# Official Rules Updates (March 02, 2010)



## fba827 (Mar 2, 2010)

For anyone not aware, a recent release of updates/errata/clarifications was posted today:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Official D&D Updates)

After a quick scan through, some of the things that jumped out at me were changes to:

-Righteous Brand (cleric at-will in PHB1)
-Orb of Imposition (wizard implement in PHB1)
-Lasting Frost (paragon feat in PHB1)
-Overlapping Durations (general rule)
-Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise (feats in PHB2)
-Hide Armor Expertise (feat in Primal Power)
-there were some other changes too, but those are the ones that jumped out at me either because they've come up in my group, were things I considered for my own PCs, or just because they change things that are often heavily discussed...

Several of the changes centered around the same ideas ... some of the scaling bonuses became flat bonuses (i.e. righteous brand and hide armor expertise).  Weapon/Implement Expertise became feat bonuses.  Things that were penalty to saves became penalties to the 'next save'. and so on.

Overall though, nothing 'ground breaking' (to me) and generally stuff i'm glad they at least continue to look at but overall i'm indifferent to these specific changes.


----------



## davethegame (Mar 2, 2010)

Some of the changes (orb especially) were a long time coming. However, Student of Caiphon was restricted to Warlock-only powers in this update, which completely changes the Avenger/Warlock/Student of Caiphon in my game. The build was crazy-strong and dealt more damage than the rest of the party combined, but now I'm left trying to work with the player to see what we should do (one of the options, of course, being to ignore the errata.)


----------



## fba827 (Mar 2, 2010)

davethegame said:


> Some of the changes (orb especially) were a long time coming. However, Student of Caiphon was restricted to Warlock-only powers in this update, which completely changes the Avenger/Warlock/Student of Caiphon in my game. The build was crazy-strong and dealt more damage than the rest of the party combined, but now I'm left trying to work with the player to see what we should do (one of the options, of course, being to ignore the errata.)




You know those Maryland gamers are always trying to work those cheesy combos


----------



## the8bitdeity (Mar 2, 2010)

I was glad to see Winged Horde get the nerf, since it was strictly better than scorching burst in all aspects in it's previous life.


----------



## ForumFerret (Mar 2, 2010)

Dave, did your table find that to be "working as intended" with one character doing more damage than the rest of the party combined? 

I'd expect to hear some grumbling at my table if that were to happen.


----------



## Elric (Mar 2, 2010)

Hide Armor Expertise nerfed into near-oblivion.  

Orb of Imposition needed to be weakened, but this is too weak.  It should have let you impose the penalty to one saving throw, after it was rolled, as a free action.

Divine Miracle was heavily nerfed.  I'm surprised they went this far, given how long it had remained at essentially its original level of power.  The obvious fix that left it at a high power level was "The first time each encounter you expend your last remaining encounter attack power, regain the use of all of your expended encounter attack powers."

Blood Pulse and Righteous Brand also toned down.  No more Blood Pulse combos.

The latest change to the Expertise feats is yet another reminder why they shouldn't have been created in the first place.  So long, Nimble Blade.  Edit: never mind, Nimble Blade isn't a feat bonus, so it's safe.  All future feats that give bonuses to hit will either be huge, scaling feat bonuses or small, obsolete compared to Expertise at higher levels, untyped bonuses.  

Dice of Auspicious Fortune from Dragon Magazine will still be an auto-include at high levels in multiples, particularly if you have a few days off to keep using the Daily power until you get good rolls (just don't take an extended rest).

Solitaires got a needed de-powering, though many are rather useless now.  

Salve of Power also got corrected de-powered, though I'm surprised they didn't just add something like "you can use only one Salve of Power between extended rests."

Ankhmon's bracers from AV II correctly toned down.  Diamond Cincture rendered much weaker as well.

Best list of changes I've seen is here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22584793/The_March_2,_2010_Updates


----------



## davethegame (Mar 2, 2010)

ForumFerret said:


> Dave, did your table find that to be "working as intended" with one character doing more damage than the rest of the party combined?
> 
> I'd expect to hear some grumbling at my table if that were to happen.




They took it better than you might expect, actually- this partially has to do with the fact that we're light on Strikers, and many of the other players are pretty minmaxed in their other roles. And let me tell you, combats go much quicker when you have a PC that can regularly dish out over 100 damage in a round 

I'm not saying the update wasn't needed- it definitely was- it's just the first time errata has come along in my game that has significantly changed a party member to the point where it isn't easy to adapt and derails his character concept. We just have to figure out how to go forward.

Back on topic, is there any insight into how the _____ Expertise update changes things? I notice there is language in there that states it specifically obsoletes certain feats... any idea which?


----------



## JohnnyO (Mar 2, 2010)

*Grasping Javelin Update*

Grasping Javelins got the nerf as well, which is interesting because that just came up at our table last game.

No more pulling an enemy 20 squares to stand next to the barbarian and get beat down.


----------



## AlphaAnt (Mar 2, 2010)

davethegame said:


> Back on topic, is there any insight into how the _____ Expertise update changes things? I notice there is language in there that states it specifically obsoletes certain feats... any idea which?




It made anything that provides a Feat Bonus to attack rolls obsolete. This is why changes were made to Hellfire Blood and Draconic Spellcaster, they didn't want popular racial feats to become worthless.

Most other feats that provide feat bonuses either scale at +2/+3/+4 (Hellfire Arcanist) or scale at +1/+2/+3, but also do something else (Feyborn Charm). There's also a lot that have +2 bonuses, but also provide other effects (Diabolic Soul).

Basically, it no longer stacks with all the other feats that scale with level.

EDIT: Lolth's Meat is something that is completely obsolete.


----------



## Primal (Mar 2, 2010)

Are these changes/revisions going to end up in subsequent printings of the books, or the PDF articles? One of the reasons that has put me off from 4E has been WoTC's reluctance to update the books, which means that you need a pile of printed errata/revisions/rule changes at the table. It may not be a huge pile yet, but in a couple of years it may require a folder of  its own.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 2, 2010)

The expertise feat is still very good for heroic tier if you really dumped dexterity allowing you to have AC equal to chain armor with a better reflex, but it really should increase by 1 at paragon and epic levels... coupled with second skin you would get the "right" AC

but looking at arcane riposte, you can see, WotC is willing to update the same thing more than once.

Maybe a whirling barbarian should have an alternate feature "barbarian will" or something like that.

@ Divine seal: i would have rather seen something like: as long as you maintain the lock, you can´t recover hp. And Damage to both targets.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 2, 2010)

I liked the errata/clarification to non-typed bonuses saying the "same named game element" do not stack. 

Though it does make me wonder if having two magic daggers would stack with Dual implement spellcaster or not.

Thoughts?

I would let them, of course, but by RAW, I am not so sure.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 2, 2010)

davethegame said:


> Some of the changes (orb especially) were a long time coming. However, Student of Caiphon was restricted to Warlock-only powers in this update, which completely changes the Avenger/Warlock/Student of Caiphon in my game. The build was crazy-strong and dealt more damage than the rest of the party combined, but now I'm left trying to work with the player to see what we should do (one of the options, of course, being to ignore the errata.)




In my game this would be a call to asking the player not to abuse such a combo pre-errata.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 2, 2010)

JohnnyO said:


> Grasping Javelins got the nerf as well, which is interesting because that just came up at our table last game.
> 
> No more pulling an enemy 20 squares to stand next to the barbarian and get beat down.




Yeah, my LFR Eladrin fighter is seriously going to miss his Grasping tratnyr, as cheesy as it was (fortunately, the current LFR rules let him swap it for something of equivalent level, since it's been changed). My Orb wizard ain't feeling too happy either - I've never gone for the save-penalty-boosting feats or items, but I'll miss the benefit of the basic power. Most of the time, it won't even make a difference to the one save it affects.

Personally, the fix I'd like to see for Orb wizards would be to expand the "extend power's duration an extra turn" to include Encounter powers as well as At-Wills. With the current nerf to the save penalty, I don't think that change would be too overpowering - as it is, the duration-extension is rarely used by most builds, and entirely useless to many.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 2, 2010)

Elric said:


> Divine Miracle was heavily nerfed.  I'm surprised they went this far, given how long it had remained at essentially its original level of power.  The obvious fix that left it at a high power level was "The first time each encounter you expend your last remaining encounter attack power, regain the use of all of your expended encounter attack powers."




Given the accompanying explanation, I would have thought that the obvious fix was to make it "The first time each round" rather than "The first time each encounter".

As it is, the Demigod population of <insert name of campaign world> just plummeted to near zero.


----------



## interwyrm (Mar 2, 2010)

Still reading through, but this is just dumb:

Umbiri Swordmage PP Power.
Assassin Shadow
Page 67: On the Hit line, replace Strength with
Intelligence. This revision syncs up the ability score
modifier of the power’s damage

They left the attack as Strength vs. AC.  I don't understand why they would change one but not the other. Even if they did, I would understand more if to hit was int, but the damage was strength.


----------



## Elric (Mar 2, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Given the accompanying explanation, I would have thought that the obvious fix was to make it "The first time each round" rather than "The first time each encounter".
> 
> As it is, the Demigod population of <insert name of campaign world> just plummeted to near zero.




If you're playing from level 21-30 and don't spend any more time at 30 than any other level, level 30 features are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things.  The 2 stat bonuses and great level 26 utility power still make Demigod plenty competitive.  

The reason why "The first time each round" wording wouldn't have worked well is that a character could run out of encounter attack powers by simply using a minor action attack power twice in a round.  Oops, accidentally lost the divine power!

What would have avoided this is something like "Once each round, if you have expended all of your encounter attack powers, you may regain the use of an encounter attack power"


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 2, 2010)

Elric said:


> The reason why "The first time each round" wording wouldn't have worked well is that a character could run out of encounter attack powers by simply using a minor action attack power twice in a round.  Oops, accidentally lost the divine power!



 I don't see why this would cause any problem with "The first time each round"


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 2, 2010)

Finally....gnome phantasmist isn't brokenly powerful anymore. Rejoice if you played a non-gnome illusionist wizard and felt like a sap.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 2, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> I don't see why this would cause any problem with "The first time each round"



The wording has to be: "if at the start of your turn you have no encounter attack power left, regain one..."


----------



## Elric (Mar 2, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> I don't see why this would cause any problem with "The first time each round"




Players shouldn't have to pay careful attention to exact timing of using encounter attack powers to avoid losing the benefit of their epic destiny capstone ability for the rest of the encounter.


----------



## Victim (Mar 2, 2010)

Weird change with Lasting Frost.  Now it's worse for wizards throwing ice bombs, but the Ranger with dual Frost swords still gets his full damage...

Not the way I would have considered changing it.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 2, 2010)

Elric said:


> Players shouldn't have to pay careful attention to exact timing of using encounter attack powers to avoid losing the benefit of their epic destiny capstone ability for the rest of the encounter.



 Why would they? The timing doesn't matter at all with "The first time each round"


----------



## 2020 (Mar 2, 2010)

Some very nice changes. I especially like the Winged Horde and Careful Attack changes. Now Winged Horde with Enlarge Spell isn't as brokenly overpowered as it previously was.


----------



## Elric (Mar 2, 2010)

Mirtek said:


> Why would they? The timing doesn't matter at all with "The first time each round"




Here's an example:  A player has 1 remaining encounter attack power, that takes a minor action.

Divine Miracle is counterfactually worded as: "The first time you expend your last remaining encounter attack power each round, you regain the use of one encounter attack power of your choice.”

He uses the encounter attack power, recovers it with Divine Miracle, then uses a move --> minor action to use it again.  He doesn't recover anything with Divine Miracle.

When the next round comes around, he has no encounter attack powers that he could use, so he can't "expend his last remaining encounter attack power" to trigger Divine Miracle.


----------



## Mirtek (Mar 2, 2010)

Elric said:


> Here's an example:  A player has 1 remaining encounter attack power, that takes a minor action.
> 
> Divine Miracle is counterfactually worded as: "The first time you expend your last remaining encounter attack power each round, you regain the use of one encounter attack power of your choice.”
> 
> ...



 Ok, now I understand. I thought you were referring to a player expending his last two minor action encounter powers during the same round and having to worry in which order he does that. Which of course didn't make sense, you're example is of course correct


----------



## babinro (Mar 2, 2010)

Some great changes here. 

Orb Wizard was changed to how I currently houserule it.  The feature is still easily superior to the staff and wand in my opinion, but at least they all follow the same one time effect synergy now.

Divine Miracle: A great change that does not make the Epic Destiny weak in the least bit but rather closer to being on par with other options.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 3, 2010)

Hellfire Blood now stacks with Weapon Focus.


----------



## Jools (Mar 3, 2010)

Are these updates in the new character builder patch as well?


----------



## Mort_Q (Mar 3, 2010)

Jools said:


> Are these updates in the new character builder patch as well?




Righteous Brand is updated in the CB, so I would assume the rest are as well.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 3, 2010)

Wow ... quite extreme changes. 

It'll take awhile to figure out all the implications. It does seem that WotC is now more explicit about the socalled Expertise 'feat tax.' I had previously disallowed those sort of feats, but I might reconsider now that they're typed bonuses. 

I also noticed that Pacifist healer -- the bugaboo of several interwebs arguments -- got changed rather dramatically too. 

C.I.D.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Mar 3, 2010)

For the Staff of Ruin change, were some people really arguing that it and Dual Implement Spellcaster gave a total of 4x Enh bonus to damage?

Really?


Our poor barbarian is going to cry.  He was rejoicing in his Hide Armor Expertise AC that put him at over the Warden's AC.

Brad


----------



## Kzach (Mar 3, 2010)

Cyronax said:


> I also noticed that Pacifist healer -- the bugaboo of several interwebs arguments -- got changed rather dramatically too.




The way I interpret the change is that it was a power-up, not a nerf. Clerics can now lay ongoing damage to targets without worrying about being stunned.


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm dissappointed that Healer's Mercy and Astral Seal were left unscathed. I am seriously considering a houserule that turns the HP of Astral Seal into temporary HP.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 3, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Hellfire Blood now stacks with Weapon Focus.




Yeah it really does help dragon sorcerers, as well as some wizards, hell locks, and few swordmages.

Unfortunately, flaming weapons are still Level 5/10/15/etc. Just waiting one more level gets you an additional +1 on the weapon, and no need for the feat. If they could change flaming weapons to level 2/7/12/etc, that would make the whole endeavor a lot more meaningful.


----------



## mkill (Mar 3, 2010)

Going through the changes, I don't think any of them affects a PC from my group's current roster. But then we're fairly laid back and don't try to screw the system.

The one with the most far-reaching changes is the ban on keyword stacking: no more Morning Lord + Frostcheese in one character for you. The game is better for it.

I don't agree with the Auspicious Dice nerf, the item is boring and metagamey and should just be banned, period.

On the other hand, whoever nerved grasping javelins is a DM sissy and should have their geek license removed.
SCORPION WINS! FATALITY!


----------



## Artoomis (Mar 3, 2010)

For the most part, this update is all about pulling back (aka nerfing) on some overpowered, unbalanced rules.

Unfortunately, the gutting of Hide Armor Expertise has so dramatically affected my barbarian that I has to re-tool him as a fighter to preserve his basic concept.  Oh, well, so it goes...


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 3, 2010)

It would be nice to see some more buffs in with the nerfs...I always feel like the errata is always knocking the power out of everything. So of it deserved, some of it not so much.

I think the orb change was a bit too much. I also like the once per encounter, after a saving throw is made you can apply a penalty. Still strong and useful, but not overpowered.


I'm also on the fence on saving throw penalties. My problem with them isn't the duration its the scaling. I often feel that saving throws with no penalty aren't that strong. I would usually rather have a power that lasts "until the end of my next turn". With things like cunning weapons they get a bit better.

I didn't mind that a weapon can give a character -2 on the saving throw powers as long as that's it.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm largely in favor.  Lots of great stuff - especially the Student of Caiphon radiant stuff.  Now we just need a nerf to Eladrin Swordmage Advance!

This is good news, even though I won't be able to play for a few weeks...  My wife and my first child was born this past Friday, and we need to get our lives in order first. 

-O


----------



## MacMathan (Mar 3, 2010)

Obryn said:


> This is good news, even though I won't be able to play for a few weeks...  My wife and my first child was born this past Friday, and we need to get our lives in order first.
> 
> -O




Congratulations and good luck  to you!


----------



## eamon (Mar 3, 2010)

There goes my low level gnome illusionist:

Let's see; the racial feat now doesn't stack with expertise; doesn't apply to non-illusion feats, and grants a feat bonus to damage rolls to illusion powers.  Of course, several illusion powers (certainly various low-level ones) don't actually do any damage...

Which means that there's the choice of not taking the feat and going for the bland expertise feat as one of the few low-level feats there are; or keeping the feat and restricting oneself to illusion spells only (otherwise there's really no point in the racial feat rather than expertise) and then picking up _damaging_ illusion powers.  Which was kind of precisely not the point of the illusionist...

There's no question that a scaling bonus gets out of hand at later levels; but I'm not particularly enthused at the thought of redesigning a PC because of balance problems 20 levels later.

If they hadn't screwed up expertise in the first place, this wouldn't have been necessary.


----------



## kerbarian (Mar 3, 2010)

Mort_Q said:


> Righteous Brand is updated in the CB, so I would assume the rest are as well.



Winged Horde has been updated, but not correctly.  Instead of being changed to 1d6 damage, the "Hit" line is now missing completely.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 3, 2010)

What I don't like, is that making a character without the builder (and I cannot install the builder on my home-no-internet-computer) becomes horribly difficult. It's like memorizing the last errata first and then open the books.

And why did they update the tiefling hellfire blood feat, but not the gnome phantasmist?


----------



## Starfox (Mar 3, 2010)

Potions of Clarity got heavily nerfed. Now they have level limits on what powers they can be used with. Additionally they are based of item dailies, instead of healing surges. Is that a first for potions? Very irregular.


----------



## fba827 (Mar 3, 2010)

Starfox said:


> Potions of Clarity got heavily nerfed. Now they have level limits on what powers they can be used with. Additionally they are based of item dailies, instead of healing surges. Is that a first for potions? Very irregular.




That is indeed a first for potions: The general (and only) rule up until now has been potions = healing surge, elixirs = daily item use.  Thus this becomes the first exception to that rule.  I kind of wish they just called it an elixir now though... but i can understand that they already have the item 'out there' in treasures just waiting to be discovered in modules so they wouldn't want to cause confusion by changing the name itself... *sigh*.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 3, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> I'm dissappointed that Healer's Mercy and Astral Seal were left unscathed. I am seriously considering a houserule that turns the HP of Astral Seal into temporary HP.




Healer's Mercy most definitely needs a nerf of some type. It's so grossly overpowered compared to all the other CD options for a cleric that I'm surprised it's lasted so long unchanged.

Astral Seal could definitely use a nerf as well, although I'm unsure how one would do it without making it useless. Changing to temp hit points would make it rather pointless (it would no longer get a benefit from Healer's Lore or other stackable healing benefits), whereas it currently heals too much (often around 9 to 10 hit points at 1st-level) and puts the power into unbelievably good territory.


----------



## 1of3 (Mar 3, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Hellfire Blood now stacks with Weapon Focus.




Sorry, I don't understand.

Hellfire Blood is about attack, Weapon Focus is about damage. They have nothing to do with each other and never had.

If you wanted to say "Weapon Expertise" these feats just got their bonus types exchanged. They did stack before.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 3, 2010)

1of3 said:


> Sorry, I don't understand.
> 
> Hellfire Blood is about attack, Weapon Focus is about damage. They have nothing to do with each other and never had.
> 
> If you wanted to say "Weapon Expertise" these feats just got their bonus types exchanged. They did stack before.




Except, of course, for the part where Hellfire Blood gives, and has always given, a bonus to damage equal to positive one. 

And now, instead of a feat bonus, it's a normal bonus.

They have -everything- to do with each other, and always have.  Except before, they failed to stack, and now, they do stack.


----------



## Starfox (Mar 3, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> It would be nice to see some more buffs in with the nerfs...I always feel like the errata is always knocking the power out of everything. So of it deserved, some of it not so much.



I agree, but I also see why they do it this way; the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Trouble is, if they wrote a rule making some concept unviably weak, that concept is likely to remain bad forever, with no relief in sight.



Stalker0 said:


> [...]I'm also on the fence on saving throw penalties. My problem with them isn't the duration its the scaling. I often feel that saving throws with no penalty aren't that strong. I would usually rather have a power that lasts "until the end of my next turn". With things like cunning weapons they get a bit better.




Not wanting to derail this tread, I forked my reply to this to a new Saving Throws Post March Errata thread.


----------



## Nifelhein (Mar 3, 2010)

Hmm expertise changed... hmmm


----------



## Destil (Mar 3, 2010)

Elric said:


> Hide Armor Expertise nerfed into near-oblivion.
> 
> Orb of Imposition needed to be weakened, but this is too weak.  It should have let you impose the penalty to one saving throw, after it was rolled, as a free action.




Hide armor expertise is a bit worthless now. This also throws the swarm druid firmly into the 'AC scaling issues' camp, though their scaling DR isn't that bad. Str/Con barbarians never had that problem in the first place (see chainmail).

Orb, I think, DOES do this now. It's a free action, so you should be able to use it anytime, including in response to seeing the roll.


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 3, 2010)

Destil said:


> Hide armor expertise is a bit worthless now. This also throws the swarm druid firmly into the 'AC scaling issues' camp, though their scaling DR isn't that bad. Str/Con barbarians never had that problem in the first place (see chainmail).
> 
> ...




Their DR isn't scaling good enough, considered their many melee range / close powers and supposed secondary defender role. (They also nerfed shield use while wildshaped.)

Were the swarm druid over-powered and the two-weapon barbarian is still fine? At least make the bonus of hide expertise rise with tiers.

Light armor raises only by 1 / tier. Without an increasing added bonus (like a primary or secondary ability you rise at every opportunity) it falls to far behind the heavy armor.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 3, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I liked the errata/clarification to non-typed bonuses saying the "same named game element" do not stack.
> 
> Though it does make me wonder if having two magic daggers would stack with Dual implement spellcaster or not.
> 
> ...




1) Rules involving non-typed bonuses do not affect typed bonuses.

2) The feat specifically states you can add the enhancement damage of a second implement in; this creates an explicit exception to the normal rules for stacking bonuses.


----------



## Pickles JG (Mar 3, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> And why did they update the tiefling hellfire blood feat, but not the gnome phantasmist?




The Gnome one scales, Hellfire blood does not. I think they should have made the gnome phantasmist & Draconic Spellcaster the same as Hellfire Blood.

Changing the bonus type of the expertise feats messes up those of us that gave them out for free. It makes the Draconic Spellcaster type feat less appealing (which is OK as they were too good).  

If you adjusted enemy defences however that type of feat will become (er remain) very strong indeed.


----------



## eamon (Mar 3, 2010)

Pickles JG said:


> The Gnome one scales, Hellfire blood does not. I think they should have made the gnome phantasmist & Draconic Spellcaster the same as Hellfire Blood.



I agree, and started a thread on the errata forum suggesting that change.




> Changing the bonus type of the expertise feats messes up those of us that gave them out for free. It makes the Draconic Spellcaster type feat less appealing (which is OK as they were too good).
> 
> If you adjusted enemy defences however that type of feat will become (er remain) very strong indeed.



I agree with this too, but I really don't see a fix for that coming from WotC.  You could ban feat bonuses to attack rolls; that basically is what experise does anyhow; but at some point you have to wonder whether it's worth the effort...


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 3, 2010)

I apologize pre-emptively for this hijack. If it goes further than this, I'll turn it into a thread in the 4e houserules forum.



Kzach said:


> Astral Seal could definitely use a nerf as well, although I'm unsure how one would do it without making it useless. Changing to temp hit points would make it rather pointless (it would no longer get a benefit from Healer's Lore or other stackable healing benefits), whereas it currently heals too much (often around 9 to 10 hit points at 1st-level) and puts the power into unbelievably good territory.




I haven't thought about it long enough to present the phrasing here, but the houserule as I imagine it would turn all the currently healed HP into temp HP. Therefore 8-10 temp hp per Astral Seal.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 3, 2010)

Goodbye to three of my most loathed game abuses
* Orbizards. Take that Cheesemasters!!
* Righteous Brand. Burn in hell you over the top 1st level at-will
* Student of Caiphon/Avengers. Wohoo! Die horid stupid cheese build


----------



## Kzach (Mar 3, 2010)

Ferghis said:


> I haven't thought about it long enough to present the phrasing here, but the houserule as I imagine it would turn all the currently healed HP into temp HP. Therefore 8-10 temp hp per Astral Seal.




As I said before, changing it to temp hit points would mean the power would no longer be a healing power and therefore would not gain the benefit of Healer's Lore. That would reduce the amount of hit points by 4-5.


----------



## Flipguarder (Mar 3, 2010)

Special: This power also counts as a healing power for the purpose of Healer's Lore.

OR, if that is not clear enough for you

Speacial: Target regains 1 hp


----------



## Aduro (Mar 3, 2010)

Target regains 2 Hit Points, and gains Temporary Hit Points equal to your Cha modifier?


----------



## Flipguarder (Mar 3, 2010)

Igatwona ,dooiheathray!? Thrayhealookinfoathray!


----------



## Elric (Mar 3, 2010)

Destil said:


> Orb, I think, DOES do this now. It's a free action, so you should be able to use it anytime, including in response to seeing the roll.




You can use it any time, but:



> You can designate one creature you have cast a wizard spell upon that has an effect that lasts until the subject succeeds on a saving throw. That creature takes a penalty to its *next saving throw* against that effect equal to your Wisdom modifier.




By the time a saving throw has already been rolled, it shouldn't be the "next saving throw."  There would be no reason for the current wording if the intent was "impose the penalty to one saving throw, after it was rolled, as a free action."


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 3, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> Goodbye to three of my most loathed game abuses
> ...
> * Righteous Brand. Burn in hell you over the top 1st level at-will
> ...




Using a PHB1 at-will exactly as it was intended to be used is a "game abuse"? 

You certainly shouldn't be lumping Righteous Brand in with Orbizard cheese and Student of Caiphon avengers


----------



## hvg3akaek (Mar 4, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> It would be nice to see some more buffs in with the nerfs...I always feel like the errata is always knocking the power out of everything. So of it deserved, some of it not so much.



hah, that's not WotC's way.

Powerful stuff gets errata, weak stuff gets new books published with similar feat/item/powers that are more powerful.

And need future errata...


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 4, 2010)

Colmarr said:


> Using a PHB1 at-will exactly as it was intended to be used is a "game abuse"?
> 
> You certainly shouldn't be lumping Righteous Brand in with Orbizard cheese and Student of Caiphon avengers



Granted, and cheerfully withdrawn. I guess Im so happy because all the things I had to houserule before, I no longer have to house rule (righteous brand being one of them).


----------



## Destil (Mar 4, 2010)

Walking Dad said:


> Their DR isn't scaling good enough, considered their many melee range / close powers and supposed secondary defender role. (They also nerfed shield use while wildshaped.)
> 
> Were the swarm druid over-powered and the two-weapon barbarian is still fine? At least make the bonus of hide expertise rise with tiers.
> 
> Light armor raises only by 1 / tier. Without an increasing added bonus (like a primary or secondary ability you rise at every opportunity) it falls to far behind the heavy armor.



Barbarians don't need it, they have agility to deal with scaling.

Druids do, and the DR doesn't stack at a good rate. I agree on that, my post was a bit unclear.

But they just join a continually growing list of builds with AC scaling problems.
Str/Wis ranger
Cha/Con warlock
Wis/Con shaman
Str/Cha barbarian EDIT: The new feat + agility fix this build and this build only.
Wis/Con (swarm) druid

None of these guys can qualify for heavy without putting points into Str or Con in *addition* to their secondary stat, which is annoying.

I'm leaning towards adding your highest ability score modifier to defense when using light armor, end of story, at this point. Just for simplicity.



Elric said:


> You can use it any time, but: By the time a saving throw has already been rolled, it shouldn't be the "next saving throw."  There would be no reason for the current wording if the intent was "impose the penalty to one saving throw, after it was rolled, as a free action."




The timing on 'free actions' is pretty vague, but the general trend by WotC has been to treat them as interrupts, rather than reactions. Which is why I believe this works by the RAW. But I'd love to see free action timing clarified in general.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 4, 2010)

Destil said:


> I'm leaning towards adding your highest ability score modifier to defense when using light armor, end of story, at this point. Just for simplicity.



Im for throwing away using stats for AC all together and just saying AC is based on the armor you wear (or other essateric factors such as sword mage warding), making light armor mechanically identical to heavy, but with slightly less AC for the payoff being mobility.


----------



## Destil (Mar 4, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> Im for throwing away using stats for AC all together and just saying AC is based on the armor you wear (or other essateric factors such as sword mage warding), making light armor mechanically identical to heavy, but with slightly less AC for the payoff being mobility.




Solid idea. Incorporate masterwork bonuses based on character level and I think this is pretty much perfect.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> Im for throwing away using stats for AC all together and just saying AC is based on the armor you wear (or other essateric factors such as sword mage warding), making light armor mechanically identical to heavy, but with slightly less AC for the payoff being mobility.




Interesting idea, but it might be a bit problematic to implement, especially if one were to keep shields as they currently are and the number of armors as they currently are. But if one were to drop out 2 of the armors:

Cloth = +0 AC
Leather = +1 AC
Chain = +2 AC
Plate = +3 AC
Shield = +1 AC

Same level monsters hit 50% of the time against Cloth. 30% of the time Plate and Shield. A monster 4 levels higher, 70% and 50%.

This could actually work. Do we really need 6 different armors with an AC delta of basically 7 (i.e. 14 through 20) at first level?


In our game, the Cleric took 2 feats to get her AC up 2 and it's the rare game where a Wizard or Sorcerer doesn't take Leather. I think the game has a fundamental flaw when the players think they need to do this, just so that they won't get smacked with monster debilitating conditions too often. It's more or less a feat tax for these classes.


Btw, I think most of this month's errata (that I've read so far) is good.


----------



## Xeterog (Mar 4, 2010)

surprised that no one has mentioned the Blood Pulse nerf...I'm expecting our wizard to complain loudly about it...


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 4, 2010)

Xeterog said:


> surprised that no one has mentioned the Blood Pulse nerf...I'm expecting our wizard to complain loudly about it...



Between Blood Pulse and Winged Horde, our resident Wizard wept bitter, bitter tears.

Sooooo delicious.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 4, 2010)

Wormwood said:


> Between Blood Pulse and Winged Horde, our resident Wizard wept bitter, bitter tears.




Gee, wizard fanboys must be throwing up on this rollercoaster.

3.5 = omghaxxors!
4e = not bad
4e post invoker = weaksauce
4e post blood pulse and winged horde = zomghaxxors
4e post march 2010 = ?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 4, 2010)

hvg3akaek said:


> hah, that's not WotC's way.
> 
> Powerful stuff gets errata, weak stuff gets new books published with similar feat/item/powers that are more powerful.
> 
> And need future errata...



Well, Sure Strike or Careful Attack (which was the Ranger power again?) did get updated to be more powerful (but not the other so far).


----------



## Walking Dad (Mar 4, 2010)

Destil said:


> ...
> 
> None of these guys can qualify for heavy without putting points into Str or Con in *addition* to their secondary stat, which is annoying.
> ...




But only the swarm druid looses his class feature by wearing heavy armor...


----------



## Starfox (Mar 4, 2010)

KarinsDad said:


> In our game, the Cleric took 2 feats to get her AC up 2 and it's the rare game where a Wizard or Sorcerer doesn't take Leather. I think the game has a fundamental flaw when the players think they need to do this, just so that they won't get smacked with monster debilitating conditions too often. It's more or less a feat tax for these classes.




The problem is that AC is just that good. And each point is better than the last one. Going from 55% to be hit to 50% chance to be hit is a 10% improvement; going from 10% chance to be hit to 5% chance to be hit is a 100% improvement!

This kind of thing is very hard to avoid without using a bell curve model (that is, rolling 2 or more dice).


----------



## Ferghis (Mar 4, 2010)

Kzach said:


> As I said before, changing it to temp hit points would mean the power would no longer be a healing power and therefore would not gain the benefit of Healer's Lore. That would reduce the amount of hit points by 4-5.




I'm obviously not making myself clear enough for you. Let me try again. I would change the formula to determine the temp hit points to 2+Cha modifier+Wis modifier, and add a clause that states something along the lines of "further, increase this number by any magic item that would increase hit points healed by a clerical healing power."

As I also said before, I don't have the phrasing down, but the houserule (and proposed errata) would leave Astral Seal a very useful power, but remove the healing effects that so offend the hp economy of 4e.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 4, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I'm largely in favor. Lots of great stuff - especially the Student of Caiphon radiant stuff. Now we just need a nerf to Eladrin Swordmage Advance!
> 
> This is good news, even though I won't be able to play for a few weeks... My wife and my first child was born this past Friday, and we need to get our lives in order first.
> 
> -O





Acquiring 'baby's first dice set' is of the utmost importance.


----------



## Aduro (Mar 4, 2010)

Starfox said:


> The problem is that AC is just that good. And each point is better than the last one. Going from 55% to be hit to 50% chance to be hit is a 10% improvement; going from 10% chance to be hit to 5% chance to be hit is a 100% improvement!
> 
> This kind of thing is very hard to avoid without using a bell curve model (that is, rolling 2 or more dice).




But going from a 90% chance to miss to a 95% chance to miss isn't a 100% improvement. That kind of math is faulty, and each point of increase is only a 5% improvement, where each point is no more better than the last, unless you can hit a threshold where you can't be hit at all.

Additionally, that's why I like the Feats that give you the +1 to hit, because they're just as good at level 30 as they are at level 1.


----------



## Turtlejay (Mar 4, 2010)

Oooooooh yes, the Salve of Power is destroyed.  I never saw one in a game I was in, and now I never have to.  I was pretty annoyed by the amount of cheese wrung out of that one item on the charop boards.  I am kind of interested to see how Expertise interacts with the other to-hit bonuses, but since it is banned in my home game, I'll just keep an eye on the board.  I'm sure it'll crop up.

Jay


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 4, 2010)

Aduro said:


> But going from a 90% chance to miss to a 95% chance to miss isn't a 100% improvement. That kind of math is faulty, and each point of increase is only a 5% improvement, where each point is no more better than the last, unless you can hit a threshold where you can't be hit at all.
> 
> Additionally, that's why I like the Feats that give you the +1 to hit, because they're just as good at level 30 as they are at level 1.




Ah you see, there is the problem. The actual increase always is (P1-P2/P2) where P1 is the probability after the change and P1 is the original probability; that is because an increase in chance for something to happen from a previous state is a conditional probability. So all probabilities that involve a roll of 1d20 + modifiers face diminishing or increasing effect depending on the direction we are moving at. In short, in the d20 system any increase in defensive DCs presents increasing returns and any increase in offensive d20 rolls faces decreasing returns.
The same does not stand if we use a bell curve approximation (3d6 works well on that). This concept lies in the very foundation of the d20 system and largely defines the feel of combat in this system in a way that is poorly understood by most.


----------



## Aduro (Mar 4, 2010)

Want to break that down for those of us not mastered in probability? Actual math examples maybe?


----------



## Victim (Mar 4, 2010)

Basically, you take half as much damage if people need 20 to hit you versus them needing a 19 (barring crits and such).  It's only a change of a 5% percent increment, but the character only hit on a 20 will live twice as long.  As you move further from that extreme, the returns are much less dramatic.


----------



## Sonofbizzkitz (Mar 4, 2010)

*New To D&D*

Ok I have played D&D in the past (1st edition). Some friends and I decided to take it up again with me as the DM. They rolled characters and I inputed some of the info online. I used 4th edition online thing and the saving throws are a lot higher than 1st edition.
They asked me why? I said "Oreo" and we cant decide if we should just stick with first edition or go 4,(I went and bought 4E Manulals already and I would really like to run 4E!
we were all wondering why some of the stats are different.
Should we go 4E  or stick with 1??


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 4, 2010)

Starfox said:


> The problem is that AC is just that good. And each point is better than the last one. Going from 55% to be hit to 50% chance to be hit is a 10% improvement; going from 10% chance to be hit to 5% chance to be hit is a 100% improvement!




The point is that it's a feat tax because many players think that the PC cannot be played without the feat (which btw I am doing for my LEB sorcerer, so it can be done, just most players don't see it).

A player of a Fighter might say "Meh. Plate armor? I don't want to waste the feat. Scale (and shield) is good enough."

Most players of Clerics don't say that. Most players of Wizards and Sorcerer don't say that.

They think that Chain with no shield and especially Cloth are not even close to "good enough". AC 14 or 15 when most of the rest of the team are at AC 16 to 20, seems unplayable. They think that they have to take that feat. It becomes a must take or a feat tax.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 4, 2010)

Nymrohd said:


> Ah you see, there is the problem. The actual increase always is (P1-P2/P2) where P1 is the probability after the change and P1 is the original probability; that is because an increase in chance for something to happen from a previous state is a conditional probability. So all probabilities that involve a roll of 1d20 + modifiers face diminishing or increasing effect depending on the direction we are moving at. In short, in the d20 system any increase in defensive DCs presents increasing returns and any increase in offensive d20 rolls faces decreasing returns.
> The same does not stand if we use a bell curve approximation (3d6 works well on that). This concept lies in the very foundation of the d20 system and largely defines the feel of combat in this system in a way that is poorly understood by most.



A very simple way of thinking about this...

Lets say an enemy would need a 11 to hit you (50% average). Lets say you somehow get a +1 boost to your defence, and the enemy therefore needs a 12 to hit you (now 45%).

Has the chance he hits you changed by 5%? Yes. Has the chance that he hits you decreased by 5%? No. Its 10%

By saying 5% you are comparing the factor of the change to 100% (i.e. 5/100) where you should be comparing the shift(5%) to the original probability (50%), which is 5/50, or 10%

Same scenario, but lets say the enemy needed a 19 (10%). You get the same +1 bonus to defence so he now needs a 20 (5%) (leave crits out of debate for now)

Has the chance he hits you changed by 5%? Yes. Has the chance that he hits you decreased by 5%? No. Its more like 50%

The change that he hits you has decreased by 5/10 or 50%

This is very rough an non-formulaic (just cant be stuffed right now) but this is the principal of how probability works on an ajusted flat d20 roll. 1 <> 5%, and it scales dramatically at the extreme end of the probability.

What you have to think is not how often every 20 rolls he hits, but how often he hits before, compared to how often he does after. By taking a creature fro 10 hits every 20 to 9 hits every 20, the impact is fairly minimal, but by taking a creature from 2 hits every 20 to 1 every twenty, you have halved hit hit rate...same +1, completely different effect.

If you feel you can buy into debates over when a class(/other) has a number that is too high (like the debates over avenger AC) is is ESSENTIAL you understand this principal, cause if you dont, your just wasting everyones time.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 5, 2010)

Aduro said:


> Want to break that down for those of us not mastered in probability? Actual math examples maybe?




Okay, not so much text as above.

5% extra probability does not mean 5% more outcomes.

If your chances to hit are 10 in 20 outcomes, then a 10% extra chance to hit means 2 extra outcomes, which is actually 20% more outcomes.

20% more hits.

20% more damage.


----------



## Elric (Mar 5, 2010)

BobTheNob said:


> A very simple way of thinking about this...
> 
> Lets say an enemy would need a 11 to hit you (50% average). Lets say you somehow get a +1 boost to your defence, and the enemy therefore needs a 12 to hit you (now 45%).
> 
> ...




They problem with this kind of analysis, though, is that plenty of attacks don't target AC (though it's true that AC is probably targeted ~ as much or more than all other defenses put together, depending on your level).

People apply this logic to (incorrectly) argue that you should increase high FRW defenses more than low ones, even if the low ones aren't at "would be hit on a 1" level and the high ones aren't any more targeted than the low ones.  Quoting from a post on WotC's boards:   



			
				Elric said:
			
		

> > I believe the rule of thumb is that each increasing attack bonus brings diminishing returns, and by the same token each further increase in defense brings increasing returns. Increasing your low defenses (assuming it goes from a 2 to hit to more) actually reduces more damage than increasing a high defense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 5, 2010)

Elric said:


> They problem with this kind of analysis, though, is that plenty of attacks don't target AC (though it's true that AC is probably targeted ~ as much or more than all other defenses put together, depending on your level).




Plenty of d20 rolls have nothing to do with attacking either.

That doesn't change how the probabilities work one bit.



> People apply this logic to (incorrectly) argue that you should increase high FRW defenses more than low ones, even if the low ones aren't at "would be hit on a 1" level and the high ones aren't any more targeted than the low ones.  Quoting from a post on WotC's boards:




If and only if all NADs are targetted equally as often, then you have:

1/3 of all attacks against Fortitude
1/3 against Will
1/3 against Reflex

Which means that the total number of outcomes for 'gets hit' is the same over all NAD attacks.

Taking 4 outcomes off of a low NAD has no difference on the total number of hits than 4 outcomes off of a high NAD.

Therefore, it doesn't matter WHICH NAD you boost.  All are just as good.

Otherwise, the only rational choice is to boost the one targetted most often, regardless if it is high or low.


----------



## KarinsDad (Mar 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> If and only if all NADs are targetted equally as often, then you have:
> 
> 1/3 of all attacks against Fortitude
> 1/3 against Will
> ...




If one does not consider riders. Attacks vs. Reflex, for example, almost always have damage riders with maybe some minor modifier to defense or to hit. Not so bad. But Stun or Daze or Immobilize or Blinded can be quite a bit more devastating.



DracoSuave said:


> Otherwise, the only rational choice is to boost the one targetted most often, regardless if it is high or low.




Typically true.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 5, 2010)

Never mind. Forked instead


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Okay, not so much text as above.
> 
> 5% extra probability does not mean 5% more outcomes.
> 
> ...




Yes, but you are missing a part of your analysis. Lets say a certain monster dishes out 20 DPR if it hits every single time it swings at you (nm 1's and 20's for now). For each one of those times it actually misses, it means it effectively dishes out less DPR. So if it has to get a 2 its now down to 19 average DPR and your 1 extra AC saved you 1 point of damage per round. If the monster hit you on only a 19 before it was doing 2 DPR. If it now hits you on a 20 only it does 1 DPR, still 1 point less damage per round per point of AC gained. 

So YES, the change between a 19 and a 20 to be hit is a 50% reduction, but its 50% on a base that is 1/10th as big as the 5% reduction you got from being hit always to being hit on a 2, which is 1 point also.

So it SOUNDS like AC (or NADs) going up when they are already high is 'better' in the simple %-wise analysis, but the actual benefit is linear. In reality there is also a benefit of 'reliability' when a defense gets quite high. You can now COUNT on it not getting hit, so you can decide to go take on the big FORT bashing monster with a high confidence it won't stun you all over the place. That is a real tangible benefit in actual fights where you have to decide how best to defeat varying challenges. If different players focus on different defenses then SOMEONE can always be pretty resistant to any given problematic attack. 

This is one reason cranking on one specific NAD can really be a good idea. Especially for the guy that has to go in and deal with stuff, like a melee ranger where maybe he's good against the FORT attacking monster and the rogue does better against the REF attacking monster.


----------



## Elric (Mar 5, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Plenty of d20 rolls have nothing to do with attacking either.
> 
> That doesn't change how the probabilities work one bit.




Many people interpret these types of probabilities wrong in making decisions.  

Suppose you currently get hit 10% of the time by AC attacks and 80% of the time by FRW attacks.  

FRW attacks and AC attacks are equally common, equally damaging/status effect inflicting, and tend to come in equally difficult encounters.  

(Edit: worded these conditions poorly before)
The equal FRW and AC targeting isn't because opponents are targeting you based on what your strengths and weaknesses are; it's essentially random.  Likewise, you can't specifically target enemies that attack your FRWs instead of AC to kill first.

Opponents always hit you on a 19 vs AC (16 vs. FRW) and miss on a 1 without the natural 1s rule (messed up this condition the first time).

Which do you prefer: +1 to AC or +4 to all FRWs?



> *If and only if *all NADs are targetted equally as often, then you have:
> ...
> Therefore, it doesn't matter WHICH NAD you boost.  All are just as good.
> 
> Otherwise, *the only rational choice *is to boost the one targetted most often, regardless if it is high or low.




There are more considerations that would go into a serious analysis of the issue.  See above.


----------



## illwizard (Mar 5, 2010)

> Should we go 4E or stick with 1??




Go for it! At least give it a shot, You can always go back to first edition. But I think you need to make a new thread if you want to discuss it. Cheers


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 5, 2010)

Honestly the importance of increasing or decreasing returns leads to two conclusions:

Because your defenses face increasing returns, then if they are naturally high, every time you increase them you get more out of the increase. If I can only be hit if the enemy rolls a 16 or higher and suddently I get a +3 bonus on my defense, the enemy will need to roll 19 or higher to hit me. The return I got from that +3 bonus is not 15% (I had a 25% chance to be missed and now I have a 10% chance to be missed) but 60% (25-15/25). This means that feats or powers that provide bonuses to defenses are more valuable when you can stack them together. Inversely if your natural defenses were very low, it would not really be worthwhile to invest in increasing them because the returns would take some time to trump the sacrifice you'd make in getting an offensive advantage. This does not often happen in 4E because most classes have at least decent defenses by default.

Conversely, the return of a bonus in your chance to hit is great the higher your original chance to miss was. Take for instance the expertise feat at say the paragon tier, which gives you a +2 bonus. Let's say we have two characters, a dagger rogue with a very high original chance to hit who could get a hit at a roll as low as 6 against the average monster, and a battleraging fighter using a +2 prof weapon with a 16 starting Str who can only hit on rolls of 12 or higher on average. The +2 bonus from the expertise feat would be good for either ofc, but it would be a lot better for the fighter who gets a (55-45/45)=22% return against the rogue's return of (85-75/75)=13%. This means that if you have a class designed to get a significant bonus on damage dealt when it hits, that was balanced with a low hit chance, and you add some cheese like righteous brand, that class gets far more out of it than the low damage/high precision class.

Why is this useful to know? Well unless you are interested in optimization, it really isn't. If you want to optimize though, you need to understand that when you make a choice, you need to compare your options based on the return they will give you and not the face value. This can even be an argument for the expertise feats for instance; in an optimized group that can produce high hit chances naturally (and likely has methods of producing rerolls for critical powers) the expertise feats do not have amazing returns as feats (they are arguably still better than average). In a different group that can produce huge damage when it hits but keeps getting missing streaks, those feats are golden. At the same time, a scaling bonus to attack rolls, particularly one that can be made available easily like the one from righteous brand, is simply very broken when combined with low hit characters.

This nature of the d20 system forces the necessity of rolls of 20 always hitting (otherways you could potentialy cap defenses and be unhittable). At the same time we see how it breaks down in the monster system. Brutes have high damage combined with low chance to hit and low defenses. A player could handle this with synergies and make an effective character who can capitalize on the tradeoffs but monsters do not have access to those in general making brutes crappy NPCs.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Mar 5, 2010)

I agree 100% with Nymrohd's post, but argue that it isn't always the best to up a high defence over a lower one - and this is due to status effects.

Lets say a monster has a daze effect (until beginning of the next turn).  It hits you on a 11.  You are therefore stunned roughly 50% of the time.  So, in a 10 round fight, you get 5 turns.  You can up your defence to a 13, making it 40% of the the time  - giving you essentially one more turn that fight - or 20% more turns.

Or, lets say the monster hits you on a 3.  You are stunned roughly 90% of the time - in a 10 round fight you get 1 turn.  You can up your defence to a 5, making you stunned roughly 80% of the time, giving you 2 turns in a 10 round battle.  Which is 100% more turns.


Certainly from a "having fun" perspective, I'd want to shore up that weak nad that attracts stun or other debiliating effects.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 5, 2010)

There is obviously an argument on the importance of each defense. Wizards has not made it easy there either tbh; it would have been logical for many attacks that currently are damage+effect to be damage plus secondary attack to a more appropriate def so as to apply said effect. Attacks vs AC or Ref applying physical effects that should be defended against with fortitude for instance are ubiquitious. A design with higher verisimilititude in attack patterns would allow for defenses to be more predictable in what they defend against. I expect that the current design was conscious so that people could not pick and choose what to shore up (for instance you could have the tank who drops avoidance to make himself a good target (low AC/Ref) but makes sure that he can resist most any effect that would remove him from combat (high Fort/Will); this seemingly haphazard design prevents that, and removes the tactical choice from players (check for instance the gaming engine behind the Dragon Age game, which I consider a very intelligent way to simulate RPG combat). The concern is mainly in campaign design; is the DM expected to take note of what defenses his NPCs attack in combat and intentionally vary them?


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 5, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, but you are missing a part of your analysis. Lets say a certain monster dishes out 20 DPR if it hits every single time it swings at you (nm 1's and 20's for now). For each one of those times it actually misses, it means it effectively dishes out less DPR.




I suggest to you if your analysis begins like this that you do not know what DPR is.


The simplest formula for DPR starts =

[average damage per successful hit] X [probability of chance to hit]

Of course, critical hits figure in there, etc. etc. but the above is pretty much the way to go for the most part.

Which means that if you're going 'But if the monster misses' you have forgotten we've already calculated that in.  It would look like this:

[average damage per successful hit] X [1 - probability of chance to miss].

So... yeah.


Also, if you think any of my posts was advocating high defenses being made higher, again, math fail.

All other things being considered tho, raise the most commonly attacked defense, and you reduce the number of hitting outcomes.

While I accept the dazed argument, there's other methods to combat that, and I'm personally a fan of DGH-style utility powers to negate the occasional hit that leaks through.  (DGH=don't get hit, either 'Effect: The hit misses' or powers that somehow make hits turn into misses.)


----------



## Njall (Mar 6, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Yes, but you are missing a part of your analysis. Lets say a certain monster dishes out 20 DPR if it hits every single time it swings at you (nm 1's and 20's for now). For each one of those times it actually misses, it means it effectively dishes out less DPR. So if it has to get a 2 its now down to 19 average DPR and your 1 extra AC saved you 1 point of damage per round. If the monster hit you on only a 19 before it was doing 2 DPR. If it now hits you on a 20 only it does 1 DPR, still 1 point less damage per round per point of AC gained.
> 
> So YES, the change between a 19 and a 20 to be hit is a 50% reduction, but its 50% on a base that is 1/10th as big as the 5% reduction you got from being hit always to being hit on a 2, which is 1 point also.
> 
> ...




It's true that, for the purpose of DPR, the benefit is, in fact, linear.
However, it isn't when you need to calculate what the MMO community calls "time to live" (TTL).
Say your opponent deals 30 damage per hit, on average, and hits you on a 11+. 
You have 90 HP. 
So, you're going to take roughly 15 DPR, and you'll be dead in about 6 rounds.
Now, assume your AC increases by 1 point: your opponent hits on a 12+ (45%), so his DPR becomes (30x45%)= 13.5. 
Since it takes the monster 7 rounds to kill you, your TTL has increased by 16.6%.
Now, assume that the monster needs to roll a 19 to hit you: this means that you're taking 3 damage per round, on average. 
You'll be dead in 30 rounds. 
If your AC increases by one point, you'll take 1.5 DPR, and you'll live twice as much! (60 rounds) 
So, while the DPR decreases linearly for every point of AC you gain, your survability increases far more dramatically .


----------



## Truename (Mar 6, 2010)

Njall said:


> Now, assume that the monster needs to roll a 19 to hit you: this means that you're taking 3 damage per round, on average.
> You'll be dead in 30 rounds.
> If your AC increases by one point, you'll take 1.5 DPR, and you'll live twice as much! (60 rounds)
> So, while the DPR decreases linearly for every point of AC you gain, your survability increases far more dramatically .




Except that you're beating on this monster at the same time, and _it_ has a time to live of 10 rounds (let's say). So the extra point of AC is worthless, because it will be dead first either way. 

(Sorry. Re-engaging lurk mode. 



Spoiler



Resource attrition, you say? Look, a seagull!


)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 6, 2010)

Truename said:


> Except that you're beating on this monster at the same time, and _it_ has a time to live of 10 rounds (let's say). So the extra point of AC is worthless, because it will be dead first either way.
> 
> (Sorry. Re-engaging lurk mode.
> 
> ...




Yeah, that was what I was going to say in a nutshell. Its diminishing returns. Sure you live FAR longer than you need to if something hits on a 19+ and 2x more than that if it hits on a 20. 

@DS: now now. You understood my argument and it was perfectly cogent. In any case my point was that there IS an advantage to having a high defense, its just that tactically its advantageous to know that you won't likely go down to a specific type of attack. Being 40% vulnerable to an attack on any NAD is worse in a lot of situations than being 60% vulnerable on two of them and only 10% vulnerable on the 3rd one, IF that 3rd one is the one that is being attacked NOW. A party with a diversity of different good and bad NADs is stronger than one with all evenly mediocre NADs across the whole spectrum of possible encounters.


----------



## Njall (Mar 6, 2010)

Truename said:


> Except that you're beating on this monster at the same time, and _it_ has a time to live of 10 rounds (let's say). So the extra point of AC is worthless, because it will be dead first either way.
> 
> (Sorry. Re-engaging lurk mode.
> 
> ...




Yes, but that's just an example 
If you tone the numbers down the point still stands, aside from the fact that you might be fighting more than one monster at any given time.
Sure, it might be true that in the context of 4e, where the monsters tend to hit for low amounts and there's healing aplenty, optimizing for survability might be overkill, but that's another matter entirely.


----------



## eamon (Mar 6, 2010)

Truename said:


> Except that you're beating on this monster at the same time, and _it_ has a time to live of 10 rounds (let's say). So the extra point of AC is worthless, because it will be dead first either way. )



Obviously, if you're going to win _anyway_, it's a moot point.

Presumably, you might not be guaranteed to win; or the effect of the hit is so nasty even one hit is too many (say, dominate), or you're one of the few in the party that can deal with the situation _because_ of your high defense so you're holding the front line againt monsters that would normally be way out of your league - for example, typically what you'll see a warden do when he uses second wind.

Whatever the case, it's clearly beneficial to play to your strengths.  People intuitively grasp this; you'll often see PC's build to choose offense over defense or vice versa - in fact, the whole role distribution somewhat hinges on that.  The party as a whole benefits when easy-to-hit members don't invest in high defenses and hard-to-hit members do (assuming both investments grant similar bonuses) - and you'll naturally gravitate towards a lurker/soldier or striker/defender or whatever you want to call it distribution of tasks which accentuates the benefits of the choices made.


----------



## occam (Mar 7, 2010)

I'm just going through the rules update, and noticed that the shaman's _call spirit companion_ got updated. The update was intended to clarify that you can't conjure multiple spirit companions, but it seems to me that it also means you can use the power without dismissing your spirit companion first. That would mean that if you want to effectively teleport your spirit companion up to 20 squares, you can do so with a single minor action, instead of what I've done before: minor action to dismiss, another minor to recall the spirit. That's really nice.

If they had wanted to maintain the previous behavior, I think it would've been more straightforward to add something like "You cannot use this power while your spirit companion is present". I like it better the way they did it.


----------



## fba827 (Mar 7, 2010)

occam said:


> I'm just going through the rules update, and noticed that the shaman's _call spirit companion_ got updated. The update was intended to clarify that you can't conjure multiple spirit companions, but it seems to me that it also means you can use the power without dismissing your spirit companion first. That would mean that if you want to effectively teleport your spirit companion up to 20 squares, you can do so with a single minor action, instead of what I've done before: minor action to dismiss, another minor to recall the spirit. That's really nice.
> 
> If they had wanted to maintain the previous behavior, I think it would've been more straightforward to add something like "You cannot use this power while your spirit companion is present". I like it better the way they did it.




Yeah, I noticed that too.  While I do like it this errata-ed way, I can't help but think they meant it more the way you suggested it be written.


----------



## Elric (Mar 7, 2010)

To answer my own question (slightly updated the phrasing)



> Suppose you currently get hit 10% of the time by AC attacks and 80% of the time by FRW attacks.
> 
> FRW attacks and AC attacks are equally common, equally damaging/status effect inflicting, and tend to come in equally difficult encounters.
> 
> ...




You should take +4 to all FRWs.  +1 AC negates half of the attacks that would otherwise hit you vs. AC, and +4 FRWs negates only a quarter of the attacks that would otherwise hit you vs FRWs.  However, this doesn't mean that you should pick +1 AC.  You need to go back to which blocks more absolute attacks (as I've assumed equal damage/status effects across AC vs. FRW attacks).

Since many more attacks would hit you on FRW than AC (equal number of attacks directed against each, but the FRW attacks are more likely to hit), the absolute fraction of attacks blocked is much higher, 0.1, for FRWs, than the fraction of attacks blocked for AC, 0.025.

As absolute attacks are what counts, you could get there directly by calculating 50% of attacks vs. FRW * 0.2 chance that each will miss b/c of +4 FRW= 0.1 fraction of attacks blocked.  50% of attacks vs. AC * 0.05 chance that each will miss b/c of +1 AC= 0.025 fraction of attacks blocked.

An analysis that gets you +1 AC as the answer here is flawed.


----------



## DracoSuave (Mar 8, 2010)

Elric said:


> To answer my own question (slightly updated the phrasing)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Incorrect analysis but the right conclusion.

Let n be the amount of damage a typical attack does.

'FRW and AC attacks are equally common.'

This means that for every AC attack, there is an FRW attack.

+1 AC eliminates 1 outcome per 40 hits.  That means that it reduces DPR incoming by n/40.

+4 to all NADS eliminates 4 outcomes per 40 hits.  That reduces DPR incoming by n/10.

n/10 > n/40.

The relative chance of each hitting is irrelevant.  You take n/10 less damage with the +4 to all defenses.  Less incoming damage is less incoming damage.


----------



## Elric (Mar 8, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> *The relative chance of each hitting is irrelevant.*  You take n/10 less damage with the +4 to all defenses.  Less incoming damage is less incoming damage.




Indeed, that's the point I was trying to get across.

Edit: well, looking at my post, I should have worded this more clearly.  

Absolute attacks are what count.  You can get this directly from a change in defenses, or you can do the percentage of attacks that would have hit that the change in defenses blocks, times the number of attacks that hit.  The fractions you end up with are identical.

What's wrong is when people stop after thinking something like "My Fort is very high (20% of attacks against it hit), so +2 Fort blocks half of the hits against it.  That makes it a lot more valuable than +2 Will, which is hit half the time so +2 Will only blocks a fifth of the hits against Will."


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 29, 2010)

I am happy about the hide expertise change, in that I felt it gave away my wardens ability to other classes for the small cost of a single feat.


----------



## brehobit (Mar 30, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I am happy about the hide expertise change, in that I felt it gave away my wardens ability to other classes for the small cost of a single feat.




Agreed.  The barbarian keeps bouncing between great and poor with these changes.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 30, 2010)

it should scale to 2/3/4 and its suddenly fine


----------



## Votan (May 4, 2010)

Elric said:


> Orb of Imposition needed to be weakened, but this is too weak.  It should have let you impose the penalty to one saving throw, after it was rolled, as a free action.




Wouldn't that bring back the issues of lockdown, to some extent?  After all, if you have a narrow window of saves (by stacking penalties) then a critter needs to get lucky twice in a sequence of rolls if the power is applied after the roll is made (and it could be the case that the first roll is unbeatable guarenteeing one round).  

Now to get the huge save penalties of the OoI you have to actually use the resource . . .  

I'd agree with you if there were very options to generate save penalties but the list seems more extensive over time.


----------



## Elric (May 4, 2010)

Votan said:


> Wouldn't that bring back the issues of lockdown, to some extent?  After all, if you have a narrow window of saves (by stacking penalties) then a critter needs to get lucky twice in a sequence of rolls if the power is applied after the roll is made (and it could be the case that the first roll is unbeatable guarenteeing one round).
> 
> Now to get the huge save penalties of the OoI you have to actually use the resource . . .
> 
> I'd agree with you if there were very options to generate save penalties but the list seems more extensive over time.




Abilities that give large ongoing penalties to saves need weakening on their own.  I'm not aware of any recent finds, but of the original save penalty abilities, only Cunning Weapons still seem in need of weakening (to the "for the first saving throw" language used elsewhere.  *Edit:* never mind, this was fixed in the March update.  The incredible number of updates means that without character builder, keeping up with all of them is infeasible).  

Well, Skull Mask too (should just be your own fear effects).


----------



## Votan (May 6, 2010)

Elric said:


> Abilities that give large ongoing penalties to saves need weakening on their own.  I'm not aware of any recent finds, but of the original save penalty abilities, only Cunning Weapons still seem in need of weakening (to the "for the first saving throw" language used elsewhere.  *Edit:* never mind, this was fixed in the March update.  The incredible number of updates means that without character builder, keeping up with all of them is infeasible).
> 
> Well, Skull Mask too (should just be your own fear effects).




Ah, okay, if they are altering all of the ways to get save penalties to being for a single save then I am a bit more sympathetic to the group that wanted the Orb of Imposition to be an immediate interrupt (rather than needing to be declared in advance).


----------

