Well, I did run the numbers. Was rather amusing. But, as you said, is OT, so I'll sblock it....
Off-Topic. Warning, there's lots of numbers! Enter at your own peril!Show
I became curious about which was actually better, when maxing, at first level, barebones.
So here's the assumptions used: (1) I went with a weighted "target number required" system, figuring that their single-attack accuracy would otherwise be essentially the same. So I have 21 "die result needed" rows, from Over-20 down to 1 (which is the same as 2, but since it does come up it's included), that only takes into account the result needed on the d20, not the modified number. I then calculated the Damage per Attack for each target number. After that, I made two different averages. One is a straight average, which assumes that each target number is equally likely. The other (which I consider the primary result) a bell-curve type average, which assumes that the middle number (11) is most likely to be used, and each step up or down is exponentially less likely; for simplicity's sake, I used the square of the step as they descended (so 11 was weighted 121 times; 10 and 12 were 100 times; 9 and 13 were 81 times; and so on).
(2) The Avenger's Wisdom is assumed to be 20, making the Static Damage bonus +5.
(3) The Avenger's Weapon is either a Heavy Flail or a Maul — 2-handed weapon which does 2d6 damage.
(4) There were two different types of weapons I took into account for the Ranger: a Brutal 2 weapon and a High Crit weapon, both which use 1d8 as the base.
(5) Rounded numbers to 2 decimals.
(6) I did not make any assumptions about feats. Increasing accuracy would shift the weights. There's an Avenger feat which significantly raises the average weapon damage, especially with a 2d6 weapon (Avenging Resolution, treats 1s and 2s on damage dice as 3s). So on and so forth. Not to mention Magic Weapons and Buffs and all sorts of other modifiers. So there's plenty of ways these numbers could be skewed; that's why I went barebones except for the weighting....
Note that at various points on the scale, each does more damage. When accuracy is very low, the Crit Ranger does better. The Avenger does better in the mid-range, and the Brutal Ranger does better when the targets are more easily hit.
I actually suspect that my weighting is centered a bit high — in other words, I think it's far more common to need to get a roll on a d20 in the single digits instead of the double digits.
Anyway, so it's really a matter of preference and feel. There's viability to both claims.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
These are the factors for the Avenger in the party. no, I don't have the lvl1 stats, as it is not my character. These are the static damage modifiers and how they break down. +7 Wisdom Bonus +4 Enhancement Bonus (Weapon) +4 w/ melee attacks (Iron Armbands of Power – Item Bonus) +3 w/ Heavy Blades (Githzerai Blade Master – Feat Bonus) That's +18 so far as a base for every attack except a rebuke undead power, then it goes up from there (into the stratosphere!).
+7 w/ first hit on Oath each TURN (Painful Oath feat - but an Unnamed bonus) +3 w/ Overwhelming Strike (Power Of Strength feat - also an unnamed) +3 w/ Overwhelming Strike (Power Of Storms – also unnamed, but the damage is "Thunder") +2 per “Wound” (Punishing Weapon) (Power Bonus - this goes up each time hits an enemy, but resets when attacking somebody else) +4 w/ Soulforge Hammering (melee attacks only) (fire & radiant damage) (only applied if Soulforge Hammering is 'active', the turn it is first used and the following turn) +7 IF Iron Mind is active (Iron Hands – unnamed bonus - activated as a free action and least until the end of next turn) That's up to +26 more IF (that's a big if) a lot of conditions are aligned, and the +2 goes up by +2 more after each turn he hits with the Punishing Weapon - the highest reached so far was last week with +12 (had hit target on 7 different turns without hitting another target).
+4 IF target is bloodied (w/ Gauntlets of Blood – unnamed) +2 IF target is bloodied (from Arbiter of Justice – unnamed) +2 IF target is bloodied (from Blood Thirst – unnamed) That's +8 for just being bloodied.
+8 IF OoE target fled (Censure of Pursuit) (end of turn after it ran) ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />So, that comes from 3 magic items (weapon, hand & arm slots), 8 feats and a class feature (and a racial power that has been augmented by two of the aforementioned feats).
static max (not counting any extra +2 for each hit from the Punishing Weapon) is 58... but that is only if the following conditions apply: 1). Oath Of Enmity 2). I am using Overwhelming Strike (an At-Will) 3). I have Soulforge Hammering active (an encounter power) 4). I have activated "Iron Mind" (which is a Githzerai power that boosts defenses by +2 for one turn - it has been augmented by a feat called Iron Hands that adds WIS bonus to damage while Iron Mind is active) 5). The target must be bloodied 6). The target must have voluntarily moved away on its turn. While all of those conditions are seldom met, they have all been met more often than the Avenger has not been able to isolate his oath... Oh, by the way, Favored Soul paragon path, so he can fly too. I'm sure you can find something even more disgustingly overpowered on the Char-opp boards.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Bow down, my subjects, for I am your master! Yesss.....Show
That's all fine and dandy, Whisper, but that doesn't prove anything. If anything, it disproves your point to a degree, because by your argument — that every newer book brought something stronger than the previous one, causing power creep — a Monk should be even more kick-arse than that, and a Slayer or Thief even moreso than that, and a Scout even moreso than that. You've shown that a very explicit build for a single class has one-upped... nothing, actually, because you never Char-Op'd anything for a Ranger that might be comparable. Pash has at least done that much, and apparently was having success at it too. You (or whoever it is who's character it is) have built the character up over an unknown quantity of time; we're throwing things out in a matter of minutes.
That said, your argument is fallacious anyway, at least as far as I'm concerned.
(1) Your example is nothing more than a single example, not the entire general issue, and (again) isn't against anything specific. Therefor, you're making a Hasty Generalization, if not an outright error in Composition.
(2) Your example, furthermore, is one that you've put up against nothing else specific, leaving it to other people to prove or disprove your position. The burden of proof should actually be upon you, by either proving that (a) you cannot, no matter how hard you try, build a Rogue or Ranger who isn't capable of matching your Avenger; or (b) building a Monk that easily beats your Avenger; or (c) even better, doing both (a) and (b). You claim that there's a Power Creep; therefore, you should be able to prove your statement by min-maxing the other classes just as much as you've done your Avenger.
(3) Finally, your argument doesn't really address why it might be the case, if it is (and I'm unable to say, as of yet, whether it is or isn't true). You seem to be implying that each new book cannot help but introduce power creep by being a new book. However, if you look over the history of 4e publications, they also have spent quite a bit of time actually addressing the issues which the original publication had in it — that would be the Math. The initial set of supplement books address the issue with superior weapons and armor. The 2nd set of Core books addressed the initial math issues with the introduction of Expertise feats and Inherent bonuses. The 3rd set added in superior implements, and also went so far as to re-calculate the math on the opposition side of things. These resolutions were all fairly sound, but introduced something else that people complained about even more than the broken math: feat taxes. This was addressed by the Essentials line: not only did Expertise feats "fix" the math, they also added something additional to the mix, making them more of a carrot than a stick. With the commonly house-ruled "Inherent Feat Bonus" in play, this results in there not being much if any tax at all; but that's neither here nor there. Besides, these thing all can be retroactively applied to the previous books as well. So if there's a "creep" — as opposed to a "fix" — then it floats all boats, not just the new fiberglass ones.
And giving classes different methods of using powers — either Psionics, or the Essentials non-AED stuff — doesn't equal Power Creep, either. I've never seen proven that the newer classes are explicitly, implicitly, or inherently better/stronger/faster than the old ones. They're simply "different." "Different" does not equal "Power Creep."
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
I don't think anyone else mentioned the option of subscribing to DDI.
Though the Character Builder is a bit clunky, it does give you access to just /everything/. So if someone wants a reasonably complex/interesting martial character, he can build a Warlord or a core Fighter ("weaponmaster"), if he wants a "simple one," with fewer powers & options to keep track of, he can play an Essentials Slayer or Knight. Or, conversely, if a player wants to play an archanist he can dive into a Mage or other Wizard, with oodles of options & complexity, or if he wants something relatively simple, could try an Elemental Sorcerer.
Both are good and works very well together! If I had to pick, I would maybe say the player books from esentials, monster vault(threats of the Nenthir Vale is great!), and the dmg`s from core, at least dmg2, that is maybe my favourite book I have owned from 4e or all the aditions I`ve played from 2nd and up! But this is only my personal opinion, I have enjoyed all the editions I`ve played.
