Reposting, since the original thread was turned into an announcement, preventing people from replying to it....
Hey Folks;
It’s agonizing self-appraisal time in the D&D reeducation camp. Mike Mearls has asked for a list of issues that players see as problems with 4E. No group of people is better equipped to compile that list than all of you.
We’re only interested in the D&D rules right now—what’s broken, what’s underpowered? What change would get you to play an unloved class or race, or to pick a feat or power that no one uses? Whose damage is too low, whose basic attack is rubbish, which secondary effect doesn’t work as written? Let’s collect them all here, where they’ll be easy to find and compile.
Steve
This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it. --Eeyore
I went through and tried to summarize the "What Works" replies
These are in order of popularity
AEDU. A lot of people seemed to like the balance they provide, and the way they help create more interesting martial characters
Themes, Skill Powers. Themes in particular had a huge amount of support. Skill powers had a fair amount of support, but some detractors who didn't like the option bloat.
MM3+ Monster Design. Big hit.
The Errata cycle. A significant number of posters liked that you were continuing to update things, and most urged you to be more willing to update things in the future. I know other forums have large numbers that are tired of the updates, so there may be selection bias here. (I like errata, fwiw)
Interesting martial characters, especially Rangers and Fighters
Hybrids. Everyone said they had issues, but several people liked the basic design.
Tactical Combat that inspires teamwork
Daily powers that mean something. Given the context, I think these could be more accurately taken as gripes about daily powers that are "3[W], no relevant kickers" (or 9[W]. 9[W] isn't usally enough damage). Emergency button dailies (everyone heal a surge and X) or encounter long buff daily powers were both called out for being well done.
The essential mage, Wizards and Invokers as examples of solid useful controllers
The overall balance
DM Prep level
Race and Class feats that really change how bulids can work
Inherent Bonuses
Flavorful Epic Destinies (Thief of Legend and Radiant One were mentioned)
Paragon Path action point features that enhance the extra action, instead of replace it.
These all got mentions, but only one or two mentions, so I'm just listing them
Classes, as a concept. Both AEDU and Essential.
PHB1 classes
Artificers, as a leader done differently and interestingly
Surges
Leaders healing with a minor
Marking
Skills, overall
The learning curve. You can have a simple game, or a complex one.
Static HP and Stats. No randomization during character creation, also ties into balance
The unification of the defense mechanic
Keywords, and the related unification of rules
Figurines of Wondrous Power
Unearthed Arcana
Giving most Epic Destinies stat bufs, as a way of reducing the math slip issues.
Adjustable Racial stats, to make it easier to marry flavor and effectiveness.
The elements below were mentioned several times in "what works", but are also mentioned by several as things that don't.
Half-Elf Dilettante. Another composition issue; allows you to do cool things, and isn't as broken as many claim
Item rarity. A good tool for DMs, just needs implementation (more commons/rares)
Charging. The basic issue seems to be that low-end strikers have problems doing their job. So this package really helps them. If it needs nerfing to avoid "the charger hemogony", then the lower-end strikers really need more support at the same time.
I'd like to add a bit here. The overwhelming amount of feedback is a sign that the game, as a whole, is working quite well. If it didn't work, there simply wouldn't be people who cared. So, IMHO, the collective effort that went into this thread is a sign that the overall game is working very well indeed, even though most of the effort was spent talking about things that didn't work as well.
I tried to go through the thread and summarize the negative points which came up frequently and didn't have any opposition. As such, this is a long post, and I've attempted to sblock it where possible. Here's what I have.
There should be more convenient ways of obtaining melee basic attacks for non-Strength-based melee characters. This is especially true for avengers, battleminds, monks, and swordmages (Power of Skill and Intelligent Blademaster are feat taxes)
We could use a better explanation of the interaction between an attack which does multiple damage types and a creature with multiple vulnerabilities (e.g. if an attack does 10 points of radiant and thunder damage against a creature with vulnerable 5 radiant and vulnerable 10 thunder, how much damage does the creature take?)
Scaling bonuses, such as Barbarian Agility, can break the game when they add onto a game element that doesn't require the bonus to be competitive (With Barbarian Agility, the Whirling Slayer has a much higher AC and Reflex than either of the other two builds). Similarly, powers and items which grant bonuses based on ability scores can be strong at heroic and overwhelming at epic
Initiative can vary widely at higher levels, which allows the initiative bonus to become much more important than the d20 roll. This results in large gaps between optimized and non-optimized PCs, and even more between optimized PCs and monsters.
Some class builds which do not use Dexterity or Intelligence as a primary or secondary ability and do not get heavy armor have very low AC scores. Examples include Con-based shamans, Str/Wis-based rangers, Con/Cha warlocks, and swarm druids.
Multiple instances of damage from a zone (or aura) in a given turn based on entering or exiting the zone can result in extremely high damage. Reducing this damage to once per round limits this sort of abuse, and makes sense from an IC perspective (right now, you get hurt more from entering and exiting a Wall of Fire than you do for remaining there the whole time).
Many of the biggest damage-per-round characters get their high damage from using multiple items and other game elements which give bonuses to damage that lack a type. Examples include dragonshards, Resplendent Gloves, Gloves of Ice, and charge-modifiers, such as Horned Helm and Vanguard Weapons. Recently, mellored posted an example of a 30th-level wizard wielding a gouge that could average over 100 damage each round by charging - this gives a fairly good example of how a very poor class for charging can still put out more damage than many unoptimized strikers.
Anything that deals extra damage, rather than giving a bonus to damage rolls, can be used with attacks that don't require an attack roll (such as Magic Missile) or attacks that explicitly lack a damage roll (such as Brutal Barrage). This includes things such as Headsman's Chop and the feature in the Radiant One epic destiny.
What constitutes a "bonus" for saying that bonuses from the same game element don't stack? Does it need to use the word bonus? As an example, the Ring of Ramming says "Property: When you push a target, you can increase the distance pushed by 1 square." If a character wears two rings of this type, can he push the target 2 extra squares? Another example would be the Ring of Circling Fangs - does wearing two of them result in two auras, each of which deal 10 force damage?
Effects which last "until the end of your next turn" can frequently be more powerful than save ends effects. A leader can grant saving throws against save ends effects, and monsters get a chance to save against effects at the end of their turns, while "end of your next turn" effects always last for a little over a round.
A non-monk psionic character frequently gets more benefit from being able to repeat low-level augmentable powers the entire encounter than using the high-level powers he or she would theoretically retrain into. This encourages keeping the same powers throughout an adventuring career and is boring.
Psionic characters (other than the monk) do not get a damage bump to their at-will attacks at epic. This means that they are weaker than other classes once their power points run out, and encourages them to keep low-level augmentables to avoid this problem (see above).
Rituals and consumables generally cause a PC to "fall behind" on the expected wealth per level, which can result in sizable differences between PCs who expend resources on them and those that do not.
Mounts do not level with the PCs. This can either result in a PC falling behind each level to purchase level-appropriate mounts (which can often be more expensive than magic items of equal level) or weakening of any resources the PC invested in using the mount better. Some method of leveling a mount would be appreciated.
While the Essentials-style of Expertise feats are appreciated for not feeling like a strict "math tax" required to remain effective, some of them have weaker benefits (such as Heavy Blade Expertise), and there are still no Essentials-style Expertise feats for flails, picks, totems, and those who can use a weapon as an implement (primarily swordmages).
Similarly, Improved Defenses is nice, as are Superior Fortitude/Reflex/Will, but the scaling bonuses are a math tax, and the secondary benefits are good enough on their own for feats. It would be preferred to have the option to take the Superior feats without feeling compelled to do so.
Some hybrid classes don't get enough of their parent class to work without Hybrid Talent, or are essentially required to take Hybrid Talent to have an adequate AC because their AC is based off a class feature rather than armor proficiencies. The main offenders are:
Avenger - requires Armor of Faith to get effective AC
Druid - should get Balance of Nature to ensure beast form and "caster form" powers; guardian and swarm druids require Primal Guardian to get effective AC
Monk - should get Monk Unarmed Strike; requires Monk Unarmored Combatant to get effective AC
Seeker - Spiritbond build requires True Seeker's Bond to get effective AC
Swordmage - requires Swordmage Warding to get effective AC
Warden - requires Guardian Might to get effective AC
Warlord - should have a slightly better Commanding Presence; once per encounter means that at least half of the party won't benefit even if action points are spent evenly across all combat encounters.
As a note, the Strength-based sorcerer gets the AC issue fixed effectively. It would be nice to do something similar with druids, seekers, and wardens.
The item rarity system does not have enough commons or rares to work effectively. Newly created magic items don't seem to follow the suggested guidelines for what constitutes common/uncommon/rare regarding the number and type of properties and powers.
Skills (number of skills and class skills) are not balanced between classes. If there is a goal that all classes are equally effective in combat, then some classes should not be much better out-of-combat than others as a balancing factor. Fighters are the worst-case in both categories, but battleminds and barbarians also get few skills.
Many classes do not get paragon paths which emphasize their main roles. This is especially true of strikers, who will often multiclass into fighter for more effective striking (Kensei, Kulkor Arms Master, pre-errata Pit Fighter). Avengers and sorcerers have a difficult time because they aren't Strength-based and lack paragon paths which improve their damage-dealing capabilities.
Racial penalties (seen with the shade, vryloka, and Small creatures) and powers granted by class features (thus blocking out retraining or selecting older options) are not popular. Neither are racial features which overly encourage a specific playstyle (such as the minotaur's racial power or a half-orc's bonus to speed when charging).
The number of feats required for paragon multiclassing or even extensive power-swapping is prohibitive. One possible suggestion is to have a single feat which allows 1 power of each type (encounter, daily, utility) to be swapped.
The shaman's spirit companion is easily destroyed with the increase to monster damage as of MM3. Prior to MM3, there was a reasonable chance that a hit from a monster would not destroy the companion. After it, especially at higher levels, the spirit companion will almost definitely be destroyed. There is a possibility that this is not a probblem (because it still means the spirit companion is absorbing a hit), but it does represent a potentially unintended change.
The increase to damage also reduced the effectiveness of the shielding swordmage's aegis (which blocks a lower percentage of damage than it used to) and the pseudo-resistance of a swarm druid, which already needed help to be effective.
Many racial attacks and paragon path attacks which do not use implements or weapons still give attack bonuses of Ability+2/4/6 vs. non-AC defense (e.g. dragon breath). In order to stay in line with weapon and implement attacks, this bonus should be Ability+3/6/9 vs. non-AC defense or Ability+5/8/11 vs. AC. As a note, these powers also tend to have low damage due to the lack of enhancement bonus there, which should be compensated for in the future.
There are several off-action powers, features and feats that inflict a status condition on an enemy lasting until the end of your next turn. The problem here is that your turn will come up before the enemy's in this case, so the enemy will never suffer the effects of the status condition on his turn, making it pointless. The Swordmage's Dazing Rebuke is the most readily cited example of a power with such a flaw, hence why this case is often referred to as Dazing Rebuke Syndrome.
Other things that still remain with such a design flaw include:
This should not be considered a complete list. There are many similar effects in paragon paths and items which are not enumerated. The solution here is to make all these things' effects last until the end of the enemy's next turn.
Some classes have powers with the weapon keyword and powers with the implement keyword. The existing feat support for these classes (primarily Versatile Expertise) scales later than newer versions of Expertise, and other feats have also been split between weapon and implement (such as Weapon Focus vs. Implement Focus). This gives an additional disadvantage (for non-swordmages) beyond having to keep a magic weapon and magic implement or choose a magic weapon which counts as an implement.
This also affects sorcerers, who have no option to use a newer Expertise with daggers. Light Blade Expertise only affects weapon attacks.
There are not many choices for thrown weapons, and in general, the base weapons with light thrown or heavy thrown have small damage dice, low proficiency bonuses, and few other properties. The superior weapons with light thrown or heavy thrown are generally equivalent to military weapons that lack thrown.
This makes class builds which rely upon thrown weapons (some rangers, Spiritbond Seekers) much weaker than other weapon using classes, and generally requires them to choose magic weapons which can be used as heavy thrown weapons (farbond spellblades, hungry spears, and dwarven throwers).
Kulkor Arms Master's level 16 feature gives an extra attack for a fairly easy to satisfy condition. Extra attacks increase damage much faster than damage bonuses because they effectively double most existing damage bonuses. It would be better to provide a large bonus to damage rather than granting an extra attack.
Morninglord's vulnerability imposer is the largest vulnerability that can be given out in an at-will fashion. A possible fix would be to reduce it to vulnerable 5 radiant and increase any existing vulnerability to radiant by 5 (so that it still has an effect on the undead).
This relates to the "Rapid Zone Re-Entry" general issue, but Spark Slippers aren't technically a zone or aura. If zones and auras are limited, and Spark Slippers is re-templated as an aura, then this item can no longer be abused with excessive sliding. Another option would be changing them to willing movement.
Monks should get more use out of their unarmed strike, and hybrid monks should automatically gain proficiency with monk unarmed strike (it isn't worth the hybrid talent feat, which is needed to get better armor).
Most of the classes which get Religion as a trained skill will still have lousy skill bonuses in it because it is based on Intelligence. Divine classes could use an option to use Wisdom to determine bonuses to Religion checks.
The Star Pact Warlock has a mixture of Constitution and Charisma attacks, but its associated at-will is Constitution. In general, the Star Pact warlock could use "Charisma or Constitution" powers like the Sorcerer-Pact Warlock, but it's especially needed for the at-will.
Because of the relative value of to-hit bonuses and damage, the less likely you are to hit (i.e., the bigger and badder your weapon, the more barbarian-y you are, the more thematic Power Attack would be) the worse idea power attacking is. A scaling bonus per [W] or something like that would make Power Attack likely to provide a net increase in average damage.
The flail weapon group has a weapon in it called "flail" and the spear weapon group has a weapon in it called "spear". The same is true for the crossbow, sling, and mace weapon groups. When a feat, power, paragon path, epic destiny, or item refers to a "flail", for example, it usually means "a weapon from the flail weapon group". This can be unclear to many players and DMs, especially if it specifically means the weapon.
Sneak Attack was updated with Heroes of the Fallen Lands to work with shortbows, but none of the existing rogue powers or rogue paragon path powers had their requirements updated to allow for short bows to be used with them.
Joshua Randall compiled all the various Red listings in the handbooks into a single thread, and added some useful commentary: Thread link
I tried to go through the thread and summarize the negative points which came up frequently and didn't have any opposition. As such, this is a long post, and I've attempted to sblock it where possible. Here's what I have.
There should be more convenient ways of obtaining melee basic attacks for non-Strength-based melee characters. This is especially true for avengers, battleminds, monks, and swordmages (Power of Skill and Intelligent Blademaster are feat taxes)
We could use a better explanation of the interaction between an attack which does multiple damage types and a creature with multiple vulnerabilities (e.g. if an attack does 10 points of radiant and thunder damage against a creature with vulnerable 5 radiant and vulnerable 10 thunder, how much damage does the creature take?)
Scaling bonuses, such as Barbarian Agility, can break the game when they add onto a game element that doesn't require the bonus to be competitive (With Barbarian Agility, the Whirling Slayer has a much higher AC and Reflex than either of the other two builds). Similarly, powers and items which grant bonuses based on ability scores can be strong at heroic and overwhelming at epic
Initiative can vary widely at higher levels, which allows the initiative bonus to become much more important than the d20 roll. This results in large gaps between optimized and non-optimized PCs, and even more between optimized PCs and monsters.
Some class builds which do not use Dexterity or Intelligence as a primary or secondary ability and do not get heavy armor have very low AC scores. Examples include Con-based shamans, Str/Wis-based rangers, Con/Cha warlocks, and swarm druids.
Multiple instances of damage from a zone (or aura) in a given turn based on entering or exiting the zone can result in extremely high damage. Reducing this damage to once per round limits this sort of abuse, and makes sense from an IC perspective (right now, you get hurt more from entering and exiting a Wall of Fire than you do for remaining there the whole time).
Many of the biggest damage-per-round characters get their high damage from using multiple items and other game elements which give bonuses to damage that lack a type. Examples include dragonshards, Resplendent Gloves, Gloves of Ice, and charge-modifiers, such as Horned Helm and Vanguard Weapons. Recently, mellored posted an example of a 30th-level wizard wielding a gouge that could average over 100 damage each round by charging - this gives a fairly good example of how a very poor class for charging can still put out more damage than many unoptimized strikers.
Anything that deals extra damage, rather than giving a bonus to damage rolls, can be used with attacks that don't require an attack roll (such as Magic Missile) or attacks that explicitly lack a damage roll (such as Brutal Barrage). This includes things such as Headsman's Chop and the feature in the Radiant One epic destiny.
What constitutes a "bonus" for saying that bonuses from the same game element don't stack? Does it need to use the word bonus? As an example, the Ring of Ramming says "Property: When you push a target, you can increase the distance pushed by 1 square." If a character wears two rings of this type, can he push the target 2 extra squares? Another example would be the Ring of Circling Fangs - does wearing two of them result in two auras, each of which deal 10 force damage?
Effects which last "until the end of your next turn" can frequently be more powerful than save ends effects. A leader can grant saving throws against save ends effects, and monsters get a chance to save against effects at the end of their turns, while "end of your next turn" effects always last for a little over a round.
A non-monk psionic character frequently gets more benefit from being able to repeat low-level augmentable powers the entire encounter than using the high-level powers he or she would theoretically retrain into. This encourages keeping the same powers throughout an adventuring career and is boring.
Psionic characters (other than the monk) do not get a damage bump to their at-will attacks at epic. This means that they are weaker than other classes once their power points run out, and encourages them to keep low-level augmentables to avoid this problem (see above).
Rituals and consumables generally cause a PC to "fall behind" on the expected wealth per level, which can result in sizable differences between PCs who expend resources on them and those that do not.
Mounts do not level with the PCs. This can either result in a PC falling behind each level to purchase level-appropriate mounts (which can often be more expensive than magic items of equal level) or weakening of any resources the PC invested in using the mount better. Some method of leveling a mount would be appreciated.
While the Essentials-style of Expertise feats are appreciated for not feeling like a strict "math tax" required to remain effective, some of them have weaker benefits (such as Heavy Blade Expertise), and there are still no Essentials-style Expertise feats for flails, picks, totems, and those who can use a weapon as an implement (primarily swordmages).
Similarly, Improved Defenses is nice, as are Superior Fortitude/Reflex/Will, but the scaling bonuses are a math tax, and the secondary benefits are good enough on their own for feats. It would be preferred to have the option to take the Superior feats without feeling compelled to do so.
Some hybrid classes don't get enough of their parent class to work without Hybrid Talent, or are essentially required to take Hybrid Talent to have an adequate AC because their AC is based off a class feature rather than armor proficiencies. The main offenders are:
Avenger - requires Armor of Faith to get effective AC
Druid - should get Balance of Nature to ensure beast form and "caster form" powers; guardian and swarm druids require Primal Guardian to get effective AC
Monk - should get Monk Unarmed Strike; requires Monk Unarmored Combatant to get effective AC
Seeker - Spiritbond build requires True Seeker's Bond to get effective AC
Swordmage - requires Swordmage Warding to get effective AC
Warden - requires Guardian Might to get effective AC
Warlord - should have a slightly better Commanding Presence; once per encounter means that at least half of the party won't benefit even if action points are spent evenly across all combat encounters.
As a note, the Strength-based sorcerer gets the AC issue fixed effectively. It would be nice to do something similar with druids, seekers, and wardens.
The item rarity system does not have enough commons or rares to work effectively. Newly created magic items don't seem to follow the suggested guidelines for what constitutes common/uncommon/rare regarding the number and type of properties and powers.
Skills (number of skills and class skills) are not balanced between classes. If there is a goal that all classes are equally effective in combat, then some classes should not be much better out-of-combat than others as a balancing factor. Fighters are the worst-case in both categories, but battleminds and barbarians also get few skills.
Many classes do not get paragon paths which emphasize their main roles. This is especially true of strikers, who will often multiclass into fighter for more effective striking (Kensei, Kulkor Arms Master, pre-errata Pit Fighter). Avengers and sorcerers have a difficult time because they aren't Strength-based and lack paragon paths which improve their damage-dealing capabilities.
Racial penalties (seen with the shade, vryloka, and Small creatures) and powers granted by class features (thus blocking out retraining or selecting older options) are not popular. Neither are racial features which overly encourage a specific playstyle (such as the minotaur's racial power or a half-orc's bonus to speed when charging).
The number of feats required for paragon multiclassing or even extensive power-swapping is prohibitive. One possible suggestion is to have a single feat which allows 1 power of each type (encounter, daily, utility) to be swapped.
The shaman's spirit companion is easily destroyed with the increase to monster damage as of MM3. Prior to MM3, there was a reasonable chance that a hit from a monster would not destroy the companion. After it, especially at higher levels, the spirit companion will almost definitely be destroyed. There is a possibility that this is not a probblem (because it still means the spirit companion is absorbing a hit), but it does represent a potentially unintended change.
The increase to damage also reduced the effectiveness of the shielding swordmage's aegis (which blocks a lower percentage of damage than it used to) and the pseudo-resistance of a swarm druid, which already needed help to be effective.
Many racial attacks and paragon path attacks which do not use implements or weapons still give attack bonuses of Ability+2/4/6 vs. non-AC defense (e.g. dragon breath). In order to stay in line with weapon and implement attacks, this bonus should be Ability+3/6/9 vs. non-AC defense or Ability+5/8/11 vs. AC. As a note, these powers also tend to have low damage due to the lack of enhancement bonus there, which should be compensated for in the future.
There are several off-action powers, features and feats that inflict a status condition on an enemy lasting until the end of your next turn. The problem here is that your turn will come up before the enemy's in this case, so the enemy will never suffer the effects of the status condition on his turn, making it pointless. The Swordmage's Dazing Rebuke is the most readily cited example of a power with such a flaw, hence why this case is often referred to as Dazing Rebuke Syndrome.
Other things that still remain with such a design flaw include:
This should not be considered a complete list. There are many similar effects in paragon paths and items which are not enumerated. The solution here is to make all these things' effects last until the end of the enemy's next turn.
Some classes have powers with the weapon keyword and powers with the implement keyword. The existing feat support for these classes (primarily Versatile Expertise) scales later than newer versions of Expertise, and other feats have also been split between weapon and implement (such as Weapon Focus vs. Implement Focus). This gives an additional disadvantage (for non-swordmages) beyond having to keep a magic weapon and magic implement or choose a magic weapon which counts as an implement.
This also affects sorcerers, who have no option to use a newer Expertise with daggers. Light Blade Expertise only affects weapon attacks.
There are not many choices for thrown weapons, and in general, the base weapons with light thrown or heavy thrown have small damage dice, low proficiency bonuses, and few other properties. The superior weapons with light thrown or heavy thrown are generally equivalent to military weapons that lack thrown.
This makes class builds which rely upon thrown weapons (some rangers, Spiritbond Seekers) much weaker than other weapon using classes, and generally requires them to choose magic weapons which can be used as heavy thrown weapons (farbond spellblades, hungry spears, and dwarven throwers).
Kulkor Arms Master's level 16 feature gives an extra attack for a fairly easy to satisfy condition. Extra attacks increase damage much faster than damage bonuses because they effectively double most existing damage bonuses. It would be better to provide a large bonus to damage rather than granting an extra attack.
Morninglord's vulnerability imposer is the largest vulnerability that can be given out in an at-will fashion. A possible fix would be to reduce it to vulnerable 5 radiant and increase any existing vulnerability to radiant by 5 (so that it still has an effect on the undead).
This relates to the "Rapid Zone Re-Entry" general issue, but Spark Slippers aren't technically a zone or aura. If zones and auras are limited, and Spark Slippers is re-templated as an aura, then this item can no longer be abused with excessive sliding. Another option would be changing them to willing movement.
Monks should get more use out of their unarmed strike, and hybrid monks should automatically gain proficiency with monk unarmed strike (it isn't worth the hybrid talent feat, which is needed to get better armor).
Most of the classes which get Religion as a trained skill will still have lousy skill bonuses in it because it is based on Intelligence. Divine classes could use an option to use Wisdom to determine bonuses to Religion checks.
The Star Pact Warlock has a mixture of Constitution and Charisma attacks, but its associated at-will is Constitution. In general, the Star Pact warlock could use "Charisma or Constitution" powers like the Sorcerer-Pact Warlock, but it's especially needed for the at-will.
Because of the relative value of to-hit bonuses and damage, the less likely you are to hit (i.e., the bigger and badder your weapon, the more barbarian-y you are, the more thematic Power Attack would be) the worse idea power attacking is. A scaling bonus per [W] or something like that would make Power Attack likely to provide a net increase in average damage.
The flail weapon group has a weapon in it called "flail" and the spear weapon group has a weapon in it called "spear". The same is true for the crossbow, sling, and mace weapon groups. When a feat, power, paragon path, epic destiny, or item refers to a "flail", for example, it usually means "a weapon from the flail weapon group". This can be unclear to many players and DMs, especially if it specifically means the weapon.
Sneak Attack was updated with Heroes of the Fallen Lands to work with shortbows, but none of the existing rogue powers or rogue paragon path powers had their requirements updated to allow for short bows to be used with them.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
I'd like to cast a third vote for the assassin. The Essentials version isn't bad, but it's more poison than shadow, and I liked the style of the original Assassin. Maybe offer an Essentials build that feels more like the original, in terms of style and powers (teleporting, implement powers, insubstantial, hiding), or just completely revisit Assassin's Shroud, and see if there's a viable way to fix it.
Either would make me happy.
"Not only are you wrong, but I even created an Excel spreadsheet to show you how wrong you are." --James Wyatt, May 2006
Oh good, I was wondering how I was going to post my opinions.
There needs to be a better way for every class to have a decent melee basic, especially if they are a class designed around wielding a weapon. Avengers, for example, are trained to wield huge weapons, but have to be from a certain race or religion in order to have a decent melee basic. Melee training was a feat tax to fix that, but even that got reduced. Other examples are bards, battleminds, and monks.
I also agree with previous posters about the divine weapon/holy symbols split. I feel that holy symbols should function similar to ki focuses, in that you can apply them to weapon attacks as well.
Because it came up on the other thread: Handbook of Broken: charop/wiki/Broken
Elemental issues
Does adding "2 extra cold damage" give the entire power the cold keyword? (less confusion here these days. It does, except for Fritz who thinks it doesnt)
Do 10 fire&radiant to someone with a 10 point fire vulnerability and a separate 10 point radiant vulnerability. How much damage did they take?
Doing elemental damage types has better +DPRz support than most anything else.
Scaling issues
Stat-penalty-to-defenses, +Stat to hit
Adding lots of "conditional" modifiers that support each other. My example: wearing 3 items of "+2 to AC until bloodied" pretty much means you won't ever be bloodied.
Epic Will on top of Superior Will, with some +Will items.
Scaling Boost to AC (Barbarians) on top of already scaling AC (Dex, armor, etc)
Timing Issues
Reacting to an attack that dazes
Free action to an interrupt of a reaction of an attack.
Differences between "trigger; ally is attacked" and "ally is hit or missed"
Wand Wizard using the reroll retroactively?
Should the DM announce numbers?
Random small over/under powered stuff
See the Wiki
Battleminds/Swordmages need an MBA as a class feature, IM(ns)HO
Monks/Avengers/Rogues/Bards/Ardents/etc could use an MBA (and the Monk's can't be a newly published at-will power, because of full-disciplin problems)
Monk's "crit on 19+ w/ your fists" feat just doens't work like the author thought it did. An unarmed monk attacks with his Ki Focus, not his fists.
Str/Dex Barbarians have lovely ACs. Shamans and Swarm Druids? not so much.
Radiant Slides of death (spark slippers, tack on a vulnerability and Radiant One, slide lots/hit)
Bolaizards. (example of "attacks w/ Weapon" vs "weapon attacks")
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
Concerted Effort (Bard 2 Utility) -- I've seen 3 different ways to read this power
Wielding/Using/Offhand -- These are undefined terms and lead to amusing things like people "only attacking with their offhand weapon" so that they can abuse the Harmony Blade and similar items..."Critical: +1d6 damage per plus, and you can make a melee basic attack with your off-hand weapon. Property: When you hit an enemy with both this weapon and your off-hand weapon during the same turn..."
Learning a New Power -- Does retraining count for this, or only when you hit a new level that grants powers (13, 23, 25, 29, etc.)? Many people take it to mean retrain, which opens up options not normally present when combined with the Resourceful Magician PP..."Diverse Study (16th level): Anytime you would learn a new bard power, you can choose a new power of the same level from any arcane class for which you have a multiclass feat."
Bonus -- a recent errata says that untyped bonuses don't stack. Does this require the word "bonus" to trigger? What about Rings of the Ramming? can I wear two and get +2 to push distance? "Property: When you push a target, you can increase the distance pushed by 1 square."
Generic Things That Are Too Powerful
Charging -- When turning a class into a charger (even one not designed to be a charger) produces a character doing more damage than one who doesn't, something's wrong
Kulkor Arms Master -- When the best advice for numerous classes is to "go Kulkor" something's wrong (this also dovetails with the charging comment)
Morninglord -- Bring it down to 5vuln, in line with the Permafrost combo (Lasting Frost/Wintertouched). 5vuln doesn't balance with CA, since CA is so easy to get nowadays
Generic Things Which Need More Support (aka Crunch)
Runepriest
Artificer
Seeker
Weapons -- Ever play a pick build? Neither has anyone else. If you don't want to rush out support for these weapon types, at least errata Versatile Expertise to scale at 11/21 like the new feats, so they're not double punished (no bonus to offset the tax, and worse scaling)
Elemental Types -- There are more than Five elemental groups, give them some love, especially poor lonely Acid
Monk Unarmed Strikes -- Nice feature for a class that has no Weapon powers
Melee Basic Attacks (MBAs) -- With the nerf of Melee Training, some classes got left in the cold, and need some better support. The battlemind is a melee class with a horrible MBA now. If the Vampire can get an Implement MBA, why can't the melee classes get a Weapon one?
Really increased "composibility", I want to be an X, but do Y. And now I can.
Hybrids
Except for some AC issues, generally work rather well for multi-class concepts.
Large Sweet Spot
Works well from 3 to about 24 or so. From 1 to 24 with themes.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
I'll note a few of what I'd consider the high-level issues, before getting into nitpicky details.
Does not meet design expectations: Slow. The slow condition is largely worthless, due to Monster Manual editors being too efficient.
For most creatures, being slowed is irrelevant by itself, since unless you impose this before their first turn or can combine it with forced movement, they're probably close enough to where they want to be anyway.
The creatures that would honestly care about being slowed, and which it makes the most thematic sense to slow, are skirmishers... who largely have powers written in terms of fixed amounts, rather than based on their speed.
Since a "attack once and fly 6 squares" or "shift 3 squares and attack every target you move past" kind of skirmisher power isn't based on the target's speed, being Slowed doesn't affect it, even though the design intent of the power obviously incorporates the target's speed.
Solution: Short of going back and updating all such creatures to refer to their speed rather than a fixed number of squares, the other answer would be to note that any creature powers dealing with movement are implicitly based on their speed, so a reduction to base speed affects those powers as well.
Does not meet design expectations: Until End of Next Turn. If given a choice between imposing a 'save ends' or 'until end of your next turn' effect, I'd rather impose the latter; if given a choice between receiving a 'save ends' or 'until end of a creature's next turn' effect, I'd often rather have the former.
Take, as an example, something like Satire of Evasion (Bard 15; lets you reroll an ally's attack roll on a miss, as long as the target is affected) under circumstances where the creature's turn comes up next. On a hit, the effect is 'save ends', which means there's a 55% (normal creature) to 80% (solo) chance of the effect being negated before anyone can benefit from it, a 20-45% chance of the effect lasting a full round, and a 4-20% chance of it lasting longer than that. On a miss, the effect is 'until the end of your next turn', which means a 100% chance of the effect lasting a full round, and 0% chance of it lasting longer than that.
I'd far rather miss.
On the flipside, if I'm dominated (save ends), the party's leader has a chance to do something. For that matter, any party member can do something to help out, if they want to spend the standard action for a Heal check. If I'm dominated (until end of creature's next turn), however, there's nothing anyone can do.
Solution: 'Until EOYNT' needs to be a subset of 'save ends', with one possible way being to change all effects so that they are removable by a save, and make 'until EOYNT' simply a ceiling, with the effect going away at that point if it hasn't been saved against.
Delay / Ready cheese. Are you blinded (save ends), or worse, under some debilitating effect like 'you cannot attack (save ends)'? Are you a melee character who is immobilized (save ends)? No problem. Just move and then ready an action to attack (or stay still and ready an action to charge, if immobilized), with the trigger being something that will happen on the next creature's turn. Your turn ends, you make your save (or don't), and sometime during the next creature's turn, you'll make your attack. Sure, there are ways you can get tripped up, but you're probably better off risking that than wasting your turn.
Have an 'until end of caster's next turn' effect on you that makes your turn pointless? No problem. Just delay until after the caster goes.
Is there a creature with an irritating immediate interrupt stopping you from hitting him? No problem. Just ready an action to attack him on his turn, stopping him from using any interrupts.
The ready and delay rules are full of too many loopholes, with the only thing keeping them in check is a sort of mutually assurred destruction, as DMs can abuse them just as much as players. It would be far preferable to see the holes actually patched.
Forced movement into damaging zones. It's been mentioned by others, but deserves as many mentions as it can get.
Timing issues. While the timing of interrupts is something that a friendly group can just work out for themselves, the vagueness of these rules is problematic when moving from group to group, as with convention gaming or other official games.
When does a trigger like "You are attacked" or "You make an attack roll" need to be declared? (e.g., can you wait until after you're hit or missed, or you hit or miss, before using the power).
The fact that Cunning Escape (Thief 5) is an immediate reaction, and has made it through one round of errata unscathed, indicates that I fundamentally do not understand how reactions are to be timed, so further elucidation would be nice.
When you can take a free actions--a subject of the recent podcast--is also the sort of the thing that would be nice to see in print.
Action types of granted actions. The change to free action attack limitations now means that it is very important to note what action type is required for a granted action.
This means that we see claims that, unless specified, any granted action requires no action, and that unless an ability specifically states that it is, for example, granting an opportunity attack as an opportunity action, that it is granting it without requiring an action.
(At the same time, you also have granted actions, like using your Second Wind while unconscious, that are clearly assumed to require no action without specifying that, no a blanket rule would need to be carefully worded.)
Monks should have some actual use for their unarmed attack, right now there is no reason to ever play an unarmed monk.
Hybrid monks should get the unarmed attack as a weapon profecincy, right now if you want to create a hybrid monk (presumably to create an unarmed version of another class) you can take it but then have only cloth armor with no bonuses to defenses making for a very quickly dead melee character.
There should also be a monk multiclass feat to get unarmed and unarmored combatant.
Hybrid classes that are meant to have high AC while in light armor should be looked at. Right now a regular swordmage can have as much AC as a regular fighter but the hybrid loses both unless they spend thier talent instead of taking a more flavorful class feature. Instead light hybrids should have thier class features correlated to armor types so you can choose. Swordmage warding would be at the same level as scale and heavy shield say, while armor of faith would be at the level of chain, unarmored combatant at the level of leather. Classes that add off stats to AC should have a similar look taken at them.
Non Dex barbarians, Con shamans, and swarm druids all need their defences looked at.
The monk unarmed strike is effectively a longsword or rapier with less feat support. Hybrid monks should get it by default. It's not remotely worth spending hybrid talent on from a balance perspective, and only serves to limit builds. The only conceivable reason I can see for having it not be an innate part of the hybrid is the interaction between it and the brawler fighter feature, which could easily be fixed with a line of clarification.
The Hunter's (HotFK) power Rapid Shot reads:
Effect: You make a ranged basic attack with a weapon against each creature in or adjacent to a square within the attack’s range. You take a -2 penalty to the attack rolls.
This currently parses to "Make an RBA with a weapon against each creature in or adjacent to any (ie: all) squares within the attack's range"- RAI is not immediately obvious to some.
It could do with some clarification- perhaps "Choose a square within your attack's range. Make that attack against each creature in or adjacent to the chosen square."
Furthermore, many powers say "Attacks with a weapon". Such a distinction is, given the vast amount of weapons as implements, effectively meaningless. This is exacebated by the presence of powers that specify "Weapon Attacks"
While "Attacks with a Weapon" opens up some interesting design space, I really think that if you (R&D) mean "Weapon Attack", then you need to say weapon attack.
My vote is for the Strength-based cleric, which is quite undersupported. My suggestion is to find some elegant way to combine the Strength-based cleric with the Runepriest, thus increasing both classes' options.
