system without a relatively rigid character creation structure just gives you a migraine in pseudo-playable form.
No, it really isn't good in theory. Classless works in the context of games that have either a much more limited total scope, or a much looser mechanical structure. Trying to build a crunchy RPG system without a relatively rigid character creation st
Right, and I would never want d&d to be classless. But what you are saying is that its just too hard to put together a game that is classless and balanced. Theory would mean that ideally it could be done if the powers were balanced, and feat selection made more of an impact on specialization(this being with 4th edition rules). I understand that to do it would be a migraine and probably not worth the effort, but theoretically if it were balanced, it would work, just too difficult to do.
Right, and I would never want d&d to be classless. But what you are saying is that its just too hard to put together a game that is classless and balanced. Theory would mean that ideally it could be done if the powers were balanced, and feat select
Note that I didn't say completely classless. I suggested allowing everything open while having class builds. The builds themselves could be absolute, (Fighter class only gets power a,b and C) or allow some customizing. (Fighter class selects three from a, b, c, d, e or f.)
Note that I didn't say completely classless. I suggested allowing everything open while having class builds. The builds themselves could be absolute, (Fighter class only gets power a,b and C) or allow some customizing. (Fighter class selects three fr
Oh other things that need help: Binders Sorcerers (change some of the arcane feats and paragon paths, to be INT or CHA and any arcane instead of wizard, that would go along way)
Oh other things that need help:BindersSorcerers (change some of the arcane feats and paragon paths, to be INT or CHA and any arcane instead of wizard, that would go along way)
Oh other things that need help: ... Sorcerers (change some of the arcane feats and paragon paths, to be INT or CHA and any arcane instead of wizard, that would go along way)
Agreed! I don't get why there is so much more support for wizards and warlocks over sorcerers when they're just as popular. Sorcerers need support because they tend to use different elements, and finding a worthwhile power at each level that uses your chosen element is a pain (unless you're a storm sorcerer).
Agreed! I don't get why there is so much more support for wizards and warlocks over sorcerers when they're just as popular. Sorcerers need support because they tend to use different elements, and finding a worthwhile power at each level that uses you
To bring up a minor issue: Ravenous Blessing - This feat triggers on targetting an ally with a healing power and allows you to take damage to heal one ally affected by the triggering power. The problems: a) The feat doesn't work with a large swath of healing powers because it requires you to target an ally. For example, if you have a power that allows you to attack an enemy and let an ally spend a healing surge, the ally is not targetted so it doesn't work. Unless you swing at your ally that is. b) The feat does work with Astral Seal, allowing you to at-will spend HP to heal an ally. I.e. if you have regeneration (perhaps only while bloodied.. longtooth shifter comes to mind) you can shoot your ally with Astral Seal to heal it, then regenerate to get the HP back. Since the feat says the target regains HP (not 'regains additional HP' or something like that), there doesn't need to be any initial healing involved, the power just has to have the Healing keyword.
The feat should simply either be changed to work when you restore HP to an ally (leaving the damage as the sole restricting factor) or changed to match most current healing buff, so that it works only when you allow an ally to spend a healing surge.
To bring up a minor issue:Ravenous Blessing - This feat triggers on targetting an ally with a healing power and allows you to take damage to heal one ally affected by the triggering power. The problems:a) The feat doesn't work with a large swath of h
I could see changing it to the healing standard of "When one of your powers allows an ally to spend a healing surge, blah blah blah", but that gets rid of it's use with astral seal ... (oh well)
The feat is between purple and blue depending on your build, I find it interesting that you mentioned it specifically as something that needs fixing, when almost the entire list of Spellscarred powers and feats fails. There's pretty much no reason to ever take the multiclass feat (whose benefits are terrible, at least give it a skill training!) much less power swap. In my guide, I had to rate powers based on "You've decided to power swap for spellscarred powers already" just to make it so everything wasn't Red/Purple/Black (Spending 1 feat for nothing +1 feat per power to lose one of your own powers and gain an equal or worse power? bad design)
I could see changing it to the healing standard of "When one of your powers allows an ally to spend a healing surge, blah blah blah", but that gets rid of it's use with astral seal ... (oh well)The feat is between purple and blue depending on your bu
The feat is between purple and blue depending on your build, I find it interesting that you mentioned it specifically as something that needs fixing, when almost the entire list of Spellscarred powers and feats fails.
I have a character that uses it, which brings it up in value to my mind. Actually, I built the character in the first place specificly for the amusement of abusing Astral Seal healing with it, though at this point I have a gentleman's agreement not to use it outside of actual combat, and thus have only used it twice as an emergency failsafe when things were going very bad. The feat itself I use at pretty much every opportunity, and get great mileage out of it, since my own HP are rarely in any serious threat and adding currently 14 HP per heal is pretty sweet.
I really liked the spellscarred feat article myself, as I think they did a really good job with the flavorful mechanics, making for really distinctive and spell-scar-esque effects, like my shifter oozing necrotic energy out on his foes as he regenerates.
There's pretty much no reason to ever take the multiclass feat (whose benefits are terrible, at least give it a skill training!) much less power swap.
If you have a critical mass of the Dragon magazine spellscarred feats, the MC feat becomes worthwhile to pick up all the riders. For example: I regenerate 8 per turn in paragon, dealing 8 damage to all adjacent enemies. Because I MC'd I deal only 1 damage to adjacent allies instead of 8, changing it from a nuissance/risk to negligible. (And in epic when it's 11+con mod, it will be even bigger savings.) When I heal my allies, they get +2 to saving throws from Ravenous Blessing's rider. I used to have the mark one too, so I'd actually have some kind of mark punishment, but I have at least temporarily retrained out of that one. But I like the idea of 'if you violate my mark to attack my friends, it will give me HP.. which I will use to heal my friends, so it's kind of pointless.'
Though I do think Spellscarred probably could have been done better from day 1 as a theme, had the idea already been out.
I have a character that uses it, which brings it up in value to my mind. Actually, I built the character in the first place specificly for the amusement of abusing Astral Seal healing with it, though at this point I have a gentleman's agreement not t
Something I found while working on a new character.
What Fails: the stat-based prerequisites for the Elemental Feats from PH1. (Burning Blizzard, &c) These stats have nothing to do with how the classes get built ! Instead, maybe a line to the tune of "Preq: Must be an Arcane class". For a more up-to-date version, remove the preq entirely and add "This feat may only be applied to Implement attacks" in the main body.
What would be neat: if each elemental keyword had some sort of shtick. We already have frostcheeze for Cold, the Radiant mafia, and tiefling support for Fire. Thunder and Lightning synergize well with feat support. What could Acid do that nothing else can?
What Fails: Half-elves have a racial feature that we can poach Human or Elven racial feats. Many Elven feats are based on Elven Accuracy, which half-elves can't get. So we actually can't poach Elven racial feats after all. Maybe replace this racial feature with "You may pick one Human or Elven racial power"?
What is annoying: Slings are so bland that nobody wants one, even though every single character in the game is competent in its use (ignoring the 'RBA needs DEX' factor). My Warlock and I have literally had people tell us, "I'm not getting a sling out, I lose damage that way." PS: I saw the sling paragon path in MP2; this is a good step. Maybe a theme built around slingers? (And also the other under-supported weapon classes.)
Something I found while working on a new character.What Fails: the stat-based prerequisites for the Elemental Feats from PH1. (Burning Blizzard, &c) These stats have nothing to do with how the classes get built ! Instead, maybe a line to the tune o
Not to beat on a dead horse, but there's a growing mechanical disconnect between pre-Essentials/Essentials - the recent themes article follows the Essentials format, not the original "Dark Sun" format, for example. And I had such high hopes that both lines would be equally supported after "Heroes of Shadow", too...
And what really irks me is that there was no reason for the Essentials sub-classes to be basically new Classes; would it really have been so difficult to turn Heroic Slayer/Mighty Slayer/etc. into a class feature that replaced Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority, and only applied to basic attacks? Power Strike is an Encounter attack power already; Brutal Axe/Sweeping Sword could easily have been turned into 7th-level Encounter attack powers with the same mechanics (+1[W] on a hit, prone/slide). And Berserker's Charge, Duelist's Assault and Mobile Blade could simply have been straight At-Will attack powers with "Special: This power counts as a melee basic attack". And that's just for the Slayer; I'm sure the same thing could have been done for the Warpriest, the Knight, etc.
By the way, whoever wrote the Warlock section on "Heroes of Shadow" seems to have forgotten to include and At-Will attack power and the Pact Boon for the Gloom Pact.
Not to beat on a dead horse, but there's a growing mechanical disconnect between pre-Essentials/Essentials - the recent themes article follows the Essentials format, not the original "Dark Sun" format, for example. And I had such high hopes that both
The new gimmick, common in essentials, of classes that get a single, unleveled encounter attack power that increases in effect and number of uses in place of multiple encounter powers.
Those powers should have a keyword to allow feats and the like to reference them as a group. maybe 'signature' power, or whatever.
Then you could easily word things like multiclass encounter-attack swapping feats to allow you to either "swap one encounter power of your class for one power of your multiclass of the same level or lower, or instead you may give up one use of your signature power per encounter for one power from your multiclass of that level or lower", etc. Would also let them work better with dark sun themes and other forms of encounter attack swappers.
On the issue of things that needed keywords:The new gimmick, common in essentials, of classes that get a single, unleveled encounter attack power that increases in effect and number of uses in place of multiple encounter powers.Those powers should ha
The new gimmick, common in essentials, of classes that get a single, unleveled encounter attack power that increases in effect and number of uses in place of multiple encounter powers.
Those powers should have a keyword to allow feats and the like to reference them as a group. maybe 'signature' power, or whatever.
Power's like that have exsisted since PHB1 (leader's heals).
No issues came up with them.
Power's like that have exsisted since PHB1 (leader's heals).No issues came up with them.
Yes, but there weren't any feats contingent on trading away or enhancing a 'leader heal' that should apply to all leader heals and not particular ones. On the other hand, multiclassing power swap feats, Dark sun themes, the in-class power swap feats from the recent class compendium article and the like sure would appreciate an easy way to refer to essentials style unleaveled repeat use encounter attack powers, rather then calling them out individually by name.
For instance, we wouldn't need a separate power swap feat each for the knight, the cavalier, the blackguard, the thief, the slayer, the hexblade, and so on, and so forth if we could have just one feat that says "give up one use of your 'signature' encounter attack power, and choose an encounter attack power from your class of your level or lower".
It's not a case of something that 'doesn't work' now exactly, but it is something that with one bit of extra terminology could work a whole lot easier.
Yes, but there weren't any feats contingent on trading away or enhancing a 'leader heal' that should apply to all leader heals and not particular ones. On the other hand, multiclassing power swap feats, Dark sun themes, the in-class power swap feats
I did say "almost" all of it fails. As I mention in my guide, a couple things are frankly amazing, I think of all classes, Paladins get the most from the feats (burst marking, healing abilities, and channel divinity); it's just that overall there's more red in it than any other guide I think.
I did say "almost" all of it fails. As I mention in my guide, a couple things are frankly amazing, I think of all classes, Paladins get the most from the feats (burst marking, healing abilities, and channel divinity); it's just that overall there's
The Shaman's Spirit Companion is godly against Monster Manual 3 and Monster Vault monsters. Why? Because every monster in those books attacks creatures and Spirit Companions are conjurations. Conjurations are, by definition, not creatures.
Obviously, this wasn't the intended effect. I believe it's an example of a major failure in 4e.
I've got a big one:The Shaman's Spirit Companion is godly against Monster Manual 3 and Monster Vault monsters. Why? Because every monster in those books attacks creatures and Spirit Companions are conjurations. Conjurations are, by definition, not cr
The Shaman's Spirit Companion is godly against Monster Manual 3 and Monster Vault monsters. Why? Because every monster in those books attacks creatures and Spirit Companions are conjurations. Conjurations are, by definition, not creatures.
Obviously, this wasn't the intended effect. I believe it's an example of a major failure in 4e.
That's not a real issue since Specific > General, spirit companion text says "The spirit can be targeted by melee or ranged attacks..."
That's not a real issue since Specific > General, spirit companion text says "The spirit can be targeted by melee or ranged attacks..."
One enormous problem is that with an item like Staff of Ruin floating around, most damage-dependant implement classes have to choose to use staves in order to compete damage-wise. Staves also have the best Expertise feat, allowing ranged implement casters to completely ignore OAs, as well as giving handy bonuses for melee combat if you're a character who sometimes requires melee, like the Monk for example. Not only that, but if a character is wielding it two-handed, they can treat it as a quarterstaff, opening them up to great feat support from Staff Fighting and Hafted Defense. All in all, the staff has FAR more support overall than any other implement (and most weapons as well).
A sorcerer or other implement caster should not be weaker than another type simply by virtue of their choice of implement; it completely undermines interesting character concepts. I would propose that other, similar enchantments be made available to other implements, and more feat support be added for such implements. I mean, really, is there any particular reason why there can't be a Dagger of Ruin or a Rod of Ruin? Similarly, is there a reason why Dagger Expertise provides no bonus at all for caster classes?
Also, Warlocks are beginning to lag behind other strikers, because they don't seem to have a clear role in a group. Sorcerers are better AoE strikers, Wizards are better controllers, and pretty much every other striker does better single target damage or has other goodies that make them far more useful. Feats like Mindbite Scorn are definitely a step in the right direction, but why is such a powerful and useful feat only available to a single type of Warlock? This goes right back to the Staff problem again, where in order to be most effective, players are restricted to certain builds.
One enormous problem is that with an item like Staff of Ruin floating around, most damage-dependant implement classes have to choose to use staves in order to compete damage-wise. Staves also have the best Expertise feat, allowing ranged implement ca
A sorcerer or other implement caster should not be weaker than another type simply by virtue of their choice of implement; it completely undermines interesting character concepts. I would propose that other, similar enchantments be made available to other implements, and more feat support be added for such implements. I mean, really, is there any particular reason why there can't be a Dagger of Ruin or a Rod of Ruin? Similarly, is there a reason why Dagger Expertise provides no bonus at all for caster classes?
This is a support issue with a lot of classes. Basically, classes are supposed to be used a certain way, and if you stray too much from the original vision of the author, you're screwed. In the case of sorcerers, there are actually powers that specify you must use a dagger as an implement (Dragon 390, I think). Why this limitation? Why are rogues limited in what weapons they can use with Sneak Attack? The WotC authors are too quick to say 'NO' to a lot of things.
This is a support issue with a lot of classes. Basically, classes are supposed to be used a certain way, and if you stray too much from the original vision of the author, you're screwed. In the case of sorcerers, there are actually powers that specif
I agree with that to a large extent, though I would specify that I am not specifically looking for all implements to be made literally identical in most respects, only equal in power and usefulness. I would have no problem with powers that can only be used with a specific implement, as long as all the powers are balanced and ALL different implement types are represented appropriately. The current dagger-based Sorcerer powers are terrible for many reasons: the damage is low, because they typically deal weapon damage, which for a dagger is d4, or maximum d6 if you take the feat that allows you to use kukris. You have to be in melee range, which for a cloth-wearing, relatively squishy class with few defensive options, is the opposite of what you want. Also, because implement focus, weapon focus, weapon expertise, and implement expertise are all separate feats now (which is also just unnecessary game clutter, if you ask me), you will probably never be able to balance out the different damage types equally.
It's just common sense; if you make a character enter unfavourable situations to use a power, that power should be commensurately more powerful to compensate. That dagger powers are LESS powerful than their more convenient ranged counterparts is baffling.
I agree with that to a large extent, though I would specify that I am not specifically looking for all implements to be made literally identical in most respects, only equal in power and usefulness. I would have no problem with powers that can only b
The dagger powers could have been useful as full weapon powers, because a hybrid sorcerer/swordmage or bard might have found them useful, but such a class would not be using daggers! Again, an unnecessary limitation reduces versatility without any gain in game balance. It's the same mentality that makes the 'save vs immobilization' feat (student of mobility? I'm not certain of the name) have a charisma requirement! WTF?! Stupid requirements for no reason.
The dagger powers could have been useful as full weapon powers, because a hybrid sorcerer/swordmage or bard might have found them useful, but such a class would not be using daggers! Again, an unnecessary limitation reduces versatility without any ga
. Short of linking to the follow-up threads in the initial post, it may be about time to close up shop with this one.
