|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 6:38AM
#1
|
|
|
So. I've been playing (and occasionally DMing) 4th Edition since it was first launched; and while I believe I have the basics of optimization down, I'm not really a dedicated optimizer (that is, I will play with melee-only Bards even though the Implement powers are usually much better, and I wouldn't shy away from playing a Vampire even if it doesn't have any nova capability at all). So, I would like to ask this from the good folks here at CO:
If I completely disregard any material in Dragon and use only the printed books (including the most up-to-date errata and the Essentials line), how would that affect my home games in terms of character choices? That is, would Avengers or Sorcerers (just for two examples) be completely worthless choices in terms of benefitting the party (even if not directly as Strikers)?
Many thanks to anyone willing to help me understand this. :-)
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead.
- Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 6:48AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
If I completely disregard any material in Dragon and use only the printed books (including the most up-to-date errata and the Essentials line), how would that affect my home games in terms of character choices? That is, would Avengers or Sorcerers (just for two examples) be completely worthless choices in terms of benefitting the party (even if not directly as Strikers)?
Are you also disregarding errata? Also, why disregard Dragon? The worst offendors for optimization aren't in Dragon, and the weakest classes get the support they in Dragon.
So to answer your question directly, yes. And if you play with *nothing* but the printed books the game will be more broken than it is now.
One-half of the tabletop gaming news podcast Going LastCo-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 6:52AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
would Avengers be completely worthless choices in terms of benefitting the party (even if not directly as Strikers)?
If you ignore Dragon, you ignore the article that fixed the Avenger. There's a hefty chunk of feats in that article that basically fix some of the major glaring holes in the Avenger and bring it up to the range of other strikers.
I can understand why people used to ban Dragon from their games. It used to be primarily 3rd-party fan-submitted unbalanced piles of junk, and had some really destabilizing effects on the game sometimes. That's just quite simply not the case anymore. Dragon content now for 4e is written by the same people who write the books, and using the same design standards. There really isn't any rational justification for banning Dragon at this point. Things have changed.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 8:24AM
#4
|
|
|
Yeah, count my opinion as corresponding with the above. There have of course been some 'broken' things in Dragon, just like there were some quite broken things in PHB1 etc. There is generally not a notable quality difference between books and DDI stuff in general. If anything much of the stuff in Dragon is very niche and generally not causing problems in terms of game balance.
As for what is the effectiveness of non-optimized characters... Well, they're just not optimized. Sure, they will be somewhat less effective in combat. That is only going to matter if the disparity between characters is large because you say insist on doing your melee-only bard while the other people at the table are running tweaked up characters that take full advantage of some of the more serious optimization paths and have huge DPRs etc. The players of these other characters might evidence some frustration when the DM has to pull out all the stops and beat the party to an inch of its life and your character is half as effective as theirs are.
In general though? Any character that is built in a reasonably intelligent fashion such that feats and items contribute to its effectiveness and its stats are allocated properly isn't going to be really ineffective. Some builds are inherently weaker or really need to pick up one or two specific things in order to work well, but they're the exception. You may thus find your high paragon Vampire to be quite lackluster but paired with other casually built characters in a game where the DM is going to provide you with reasonable challenges it isn't likely to cause real problems.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 9:32AM
#5
|
|
|
I'm yet another person who agrees that hating on Dragon is pretty old school and not really the problem anymore. A lot of the common optimization tricks on these boards come from combining game elements (feats, items, etc.) that are right out of the PHB1, Adventurer's Vault, etc.
As we are discussing in a bunch of parallel threads, the way to win 4e damage is to buff your at-will damage and use your encounter/ daily powers to either attack multiple times during your turn, or attack outside your turn through immediates, OAs, etc. Also, there are a number of tactical tricks that increase damage across classes - charging, sliding enemies into and out of damaging zones, applying vulnerable __ energy type, etc. None of these depend on any one source, Dragon or otherwise.
You can play whatever is fun throughout your PC's career, that's always been true. But it gets to a point at higher levels where the DM has to pull punches vs. parties with a vampire primary striker. You start to really need some immediates and other tactical tricks (though not all of them). Again, that's a system issue, not necessarily a source issue.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 9:43AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2008
|
I will add that if your party is going to be intentionally unoptomized, you might want to be careful about adopting the MM3 guidelines for monster damage. In my experience, the damage monsters put out with the new guidelines is excessive for a party that isn't optimized and/or coordinated.
This isn't to say that the old guidelines were just right, but I think that WotC's fix went way overboard for many parties. In LFR, I'm seeing non-defenders being hit for more than their bloodied value fairly regularly, and it even happens to defenders if brutes are using the limited damage expressions.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 9:51AM
#7
|
|
|
Dragon Material has a very long history of being unbalanced (way before 3rd Ed), but to take an example from 4th Ed:
Melee Rangers have plenty of access to non standard action attacks from PHB, in addition to Twin Strike.
Dragon Material gives melee rangers access to Prime Shot bonus for Melee attacks...
Dragon Material then adds 5pts of damage to any attack benefitting from Prime Shot...
__________________
This is merely one example, but nearly every character built will desire something from Dragon Magazine. Is Dragon Material really balanced? I'd wager it is now more so than it has been in the past, but just barely.
___________________
Edit to add: The sad truth is, however, that some classes really just don't perform without Dragon Support. I wouldn't put either the Avenger or the Sorceror into these categories, but the Vampire is really just sad (and the best example) when one decides to eliminate Dragon Material from the game (not that it has received support yet). If you chose to play a vampire as written, with a DM who designs or adjusts encounters based on the number of players, you are literally hurting your party...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 10:33AM
#8
|
|
|
My group doesn't like to use Dragon for two reasons: first (and most important), we don't have it, since most of us don't want to pay for it; and second, because it seems to be at least a bit more unbalanced in comparison to the books - Feralspirit mentioned how Rangers get even more powerful thanks to Dragon, but we're also thinking of the recent themes, one of which lets any class gain a Wizard Utility power and also a +2 bonus to Will. Are you also disregarding errata?
Like I said in the opening post, no; we're using the most up-to-date errata.
If you ignore Dragon, you ignore the article that fixed the Avenger. There's a hefty chunk of feats in that article that basically fix some of the major glaring holes in the Avenger and bring it up to the range of other strikers.
Sorry, but what would be those "glaring holes", and how were they fixed? Feats? Items?
Edit to add: The sad truth is, however, that some classes really just don't perform without Dragon Support.
Hrnf. Could you please tell me what classes are those?
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead.
- Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality! (No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 10:54AM
#9
|
|
|
My group doesn't like to use Dragon for two reasons: first (and most important), we don't have it, since most of us don't want to pay for it; and second, because it seems to be at least a bit more unbalanced in comparison to the books - Feralspirit mentioned how Rangers get even more powerful thanks to Dragon, but we're also thinking of the recent themes, one of which lets any class gain a Wizard Utility power and also a +2 bonus to Will.
Thats not gain a Wizard Utility power, but rather take a Wizard Utility power in place of their own classes when they gain a new Utility power or retrain one.
Edit to add: The sad truth is, however, that some classes really just don't perform without Dragon Support.
Hrnf. Could you please tell me what classes are those?
Warlock.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 05, 2011 - 11:09AM
#10
|
|
|
Avengers had really, really awful encounter powers, and their damage didn't scale right. They now have a feat that patches the damage up some, and enough good encounter powers to be functional, if rather samey. (Isolation build is still terrible though and their dailies are... ugh.)
In short though? There is no argument for banning dragon content that does not point far more strongly to banning PHB1 content.
|
|
|
