# May Daggermaster Nerf Rumour



## Istar (Mar 8, 2010)

Okay whats this all about.

I keep hearing wispers and rumours about red dwarfs, moradin, 2 months time, May, daggermaster, nerfs ?

Its like some perverse D&D plot where you have to piece together the puzzle.

What exactly is going on ?

Is their talk from Wizards that they will reduce the daggermaster crit range of 18 to 20 ?? - what to 19-20 ??

Or are they going to limit the crit range to Rogue only powers.

If its Rogue only, how will they treat a Half Elf who now has another At-will, will this be treated as a Rogue power.

I must admit I have never understood why you can steal a Paragon Path from a class just by taking a piddly M/C feat.


----------



## mkill (Mar 8, 2010)

A useful and understandable nerf would be to limit the feature to weapon attacks. Daggermaster is based on the assumption of a 1d4 [W], and implement powers break that. It's also much more likely to get a crit with a multiattack blast or burst. 

I don't think Avengers with daggers are that much of an issue. You have to sacrifice feats, a high [W], and optimal stat bonuses in the build, and Stormwarden is still better.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 8, 2010)

limiting it to weapon powers seems reasonable. Another way would be have it require rogue weapon talent.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Mar 8, 2010)

Who cares about Daggermaster?

I'm much more interested in the possibility that WotC is going to put out an RPG based on Red Dwarf.  I mean, come on, let's get our priorities straight!


----------



## Mengu (Mar 8, 2010)

Istar said:


> Okay whats this all about.




This is about a WotC staff member being suggested that Dagger Master would be an option for his character to increase crit range (along with some other suggestions), and the staff member saying he can't use some of those options because of rules updates he is using that he can't elaborate on.

We're just guessing Dagger Master is taking a hit.

My best guess is that it will be the same as Student of Caiphon update, the crit range will be expanded only for Rogue and Daggermaster PP powers. So no more twin striking daggermasters.

I don't think they will change the prerequisite. That would make existing characters illegal, with no way to retrain out of their predicament. They might change it to work only with weapon powers, but that doesn't really help with toning down twin strike, oath of enmity, or various hybrid combos with Daggermaster.


----------



## Ryujin (Mar 8, 2010)

I think that any reasonable DM would permit a player to rewrite his character, if there was a substantial nerfing of abilities. Hell, we decided that any time a new book came out that targeted a character class we would permit the effected players to consider the new options.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 8, 2010)

Ryujin said:


> I think that any reasonable DM would permit a player to rewrite his character, if there was a substantial nerfing of abilities. Hell, we decided that any time a new book came out that targeted a character class we would permit the effected players to consider the new options.




This varies largely on group. We had a DM who "got burned" by allowing too many build changes when MP came out. Now he doesn't want to make the same mistake again and sticks strictly with the 1 retrain per level.

It could be argued, a reasonable player won't exploit the system to find powerful unintended combos. Alas, this is not the case.

At this point, I can certainly see a DM warning their players that, if they should choose a paragon path outside their primary class, and there are updates issued for that paragon path, they won't be allowed to change the paragon path. While it may sound strict, it could enforce some self moderation for system exploitation.


----------



## Markn (Mar 8, 2010)

With any luck, this errata will extend to a lot of the PP's - such as the Pit Fighter...


----------



## renau1g (Mar 8, 2010)

I don't understand why they didn't hit it at the same time as SoC.

Funny how the most unbalanced PPs are PHB 1 (stormwarden, blood mage (pre errata), Daggermaster, pit fighter)


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 8, 2010)

Markn said:


> With any luck, this errata will extend to a lot of the PP's - such as the Pit Fighter...




Pit fighter needs a solid nerfing for being an incredible striker PP given to a defender class... restricting it to fighter won't really help.


----------



## keterys (Mar 9, 2010)

Pit fighter bonus to damage at 1/turn and it'd be pretty under control.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 9, 2010)

Wow. I came into this thread expecting another round of people trying to argue that daggermasters (and pitfighters e.t.c) are not unbalanced! Yet here are some very reasonable points.

From this thread and Wotc Errata, I am getting the feeling that most are appreciating that multi-class paragons, whilst interesting and sometimes fun, are nearly always at the heart of rule abuse, and holes have to be plugged, rather than simply eternally saying "Its in the rules, so I should be able to do it!".

Cant wait for next Errata

(p.s. Surpised no-one has mentioned the Radiant Servant....that pp is just brutal!)


----------



## mkill (Mar 9, 2010)

Mengu said:


> It could be argued, a reasonable player won't exploit the system to find powerful unintended combos. Alas, this is not the case.




Sorry but that's just ridiculous in both directions. You assume that on one hand, average players know beforehand whether their build is broken or not, yet, there are many players who simply don't have that amount of system mastery. On the other hand, you assume that optimizers can see into the future and can accurately predict what will be nerfed and what won't. The actual game doesn't work like that.

In our group, we've been largely untouched by errata and updates, but it does happen. One was a jagged weapon, that had no save on the ongoing crit damage pre-errata, and the other was a Veteran's Armor. The DM put one in the treasure, and my Ranger used it to attack with Jaws of the Wolf twice in one combat. 80 damage is pretty good for 2nd level... That's when I as a player told the DM that this item was nerfed two or three weeks before.


----------



## Istar (Mar 9, 2010)

mkill said:


> Sorry but that's just ridiculous in both directions. You assume that on one hand, average players know beforehand whether their build is broken or not, yet, there are many players who simply don't have that amount of system mastery. On the other hand, you assume that optimizers can see into the future and can accurately predict what will be nerfed and what won't. The actual game doesn't work like that.
> 
> In our group, we've been largely untouched by errata and updates, but it does happen. One was a jagged weapon, that had no save on the ongoing crit damage pre-errata, and the other was a Veteran's Armor. The DM put one in the treasure, and my Ranger used it to attack with Jaws of the Wolf twice in one combat. 80 damage is pretty good for 2nd level... That's when I as a player told the DM that this item was nerfed two or three weeks before.




Maybe no one else thought it was funny


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 9, 2010)

All I need is the word "weapon" in the correct place and I'll be happy.


----------



## SabreCat (Mar 9, 2010)

I'm looking forward to a Daggermaster nerf. I don't mind optimization, but the ever-popular Sorcerer/Rogue--Daggermaster (of which we have one in the Paragon game I'm playing in) feels like a bug exploit, which irritates me.


----------



## Turtlejay (Mar 9, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> All I need is the word "weapon" in the correct place and I'll be happy.




Preach on brother, I'm with you 100%!

Jay


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 9, 2010)

SabreCat said:


> I'm looking forward to a Daggermaster nerf. I don't mind optimization, but the ever-popular Sorcerer/Rogue--Daggermaster (of which we have one in the Paragon game I'm playing in) feels like a bug exploit, which irritates me.



Every time someone mentions those cheeseball builds, that are RAW legal, stupidly overpowered and make no sense what-so-ever, yet people keep playing them because they are hyper effectivre, I want to vomit.

Excuse me....I feel a little bile coming to my throat...

(p.s. thank god my players play themes rather than numbers. I feel blessed)


----------



## Anguirus (Mar 9, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> All I need is the word "weapon" in the correct place and I'll be happy.




This.  Daggermaster is fine as long as you're made to stick with the d4 for your damage die.

It's never come up yet, but if asked I wouldn't have allowed the Daggermaster Sorcerer in my games.  It makes all other options "obsolete" from a hardcore CharOp standpoint because getting 18-20 crits on implement powers is rather good, and it makes no sense to boot.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 9, 2010)

Anguirus said:


> This.  Daggermaster is fine as long as you're made to stick with the d4 for your damage die.




I still maintain that this is not enough. With a number of ways to get multiple attack rolls and other features to add dice to damage, the smaller d4 is largely inconsequential. A half-elf daggermaster with twin strike deals more damage with two attacks using d4's, than a barbarian with a single attack using d12 weapon. The rogue gets crits 27% of the time, while the barbarian at most gets them 10% of the time, more typically 5%.

I believe the increased crit range from Daggermaster should only work on Rogue powers and Daggermaster PP powers. Otherwise, you're still keeping it open to abuse by some other future class.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 10, 2010)

Yes, at higher levels, a twin-striking character can get a lot of crits even with daggers (and daggers that deal nice d10 or d12 crits) but I can live with that mostly. Sorcerers using the PP makes no sense at all, and is very cheesy. 

If it is changed to Rogue/DM only, that is fine, too. The Rogues can use a strong PP.


----------



## interwyrm (Mar 10, 2010)

I might be ok with melee OR weapon attacks.

Sorcerers using blade channeling with daggermaster might be interesting and not *so* overpowered.


----------



## Badapple (Mar 10, 2010)

I'd like it if it was crit with daggers on 19-20 in paragon, then 18-20 in epic.

Then leave it open to multiclassers.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 11, 2010)

Mengu said:


> I still maintain that this is not enough. With a number of ways to get multiple attack rolls and other features to add dice to damage, the smaller d4 is largely inconsequential.



Yes and No on that one. Acknowledged that there is alot of ways to just keep stacking damage on to a critical roll, and multiple attacks just leverage it out.

But at the end of the day, When our fighter crits with his warhammer using a 3W attack, damage does start at 30 before extras are added on. Our dagger rogue starts at 12. I know its not an immense difference, but its the thing that makes me say dagger master is good rather than op. As soon as you allow it without the d4 restriction (as the sorc/dm does with implement powers) it goes ballistic, which is why its regarded as so cheesy.


----------



## keterys (Mar 11, 2010)

If you're talking about a +4 bloodiron dagger with two-weapon opening and devastating critical, then the 18 point difference between 12 and 30 starts to get pale compared to the extra 10d10 critical damage and 1d4+20 second attack (with its own 15% chance to crit)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 11, 2010)

Yup. Not only that but the dagger rogue isn't starting at 12. He's got a 2d8 SA striker damage input to that which is also maximized (he WILL have backstabber, and he WILL have SA on 99.5% of attacks). So the base damage for the rogue is actually 28 plus static mods. Of course the barb COULD be raging etc. Still, as Keterys just pointed out, there are a lot of scary things you can pile on top of that dagger and it isn't hard to see some pretty sick crit damage numbers on DM. 

Really the reason I wouldn't MIND too much if it was cut back a notch is just that there are other interesting and reasonably effective rogue PPs, but you REALLY have to be a masochist to even look at them. DM is just that good.


----------



## keterys (Mar 11, 2010)

The real silliness is something like a twin striking avenger.
47.8% chance that at least one of the two hands will crit (7.7% chance that both crit)
A crit spawns a free attack... which has its own 15% chance to spawn a free attack...

So, yeah, rogue weapon attacks only sounds good.


----------



## mkill (Mar 12, 2010)

keterys said:


> The real silliness is something like a twin striking avenger.
> 47.8% chance that at least one of the two hands will crit (7.7% chance that both crit)
> A crit spawns a free attack... which has its own 15% chance to spawn a free attack...
> 
> So, yeah, rogue weapon attacks only sounds good.




It would be less silly if the free attack on crit would be limited to 1/round. This is where the errata should come in (to prevent the brokenness from starting again when someone comes up with a different way to reroll attacks)


----------



## fireinthedust (Mar 12, 2010)

Boooo!  Aw no!  That was the whole them of Emral, my L4W PC.  What the heck?!   He's so non-optimized it's not funny; the PP was the way to make him playable vs. dead on sight.


@Dice4Hire:  it's not silly, it's awesome!  Who's side are you on?  (bats gorgeous eyelashes at you, doe eyes, violin music)  
     Seriously, though, I think it's their physical secondary stat, and that being a sorcerer is... well, physical as well as charismatic.  They're special with daggers, so it's focus on that over staffs.


I get it, but wow.  I'd say Melee attacks, rather than Weapon.  That allows fun times for Sorcerers as well as Rogues.  More rather than less is a good thing.


----------



## fireinthedust (Mar 12, 2010)

the PC in question, of course, is a Genasi Wild Mage-type sorcerer, so isn't *built* to be optimal.  Especially not for melee, which is what I thought all the Daggermaster Crit-range came in from.  Ranged could be a problem, sure, but less so melee.


----------



## keterys (Mar 12, 2010)

There's a paragon path released yesterday that is quite good for wild mages, and has improved crit range.


----------



## stsparks72 (Mar 17, 2010)

I play a high level Rogue/Daggermaster and I think I like the idea of the Daggermaster being somewhat exclusive to Rogue's and their powers.  The Ranger already has the world on a silver platter and the Sorcerer/Warlock cheese makes the Rogue's 1d4 dagger look pathetic.

So I'm fine with them limiting the 18-20 crit range to Rogue powers only, even though that messes up my desire to play an Eternal Seeker with all the cool Barbarian and Ranger powers.  I'm sure as a Rogue I'll find another Epic Destiny that will work well with my build.  Ultimately this change will help keep all the leaches out of my favorite Paragon Path.  LOL!

The only concern I have is with Basic Attacks.  Hopefully the Daggermaster will still be able to score crits on an 18 or higher with Basic Attacks.


----------



## Istar (Mar 19, 2010)

stsparks72 said:


> I play a high level Rogue/Daggermaster and I think I like the idea of the Daggermaster being somewhat exclusive to Rogue's and their powers. The Ranger already has the world on a silver platter and the Sorcerer/Warlock cheese makes the Rogue's 1d4 dagger look pathetic.
> 
> So I'm fine with them limiting the 18-20 crit range to Rogue powers only, even though that messes up my desire to play an Eternal Seeker with all the cool Barbarian and Ranger powers. I'm sure as a Rogue I'll find another Epic Destiny that will work well with my build. Ultimately this change will help keep all the leaches out of my favorite Paragon Path. LOL!
> 
> The only concern I have is with Basic Attacks. Hopefully the Daggermaster will still be able to score crits on an 18 or higher with Basic Attacks.




I agree Daggermaster is for rogues, stuff the other stealing cheating soso's....

The idea that a M/C Feat lets you pillage a PP from another class doesnt sit well with me anyway.

But they need to nice to Half Elf, respect their racial ability.
The extra at-will that they pick up becomes part of them and part of the class that they are, they shouldnt descriminate against half elfs.
That would be racist.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 21, 2010)

Prestidigitalis said:


> Who cares about Daggermaster?
> 
> I'm much more interested in the possibility that WotC is going to put out an RPG based on Red Dwarf.  I mean, come on, let's get our priorities straight!




It's cold outside, there's no kind of atmosphere
      I'm all alone, more or less
      Let me fly far away from here
      Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun

      I want to lie shipwrecked and comatose
      Drinking fresh mango juice
      Goldfish shoals nibbling at my toes
      Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun
      Fun, fun, fun in the sun, sun, sun


----------



## Flipguarder (Mar 21, 2010)

Nevermind, found it. My DM is not going to be happy.


----------



## keterys (Mar 21, 2010)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Sorcerers)


----------



## renau1g (Mar 22, 2010)

stsparks72 said:


> I play a high level Rogue/Daggermaster and I think I like the idea of the Daggermaster being somewhat exclusive to Rogue's and their powers.  The Ranger already has the world on a silver platter and the Sorcerer/Warlock cheese makes the Rogue's 1d4 dagger look pathetic.




Oh boo-hoo, a d4 changes to a d6 or d8. The static modifiers are where its at baby, the Iron Armbands of Power easily make up the difference from d4 to d6 and most of the jump to d8 so stop whining about that. The reason rangers are the highest DPR's isn't their weapon die, its their piling on of static modifiers with multiple attacks.

Now if you want to complain about the area attacks of sorcerers granting them multiple rolls per attack and thus more likely to trigger the classes improved crit range, well that I agree with.


----------



## Turtlejay (Mar 22, 2010)

Wow, great conversational tone there.

Like most aspects of 4e, when you just look at one part of the system little things don't matter.

It is when you take the whole together that problems emerge.  So yeah, d4 to d8 is only like 2 points of damage.  Less than IAoP, sure.  But it is not an either/or problem, it is a stacking of little things, +2 here, +4 there, and it creates the problem.

So Daggermaster is just one ingredient in a pie of broken combat, when used for other classes like Sorcerers and Avengers.  Get all or most of the stuff that contributes under control and it won't be a huge issue, but combine it all together and you have the current state of affairs.

Jay


----------



## renau1g (Mar 23, 2010)

I just find it funny that the rogues are all complaining about it working for sorcerers/avengers when they still have access to the class (and don't avengers then need to use daggers?). Rogues IMO make the most of it and those same modifiers are available for the rogues (even more with SA, etc). 

I was responding to the other posters comments about d4 being small compared to sorcerers d6/d8's and responding that many items make up that difference (and more).


----------



## Istar (Mar 24, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I just find it funny that the rogues are all complaining about it working for sorcerers/avengers when they still have access to the class (and don't avengers then need to use daggers?). Rogues IMO make the most of it and those same modifiers are available for the rogues (even more with SA, etc).
> 
> I was responding to the other posters comments about d4 being small compared to sorcerers d6/d8's and responding that many items make up that difference (and more).




Restrict it to Rogue Powers like SOC or whatever it is.

But dont be racist against the half elf, his new dilantie at-will should be considered a rogue power for the purpose of this PP.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 24, 2010)

Istar said:


> Restrict it to Rogue Powers like SOC or whatever it is.
> 
> But dont be racist against the half elf, his new dilantie at-will should be considered a rogue power for the purpose of this PP.




If it is a rogue power, then certainly.


----------



## Istar (Mar 25, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> If it is a rogue power, then certainly.




For a Half Elf Rogue, his new at-will - say Twin Strike from Ranger as an example - would become a rogue power.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 25, 2010)

Istar said:


> For a Half Elf Rogue, his new at-will - say Twin Strike from Ranger as an example - would become a rogue power.




I do not agree with that.


----------



## Istar (Mar 26, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> I do not agree with that.





Whats the procedure to apply to the moderators for such racist comments ?

Err - no. Disagreeing about a rule isn't racism. Complaining about fantasy races in D&D isn't racism. I can legitimately say "the half-elf at-will power doesn't change from its original class" or  "flumphs are better than bullywugs" without any racism whatsoever. Really, there's enough ugly racism in the real world that we'd rather not see non-kidding accusations leveled against D&D races as well.

And yes, I know that flumphs are a monster and not a race, and so my example is inherently flawed. Quiet, you.

If this is unclear at all, feel free to PM me.  ~ Piratecat


----------



## luide (Mar 26, 2010)

Main reason why Daggermaster should be nerfed rebalanced is how the 18-20 crit range is  too good when used with Twin Strike and other multiattack powers. 
Thus Half-Elf dilettante power should never be considered rogue power for daggermaster purposes.

IMHO versatile master should have never been published as a feat. It's too cheap price to pay for third, non-class at-will. 
It would have been balanced as part of a Paragon Path, because then most of the issues would have gone away.


----------



## renau1g (Mar 26, 2010)

Istar said:


> And yes, I know that flumphs are a monster and not a race, and so my example is inherently flawed. Quiet, you.
> Piratecat[/color]




Actually all races are monsters, check out the MM's


----------



## Turtlejay (Mar 26, 2010)

Half elves didn't get a PP, as far as I know.  Other races did.  They really got the star treatment with Versatile Master.  I mean, what if Dragonborn got a feat at Paragon that let them fly, or Humans got one that allowed them to take the same power multiple times.

Jay


----------



## Markn (Mar 26, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> Half elves didn't get a PP, as far as I know.  Other races did.  They really got the star treatment with Versatile Master.  I mean, what if Dragonborn got a feat at Paragon that let them fly, or Humans got one that allowed them to take the same power multiple times.
> 
> Jay




Maybe there is irony in your post, I'm not sure.  But our group has a Dragonborn that has a PP that has at-will fly speed and a human with adroit explorer PP that allows him to have the same power multiple times....


----------



## Turtlejay (Mar 26, 2010)

Yes, irony.  Those things are appropriate for PP's, but not for feats.  The Versatile master feat would be a little easier to swallow if it was granted as a PP ability.  As a feat it is really strong.

Jay


----------



## renau1g (Mar 26, 2010)

Yes and it still lets them have access to PP's ... like say Daggermaster, to abuse it.


----------



## Destil (Mar 27, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> Yes, irony.  Those things are appropriate for PP's, but not for feats.  The Versatile master feat would be a little easier to swallow if it was granted as a PP ability.  As a feat it is really strong.
> 
> Jay




That's a really good solution, VM is one of the few things on my radar I'd really consider house ruling anyway (it makes the half-elf power, which is intended to be weaker than the human power *considerably* stronger). To the house rules machine!


----------



## Dan'L (Mar 27, 2010)

Destil said:


> That's a really good solution, VM is one of the few things on my radar I'd really consider house ruling anyway (it makes the half-elf power, which is intended to be weaker than the human power *considerably* stronger). To the house rules machine!




I would imagine that the easiest way to house rule Versatile Master would be to add Paragon Multiclassing as a pre-req for taking the feat.

-Dan'L


----------



## Istar (Apr 7, 2010)

Letting PP's be used by any class who M/C's another just for its PP, is what causes 99% of these corruptions.

But that wont change.

So simply make the Dagger 18-20 Crit Range unavaliable to those who M/C Rogue since that is where the problems occur.

ie. HE Avengers M/C rogue and D/master for 4 rolls per turn and 48% crit chance.

ie. HE Sorcerers with DM and area affects.

I dont think a Half Elf Rogue with Twin Strike and 28% crit chance is worthy of nerfing.


----------



## Istar (Apr 12, 2010)

Okay here is is.

"18 to 20 Dagger crit range does not apply for Multi-class rogues"

Easy and end of abuse.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Apr 12, 2010)

Istar said:


> Okay here is is.
> 
> "18 to 20 Dagger crit range does not apply for Multi-class rogues"
> 
> Easy and end of abuse.




So my rogue multiclasses into sorcerer and it stops working? 

I see a problem.


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 12, 2010)

Mengu said:


> My best guess is that it will be the same as Student of Caiphon update, the crit range will be expanded only for Rogue and Daggermaster PP powers. So no more twin striking daggermasters.




Yeah it's so BROKEN if you're doing 1d4+5 per attack at PARAGON! It's not even high crit. The only way to make it high crit is at EPIC TIER unless you're specifically a rogue.. Now is it just me? Or is Epic where you're supposed to be doing crazy  anyway?  It's only broken when it's vicious, even then you're hitting with higher damage weapons more often when you DON'T crit so I assume it's just gimmicked at this point.

The only time I see this ever being a problem is with Rogues (Which it was intended for) and Sorcerers using daggers as an implement... So nerf to... I don't know, let's say... NON-Implement attacks.

TL/DR

YOURE STILL ROLLING D4's!


----------



## renau1g (Apr 12, 2010)

The dice aren't a big factor at epic so rolling 2d4 for twin strike or 2d10 (bastard sword) isn't that big a difference. Heck, high crit wouldn't even be worth a feat (+1d4 damage? Who cares), it's the Twin striker with the 18-20 crit range with two weapon opening (that's the one that grants the free attack right?) at paragon who can use the power at-will that's the problem. The big damage is in the static modifiers, not the dice rolls.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 13, 2010)

renau1g said:


> The dice aren't a big factor at epic so rolling 2d4 for twin strike or 2d10 (bastard sword) isn't that big a difference. Heck, high crit wouldn't even be worth a feat (+1d4 damage? Who cares), it's the Twin striker with the 18-20 crit range with two weapon opening (that's the one that grants the free attack right?) at paragon who can use the power at-will that's the problem. The big damage is in the static modifiers, not the dice rolls.



psst... if you can wield d10s and you wield a d4 you will underperform and be a liability to your party. It is a great difference of 3 average damage or 6 at epic tier. This will cause the world to crumble and make fights last forever...


----------



## renau1g (Apr 13, 2010)

I'm talking in generalities here. A daggermaster cannot wield d10 weapons to get their increased crit chance. The previous poster was talking about how twin strike isn't a problem with Daggermaster. I posited that I would think that a TS'ing rogue with 18-20 crit range and two weapon opening/rend (whatever the free attack one is called) + all the crit maximizing options doesn't really rely on his dice to put out the damage.


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 14, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I'm talking in generalities here. A daggermaster cannot wield d10 weapons to get their increased crit chance. The previous poster was talking about how twin strike isn't a problem with Daggermaster. I posited that I would think that a TS'ing rogue with 18-20 crit range and two weapon opening/rend (whatever the free attack one is called) + all the crit maximizing options doesn't really rely on his dice to put out the damage.




1. You can't be a Twin Striking Rogue

2. Even with a free basic it's still d4's

3. Rending weapons are axes only and you are not rolling d12's for crit damage because you are not using vicious which is the issue. Is that what you mean by rend?


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 14, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> 1. You can't be a Twin Striking Rogue
> 
> 2. Even with a free basic it's still d4's
> 
> 3. Rending weapons are axes only and you are not rolling d12's for crit damage because you are not using vicious which is the issue. Is that what you mean by rend?




1- Yes you can.  Player's Handbook, Page 208.  Sneak of Shadows feat.  This is the cornerstone that makes most Daggermasters work. 

2- The majority of damage from Twin Strike comes from Hunter's Quarry and static bonuses to damage such as Iron Armbands of Power, and enhancement bonuses.  After those get factored in, the [W] portion of the damage doesn't even register.

3- He's talking about Two-Weapon Opening, a feat, not Rending Weapon.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 14, 2010)

renau1g said:


> I'm talking in generalities here. A daggermaster cannot wield d10 weapons to get their increased crit chance. The previous poster was talking about how twin strike isn't a problem with Daggermaster. I posited that I would think that a TS'ing rogue with 18-20 crit range and two weapon opening/rend (whatever the free attack one is called) + all the crit maximizing options doesn't really rely on his dice to put out the damage.




I know what you mean and that you are right. 

It is just, if you read other threads, usually someone tells you that 1 point of average damage is the deciding factor that a combat which could be over in a few rounds lasts forever....

I just wanted to be the first to say it...^^


----------



## You Go Katie. (Apr 15, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> 1- Yes you can.  Player's Handbook, Page 208.  Sneak of Shadows feat.  This is the cornerstone that makes most Daggermasters work.




Sneak Attack damage. 1/encounter.



DracoSuave said:


> 2- The majority of damage from Twin Strike comes from Hunter's Quarry and static bonuses to damage such as Iron Armbands of Power, and enhancement bonuses. After those get factored in, the [W] portion of the damage doesn't even register.




Since your argument is that Twin Strikes static damage bonus makes and breaks the build, look at the numbers.

Best case scenario. 
+6 damage (Armbands of Power), Magic Dagger +6. Your average non-crit damage w/ Twin Strike w/ Quarry is somewhere around 31 damage. Without, 17. So roughly 48 since you get Quarry 1/round.

+6 damage (Armbands of Power), Magic Waraxe +6. Your Average non-crit damage w/ Twin Strike w/ Quarry is somewhere around 39 damage. Without, 25. So roughly 64/round.

Now shall we factor crit damage?

   Dagger - 6 (Armbands), 6 (Enhancement), 8 (2d4 maxed), 14 (Quarry), 21 (6d6 Critical Property). For a grand total of 55.

   Waraxe - 6 (Armbands), 6 (Enhancement), 24 (2d12 maxed), 14 (Quarry), 21 (High Crit) and 21 (6d6 Critical Property). Result is 92 .

You will THEORETICALLY crit on average 1/20 attacks with Twin Strike using Waraxes and 3/20 attacks with daggers.

    Waraxe total damage through 20 attacks  = 1244 (1 crit, 1 miss)

    Dagger total damage through 20 attacks = 933 (3 crits, 1 miss)

This math is ASSUMING TYPICAL probability and only 10 Twin Strikes that all HIT (except for one miss). That is the average damage for 20 attack rolls per weapon. With a simulator running constantly daggers theoretically never out damage the waraxe. 

If you really want to get kinky you can take a couple Staffs of Knives and get 6d12 critical property, but I'll just take a Vicious Waraxe.

 Staff of Knives = 987
 Vicious Waraxe = 1262

I hate to completely bust you here, but yes, [W] damage does matter, about 311 damage actually. Especially when you crit. The difference between average 5 with daggers and average 13 with axes is monstrous and 8-24 is just ridiculous. Even when daggers crit, they do not out damage a waraxes normal Twin Strike.



DracoSuave said:


> 3- He's talking about Two-Weapon Opening, a feat, not Rending Weapon.




One could have easily assumed that's what he meant. Trolls, ftw.

So again, the real issue is not Rangers, but casters. Maxing implement attack damage is a bad bad bad thing. Since it's not based on a [W] damage, but on a static die. Rangers have a better option in Waraxes. Casters, don't.

Critting on anything but a natural 20 is a DnD sin imho. It should be nerfed to, Your attacks with daggers can now crit on 18 and 19 but only gain max WEAPON damage and cannot benifit from Critical Properties or chance on critical effects. Or just change the PP to say max WEAPON damage.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 15, 2010)

Well you're also tossing away the +1 to hit with daggers over axes (+2 for a true half-elf rogue how takes the paragon feat to use TS at -will) , you're also not including any of the crit maximizing items/powers. And you're excluding the extra 2 attacks from the two-weapon opening.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2010)

In app. two weeks we'll see


----------



## Mengu (Apr 15, 2010)

Err, I don't think twin striking ranger daggermasters are as much of a problem as twin striking half-elf (or revenant half-elf) rogue daggermasters.

The rogue daggermaster without twin strike gets 1 attack, and gets to add dex. The rogue daggermaster with twin strike gets 2 attacks, but doesn't add a stat to damage. That's 2 shots at applying the 3d8+4'ish sneak attack damage. The loss of dex from one of the attacks is insignificant in the grand scheme of increased probability to get a crit with 2 attacks. Considering all that sneak attack is maximized on a crit, and with two weapon opening you might even be getting another attack, the damage potential goes way up, compared to the rogue without twin strike.

I maintain that it's a good idea to limit the crit range to rogue powers and daggermaster PP powers.


----------



## Istar (Apr 15, 2010)

Mengu said:


> Err, I don't think twin striking ranger daggermasters are as much of a problem as twin striking half-elf (or revenant half-elf) rogue daggermasters.
> 
> The rogue daggermaster without twin strike gets 1 attack, and gets to add dex. The rogue daggermaster with twin strike gets 2 attacks, but doesn't add a stat to damage. That's 2 shots at applying the 3d8+4'ish sneak attack damage. The loss of dex from one of the attacks is insignificant in the grand scheme of increased probability to get a crit with 2 attacks. Considering all that sneak attack is maximized on a crit, and with two weapon opening you might even be getting another attack, the damage potential goes way up, compared to the rogue without twin strike.
> 
> I maintain that it's a good idea to limit the crit range to rogue powers and daggermaster PP powers.




What would you do with a Half Elf Rogue who has gimped himself levels 1 thru 10 and just as he turns level 11 to start to shine as intended L11 to L21, and say thats around the time a nerf comes in, he is around level 8.
Option is to retire character and start afresh ?

How are players supposed to be plan development of their characters with such ongoing changing of powers and what you can and cant do.

Not saying this would ever happen to me 
Just a what if scenario


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 15, 2010)

It is a lesson to learn: don´t gimp yourself for 10 levels.


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 15, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Well you're also tossing away the +1 to hit with daggers over axes (+2 for a true half-elf rogue how takes the paragon feat to use TS at -will) , you're also not including any of the crit maximizing items/powers.




Even with a crit dagger, the crit dagger gets out damaged by war axes on average by 7. You're flawd with thinking you always crit. You don't. Also, take into account unless there is a specific item or feat that applied only to daggers, it also will apply to axes making the axes always do more damage.



renau1g said:


> And you're excluding the extra 2 attacks from the two-weapon opening.




It's one free action melee basic not two. Melee basic is 6+6+7+d4 damage. On average is 24 damage (Generously) That'a also assuming you crit WITH your main hand. Look at Katies math, *ASSUME* with two weapon opening of the three times you crit, it was with your main hand so you obtain an off hand attack. So you add 72 damage to the total, 72+933=1,005. Waraxes still out damage daggers.

P.S. You can use two weapon opening with axes. Sure it may not be as effective, but you're always doing more damage.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 15, 2010)

Yes but if it applies to all crits and you are critting on 18-20 vs 20 which one triggers more? Therefore which one would have the higher expected damage? If you are rolling 2 attacks at 18-20 you should approx crit every third round vs critting every ten rounds with regular crit range (assuming 2 attacks per round) so yeah critting three times as much, which triggers the extra attack a few extra times, plus maxing HQ or SA damage and a bunch of other fun stuff out there. 

Oh and to the person who said what to do if a PC is deliberately gimping himself? Well, let him stay gimped, he was going for a broken combo and if that was his intention too bad so sad, just like the OoI abusers and RRoT users in the past. It happens. If you really don't want to see that happen, play with the rules as you want them and let him have the higher crit range.


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 15, 2010)

renau1g said:


> yes but if it applies to all crits and you are critting on 18-20 vs 20 which one triggers more? Therefore which one would have the higher expected damage? If you are rolling 2 attacks at 18-20 you should approx crit every third round vs critting every ten rounds with regular crit range (assuming 2 attacks per round) so yeah critting three times as much, which triggers the extra attack a few extra times, plus maxing hq or sa damage and a bunch of other fun stuff out there.
> 
> Oh and to the person who said what to do if a pc is deliberately gimping himself? Well, let him stay gimped, he was going for a broken combo and if that was his intention too bad so sad, just like the ooi abusers and rrot users in the past. It happens. If you really don't want to see that happen, play with the rules as you want them and let him have the higher crit range.




Dungeons and Special Olympics here! You don't always crit! There is a thing called probability and chance!

Can i join your group so i can crit on 2-20? He did the math with 10 rounds of twin strike, that brings in natural probability and axes still won. 

What you don't understand is everything that helps daggers helps axes EXCEPT dagger master.

Next time, make your point without being rude. Please read the FAQ, which explains the rules of engagement here at ENworld.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 15, 2010)

Very good Drizztroxxorphatlewt, your comments are excellent and intelligent, please read my (and others) posts before commenting. Hence my comment about critting on an 18-20 and therefore critting on every third round. If say as a number that a bonus to crit is = 10. If you crit 15% of the time, each attack the damage expected value is 1.5. If you crit only 5% of the time = .5 extra damage. 

As I said before he only used base damage above. There was no expectation about the extra 2 attacks granted by two-weapon opening, nor of the increased expected damage from critting an extra few times, nor of the expected extra damage from the maxed SA damage so the calculation is not valid as it is missing some of the expected variables.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 15, 2010)

Forgot to add that his analysis assumed an equal hit rate which isn't accurate as the dagger is at least +1 to hit over waraxe (or +2 in rogues hands)


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 15, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Forgot to add that his analysis assumed an equal hit rate which isn't accurate as the dagger is at least +1 to hit over waraxe (or +2 in rogues hands)




Using his math, just assume of the attacks that hit, quarry goes off.
Daggers - 9 hits, 3 crits. 288 with no static buffs.
Waraxes - 10 hits, 1 crit. 326 with no static buffs.

Since two-weapon opening is a proc and not static, only a simulation can show when your crits were with MH weapons. Also, IT'S STILL ONLY 1 OFF-HAND ATTACK, NOT 2.

You would need a prolonged simulation can prove the math.

For simplicities sake, we'll say the mob has an AC of 10. 10 to hit with axes, 9 to hit with daggers. It's easier this way since all other attack modifiers effect both weapons.

We'll include your beloved two-weapon opening and not maxing Quarry since I have A. Never played it like that and B. doesn't matter since both weapons would receive it. Also not including static modifiers, because like Quarry, both weapons receive it.

Daggers 20 attacks. First number is MH, second is OH, so on and so forth. *indicate two-weapon opening attacks. Damage includes 2d4, 3d8, and 6d6 for criticals.
2 - Miss
13 - 23 damage
19 - 39 damage
5* - Miss
11 - 16 damage
5 - Miss
13 - 18 damage
7 - Miss
19 - 49 damage
19 - 36 damage
7* - Miss
4 - Miss
8 - Miss
18 - 46 damage
6 - Miss
15 - 29
5 - Miss
8 - Miss
16 - 16 damage
4 - Miss
7 - Miss
10 - 14 damage.

= 286 damage

With Waraxes. Damage includes 2d12, 3d8 and 3d12 and 6d6 for criticals.
15 - 28 damage
2 - Miss
20 - 77 damage
6* - Miss
5 - Miss
6 - Miss
13 - 16
2 - Miss
17 - 20 damage
1 - Miss
20 - 85 damage
12 - 21 damage 
12 - 8 damage
4 - Miss
5 - Miss
15 - 27 damage
5 - Miss
14 - 31 damage
11 - 13 damage
5 - Miss
5 - Miss

= 326 damage

There is your random chance and probability to hit. If anyone wants to run a prolonged simulation and post the spreadsheet be my guest.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 15, 2010)

My comment about 2 extra attacks from TWopening is that you will crit (on average) 3 times over 10 turns vs 1 time for regular weapon therefore 2 more attacks. Again, the analysis is missing extra crit-boosting items that Daggermaster's go for (which is a factor in analysis as they trigger three times as often). Regardless of how you play re: HQ/SA damage it is maxed out on a crit so again, add approx 21 more damage to the rogue (24 maxed 3d8 HQ damage - 13.5 (average rolls on d8)). Adding those in I'd say you're pretty close to even at worst. 

You also need to include static modifiers in the analysis as the dagger hits more often, therefore the static modifiers should come into play at least 1 more time during the 20 rounds. (+1 to hit = 5% increase in hit probability = 1 out of 20 attacks).


----------



## Obryn (Apr 15, 2010)

Erm...  20 instances is clearly not a prolonged simulation.

Over time, the daggers WILL hit more often than the axe.

If your simulation isn't even approaching the relatively simple math of hit probability, I'm not sure why you're posting it as proof of anything.

Also, RAW, Quarry and Sneak Attack are both maximized on a hit.  Never doing it that way in your own house rules isn't a good reason not to include it in what's supposed to be evidence for your point.  Whether or not both receive it _is_ important, because the Dagger _will_ crit more often, and therefore the maximization will have a larger effect.

Ditto on the static modifiers.  If the Dagger is hitting more often - and it will, over time - it will get more of the static modifiers over the axe.  So again, that's a pretty critical detail you've overlooked.

I don't have a horse in this race, but your analysis is so flawed I'm not even sure why you spent the time typing it up.

-O


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 16, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Erm... 20 instances is clearly not a prolonged simulation.
> 
> Over time, the daggers WILL hit more often than the axe.
> 
> ...




20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.


----------



## IanB (Apr 16, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> 20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.




No, it isn't a good indicator of anything, other than maybe that's how one fight might go. The sample size isn't statistically significant so it basically proves nothing about the actual math involved. And that's on top of the other issues like not maxing quarry dice on a crit, etc.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 16, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> 20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.



That's not how it works. In this case, you don't even need an inadequate number of random die rolls like you've done here. You know the distribution of results over a large number of rolls so you can just calculate the results.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 16, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> 20 is the longest amount of rounds your battles should ever even take so it's a good indicator with those results.



Please tell me you meant this tongue in cheek 

"Battles last less than 20 rounds, therefore any 20 rounds will work to prove my point, regardless of whether or not they are statistically sound."

When you're doing any kind of statistics, 20 rounds aren't a good sample, period.  You assume an infinite number of trials.

-O


----------



## renau1g (Apr 16, 2010)

Here's a real quick analysis of a half-elf rogue/daggermaster, spamming TS

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible


----------



## Mengu (Apr 16, 2010)

Istar said:


> What would you do with a Half Elf Rogue who has gimped himself levels 1 thru 10 and just as he turns level 11 to start to shine as intended L11 to L21, and say thats around the time a nerf comes in, he is around level 8.
> Option is to retire character and start afresh ?
> 
> How are players supposed to be plan development of their characters with such ongoing changing of powers and what you can and cant do.
> ...




The game needs to work at all levels. It's not uncommon to see games starting at paragon levels (for instance that's how we started Revenge of the Giants). So the fact that a half-elf may be slightly gimped at heroic levels is not sufficient reason to have their power go up that significantly at level 11.

And a half-elf rogue is still quite playable through heroic. You can still use twin strike as an encounter power, which isn't bad. In an LFR game, you can virtually rebuild a character entirely at every level. So you can play as an AD rogue through heroic, and become a BS rogue at paragon if you want, change around your stats, etc. Twin strike suddenly loses the crit threat of daggermaster? Not a problem. It is still a good power with a great shot at applying sneak attack damage.

The nerf isn't really that big of a nerf, it just takes a holy cow combo down to really good. Twin Strike remains one of the best at-will striker powers in the game.

Not that the twin striking half-elf daggermaster (rogue, avenger, whatever) has been a problem in any of our games, but I guess it just disturbs me that the possibility is there, seeing how, frequent crits (as well as overdue crits) tend to change the flow of an encounter.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 16, 2010)

Twin is certainly the premier at-will in the game. I can't really think of a good balance mechanism to bring it closer in power level to other powers. Perhaps impose a -2 penalty on the attacks would help somewhat (like rapid shot (or whatever it was called from 3e)), but now we're into houserule territory.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 16, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Twin is certainly the premier at-will in the game. I can't really think of a good balance mechanism to bring it closer in power level to other powers. Perhaps impose a -2 penalty on the attacks would help somewhat (like rapid shot (or whatever it was called from 3e)), but now we're into houserule territory.




There have been numerous house rules proposed, such as getting the second attack only on a miss, only on a hit, penalty to both attacks, making the damage [W1]+[W2] if both attacks hit same target, etc.

As long as the static damage/vulnerabilities are reigned in a bit, twin strike is not too bad in the hands of the ranger only. It does however become problematic in the hands of anyone else, it's their schtick, and I'm fine with them doing it well. Perhaps a requirement could be added to twin strike, such as "requirement: must have a ranger fighting style".

Sorry for getting a bit off topic, back on daggermaster, another thing I forgot to mention is, the swordmage daggermaster. With whitelotus/assault, or giant swordbursts, you again have a chance to crit right and left every couple rounds. If you're a gnome, you're not even giving up that much base damage using a dagger instead of shortsword.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 16, 2010)

In the end, twin strike should have been the ranger damage mechanic... but it is really off topic...

neither daggermaster, nor twin strike is inherently broken. It is just a bit better if you invest heavily n this build and a simple resist all reduces twin striking ranger damage output by quite a bit.

I though agree, that a sorcerer with daggermaster is indeed a little bit broken, as mentioned above, and at least a restriction to weapon only powers seems reasonable. A different approach would be daggermaster to require ROGUE WEAPON TALENT. Simple and effective. A multiclassed rogue or half elf can do some good things, but it will be ok for the most part....


----------



## Eternal54 (Apr 16, 2010)

One way my play group works around twin strike and various other problems is with the 'critical fail' rule. We rule that a natural 1 is deemed critical fail in which you end your turn immediately. This discourages a player from abusing twin strike in that a 1 on the first roll does not allow the 2nd to happen and there is an equal chance of rolling a 1 to a 20 pre crit range changes.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 16, 2010)

Eternal54 said:


> One way my play group works around twin strike and various other problems is with the 'critical fail' rule. We rule that a natural 1 is deemed critical fail in which you end your turn immediately. This discourages a player from abusing twin strike in that a 1 on the first roll does not allow the 2nd to happen and there is an equal chance of rolling a 1 to a 20 pre crit range changes.



This house rule doesn't strike you as unnecessarily punitive towards controllers (with multi-target AoEs) while mattering very little to single-target, high-damage characters?


----------



## renau1g (Apr 16, 2010)

I think it is more aimed at the multi-attackers, AoE effects is one action, TS would be two seperate attacks as there's two damage rolls. Fireball has one damage roll, multiple to-hit rolls.


----------



## dariuslee86 (Apr 16, 2010)

Daggermaster isnt broken with Rogues.  It's broken with multiclassing especially with the wraith weapon offhand and a viscious main hand.  I had an avenger that at level 15 would only would hit for 17 average damage at will and then blow up for 150-200 30% of the time.


----------



## Eternal54 (Apr 16, 2010)

Dannager said:


> This house rule doesn't strike you as unnecessarily punitive towards controllers (with multi-target AoEs) while mattering very little to single-target, high-damage characters?




Well our table sits 7 so to speed up rounds we also play one roll to attack for AoE attacks (Not mutle i.e One or Two Target attacks). It still balances out in the end, usually your hitting mutliples of similar defenses so to hit one and you hit all or most. Miss one and you likely miss them all. It also made more sense to us RP wise. Why would a fire ball be hotter here, then colder further down, than hottr again?


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 16, 2010)

IanB said:


> No, it isn't a good indicator of anything, other than maybe that's how one fight might go. The sample size isn't statistically significant so it basically proves nothing about the actual math involved. And that's on top of the other issues like not maxing quarry dice on a crit, etc.






Fifth Element said:


> That's not how it works. In this case, you don't even need an inadequate number of random die rolls like you've done here. You know the distribution of results over a large number of rolls so you can just calculate the results.




Wrong, because of the little thing called chance* It's something you should look into. Sometimes, you can crit often, when that happens, yes it is significantly different. The odds are just as good you'll roll 1's 2's and 3's instead.



Obryn said:


> Please tell me you meant this tongue in cheek
> 
> "Battles last less than 20 rounds, therefore any 20 rounds will work to prove my point, regardless of whether or not they are statistically sound."
> 
> ...




I didn't know we weren't playing dungeons and dragons and we were playing DO IT UNTIL WE'RE RIGHT. The numbers are fine, they work and your only response is that you have to do non-realistic testing. Congrats, I'm done with this thread. You fail to grasp the concept of reality of the game.


----------



## Eternal54 (Apr 16, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> I didn't know we weren't playing dungeons and dragons and we were playing DO IT UNTIL WE'RE RIGHT. The numbers are fine, they work and your only response is that you have to do non-realistic testing. Congrats, I'm done with this thread. You fail to grasp the concept of reality of the game.





I tried to stay out of this, I really did, but this last one made me lol. So just that we are clear, I am yet another person who thinks the "Non-realistic" method of testing is the proper form. As you said chance plays a significant impact on the roll of the die, especially the fewer amount of times you roll. You have a higher chance of getting an average of 20 with one roll of the die than you do with five rolls and so on. 

Even if you do not grasp the understanding of the process, do not be close minded and assume everyone else is wrong. We very well may be, but if everyone says something that contradicts your views at what point do you step back and say, "Maybe I'm not looking at it the right way?"


----------



## Obryn (Apr 16, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> Wrong, because of the little thing called chance* It's something you should look into. Sometimes, you can crit often, when that happens, yes it is significantly different. The odds are just as good you'll roll 1's 2's and 3's instead.
> ...
> I didn't know we weren't playing dungeons and dragons and we were playing DO IT UNTIL WE'RE RIGHT. The numbers are fine, they work and your only response is that you have to do non-realistic testing. Congrats, I'm done with this thread. You fail to grasp the concept of reality of the game.



This is simply wrong in so very many ways.  I strongly urge you to pay attention in your math and statistics classes.

On some 20-roll samples, it will come out like your ... "spreadsheet."  On some 20-roll samples, it won't.  On some, the axe might crit 3 times or 0.  On some the Dagger might crit 10 times, or no rolls will be above 9.  The key is to work with probabilities in such a way that this individual variation in samples will even out.  Your sample of 20 rolls isn't a characteristic one; it's far better to either run a huge number of rolls (aka the Monte Carlo method, which requires a lot more than 20 events), or use relatively simple probability (aka *math*) to determine the average results of an infinite number of rolls.

Quick analogy....

Your assertion that 20 attack rolls is "just fine" to prove your point would be like me flipping a coin 20 times, noticing that it came up Heads 13 times, and saying that it proves my point that Heads will come up 65% of the time any coin is flipped in the future.  Clearly, you'd say that I'm off my rocker, and that it'll come up heads 50% of the time.

Variations like this are extremely likely in small samples.  If I were to flip the same coin (for example) 10,000 times, it will come up Heads about 50%.  It still might be something like 5,051/10,000 or 4,963/10,000, but the large sample size brings it closer to the mathematical realities of the situation.  On 1,000,000 flips, it will be even closer to 50/50.  On a theoretically infinite number of flips, it will be 50/50.*

-O


* Quick aside, sblocked, that has nothing to do with the discussion above.
[sblock]Actually, with a coin flip, it's not quite 50%.  You're *always* better off calling the side that's facing up during the flip, if it's going to land on the ground.  Or, calling the side that's facing down before the flip, if it will be caught and flipped over one more time.

Basically, when a coin that was heads-up is flipped, it might go HTHTHTHTHTH or HTHTHTHTHTHT or some variation thereof.  At no point during the flip will there be more tails than heads in the sequence, assuming Heads was up at first.

But this is neither here nor there for the mathematical ideal of a coin flip, which is really what we're talking about. 
[/sblock]


----------



## Dannager (Apr 17, 2010)

Eternal54 said:


> Well our table sits 7 so to speed up rounds we also play one roll to attack for AoE attacks (Not mutle i.e One or Two Target attacks).



Ah, that explains it.


> It also made more sense to us RP wise. Why would a fire ball be hotter here, then colder further down, than hottr again?



The fireball isn't hotter in one place, and colder further down (or, at least, it isn't automatically assumed to be the case). Do note that, by the rules, you roll damage _once_ for all targets of an AoE, so that fireball would be "equally hot" everywhere. The attack rolls are to see if the target's defensive abilities were enough to get out of the way (or resist the attack) in time.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 17, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> Wrong, because of the little thing called chance* It's something you should look into. Sometimes, you can crit often, when that happens, yes it is significantly different. The odds are just as good you'll roll 1's 2's and 3's instead.



...which is why you use these things called averages (it's something you should look into). It's been a while since my mind has been boggled. I appreciate that, I suppose, in some strange way.


----------



## xXElaDriNDrizZztXx (Apr 17, 2010)

Eternal54 said:


> I tried to stay out of this, I really did, but this last one made me lol. So just that we are clear, I am yet another person who thinks the "Non-realistic" method of testing is the proper form. As you said chance plays a significant impact on the roll of the die, especially the fewer amount of times you roll. You have a higher chance of getting an average of 20 with one roll of the die than you do with five rolls and so on.
> 
> Even if you do not grasp the understanding of the process, do not be close minded and assume everyone else is wrong. We very well may be, but if everyone says something that contradicts your views at what point do you step back and say, "Maybe I'm not looking at it the right way?"






Obryn said:


> This is simply wrong in so very many ways.  I strongly urge you to pay attention in your math and statistics classes.
> 
> On some 20-roll samples, it will come out like your ... "spreadsheet."  On some 20-roll samples, it won't.  On some, the axe might crit 3 times or 0.  On some the Dagger might crit 10 times, or no rolls will be above 9.  The key is to work with probabilities in such a way that this individual variation in samples will even out.  Your sample of 20 rolls isn't a characteristic one; it's far better to either run a huge number of rolls (aka the Monte Carlo method, which requires a lot more than 20 events), or use relatively simple probability (aka *math*) to determine the average results of an infinite number of rolls.
> 
> ...






Fifth Element said:


> ...which is why you use these things called averages (it's something you should look into). It's been a while since my mind has been boggled. I appreciate that, I suppose, in some strange way.




Dudes... No... You can't average probability! It's individual for each roll


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 17, 2010)

xXElaDriNDrizZztXx said:


> Dudes... No... You can't average probability! It's individual for each roll




:facepalm:

Probability IS an average.

It's an average taken by dividing qualifying outcomes by the total number of outcomes.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Apr 17, 2010)

What Dracosuave said.

Basically, a simplified version of what we are doing is this:

- what is better?  8 static damage, or 2d6?
- what is better?  Hitting on an 11+ for 6d6 damage, or hitting on a 16+ for 6d12 damage?

The only way of answering either of theose questions is by averages.  And that's what statistics is all about.  Saying that 2d6 is better than a guaranteed 8 damage because on a particular roll one rolled a 12 is missing the point.


_PS - if you took the second answer for either (from a straight damage standpoint), you are doing it wrong._


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2010)

Dr_Ruminahui said:


> What Dracosuave said.
> 
> Basically, a simplified version of what we are doing is this:
> 
> ...



1. Individual events are statistically independent.

2. Average damage doesn´t telly you a lot on low hp enemies.

3. a difference between 17 damage and 150-200 is so significantly that going with the average is wrong in so many ways.

A single crit ends the combat against most monsters immediately. Every point of damage done before the crit happens is wasted. (In most cases) And then there are combats that last forever.

*Even 2d6 may be more optimal than 8: If you are facing monsters that have 9 hp. In this case dealing 8 damage is equal to doing 4,5 damage.* If you however are facing 16 HP monsters, dealing 8 static damage is even better than 2d6+3 (with an average of 9.5.

So just looking at the average and not taking variation into account on anything that is less than a big enough number on rolls is very wrong.

@Obryn: There is nothing as unlimited number of throws with an average of 50/50. If you had any number of throws where you had exactly 50/50, the next throw will unbalance it certainly.
It is just that the variation is going against zero when you have done enough throws.

A side not: Average and variation plays a big role when sepculating on the stock market.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2010)

@ obryn: no it is not always better to chose head if head is up. (only fo this single event when you have no other information) You also have to look if the person always has the same side up before he throws, and throws in a comparable way (same height etc.). If you notice that the coin lands 16/20 times with side up that was down before the throw, i would always bet on the side which was down before the throw when its my turn to bet.

Compare it to the "Why does my bread always land on the marmelade side?"-problem...

And before someone comes and says: but it is better to bet on the other side, because it came up only 4/20 times until now: No, "gamers fallacy"....


----------



## renau1g (Apr 17, 2010)

...


----------



## Herschel (Apr 17, 2010)

Huh, this thread went sideways in part at the urgings of a troll. But that aside it almost appears the disagreement comes down to this: 

Statistical probability is what is MOST LIKELY to happen over a series of events, not what WILL happen. 

The dice are there to add a random element to it rather than making it just a number crunching exercise of pre-ordained endings.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 17, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> @ obryn: no it is not always better to chose head if head is up. (only fo this single event when you have no other information) You also have to look if the person always has the same side up before he throws, and throws in a comparable way (same height etc.). If you notice that the coin lands 16/20 times with side up that was down before the throw, i would always bet on the side which was down before the throw when its my turn to bet.



Right - I was just making a point that I found kind of neat, that only applies for individual throws in isolation.  Not for any frequency testing as a whole. 

-O


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Jeez.... please go and read up on probabilities, averages, statistics at a most basic level before commenting on it.




no, you are misreading it:

the average means nothing, if the varance is too big or if there are other factors to be counted on.

You should read it up yourself... I don´t know what you learned at college or university, but surely not statistics.

The average means nothing if there are other factors in a small sample:

I make an extreme example (because you obviously didn´t understand the other one):

Just compare 2 players:

Mr. reliable:
His average damage is 0,95, because you know, you do exactly 1 point of damage, and you hit from 2 to 20.

AND

Mr. crit fisher:
His average damage is 50, because he does exactly 1000 damage on a crit. But he only hits at 20.

Now, lets assume both fight against a minion with 1 hp.

Now, can you tell me why average damage doesn´t tell you anything at all in this example?

Lets make it a littl bit more complex:

Lets assume the monster has 15hp, still Mr. reliable will still end most fights faster than Mr. crit fisher.
But if you fight against monsters that also do damage to you, a fight that ends at round 1 will save you a lot of trouble, but the fight where you don´t crit for 100 throws will kill you.

So maybe a team of Mr. reliable and Mr crit fisher will work best most of the time.

If Mr. Crit fisher fights against Mr. Reliable (both 15 hp) it gets even more complicated:
Mr. crit fisher will die at exactly round 15. Mr Reliable will be killed on round 20 on average (EV is 1/p, if you didn´t know --> Geometrische Verteilung)

Mr Crit fisher will lose more fight, but he has the option to flee at round 10 if it doesn´t work out well for him, he can second wind, be healed etc, which will make him win or achieve a draw all the time. Mr. reliable is dead at first contact.

When you factor in vulnerabilities Mr. reliable may get an edge: (with vulnerability 15 he will win nearly all fights), when you have resistance 1, he will always lose.

You know what is the most important thing to know about probabilities? To know when it is ok to use them and when not.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Huh, this thread went sideways in part at the urgings of a troll. But that aside it almost appears the disagreement comes down to this:
> 
> Statistical probability is what is MOST LIKELY to happen over a series of events, not what WILL happen.
> 
> The dice are there to add a random element to it rather than making it just a number crunching exercise of pre-ordained endings.



I hope you didn´t ment me with troll:

But you are right: Rolling dice is what makes the game fun: monsters that always do average damage will let you know exactly when to retreat or heal and even if their damage output will be objectively higher, lethality rate would drop significantly.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 17, 2010)

renau1g said:


> So Lich by your understanding of statistics...all statistics are useless. So average height of a person is uesless. Average score for a golf course ...useless. etc.etc.




Here is a link to "Volatility" on stock markets. 

Volatility (finance) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Average increase is nice and good, but risk is defined by Variance (or standard deviation)

edit: Thanks for the remindder Umbran


----------



## Umbran (Apr 17, 2010)

Folks,

"Go read up..." or "Get your facts straight..." are just other ways of saying, "You are ignorant, so shut up."

Need I remind anyone here that this is rude?  Need I remind you all that Rule #1 of EN World - a rule all of you agreed to when you made your accounts, and that nobody here should have to read up or get straight - is Keep it civil?

It is fine to disagree.  It is okay to point out someone's made an error.  But we expect you to be kind and respectful about it.  I hope that makes things clear for you going forward.  Thanks for your attention.


----------



## Istar (Apr 17, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> In the end, twin strike should have been the ranger damage mechanic... but it is really off topic...
> 
> neither daggermaster, nor twin strike is inherently broken. It is just a bit better if you invest heavily n this build and a simple resist all reduces twin striking ranger damage output by quite a bit.
> 
> I though agree, that a sorcerer with daggermaster is indeed a little bit broken, as mentioned above, and at least a restriction to weapon only powers seems reasonable. A different approach would be daggermaster to require ROGUE WEAPON TALENT. Simple and effective. A multiclassed rogue or half elf can do some good things, but it will be ok for the most part....




I like that, not bad idea


----------



## renau1g (Apr 18, 2010)

Apologies to Lich for the rudeness. Thanks Umbran & PCat. 

How would you suggest than to analyze the effect of a twin striking rogue? I'm curious. I do miss how the average damage is between 17 and 200 though...

Here's the DPR analysis from the CO PC I grabbed as an example of OP'd Half-elf. You are saying that this is incorrect right? Like I mentioned, I really am interested how you would evaluate it. 

[sblock=ooc]
I ran some calculation in dpr for lvl 12 :
Spoiler: Hide

I'm using two +3 Bloodiron daggers in order to maximise crit damage : +3d10 x2 extra damage, the second part is applyed at the start of your next turn.

Bonus to hit = +4 (stat) + 6 (lvl) + 4 (dagger+rogue) + 3 (weapon enh) + 1 (weap expert.) = +18
You've got +18 to hit at lvl 12, meaning +21 to hit with CA (nimble blade). Taking that a middle AC for lvl 12 is 26, that makes hit on 5+.

Hit chances :
2 miss = 16 * .25 = 4%
1 hit, 1 miss = 104 * .25 = 26%
2 hit = 169 * .25 = 42.25%
1 miss, 1 crit = 24 * .25 = 6%
1 hit, 1 crit = 78 * .25 = 19.5%
2 crit = 9 * .25 = 2.25%

Sneack attack = 3d8 + 4 , average 17.5, max 28

Damage on hit = 1d4 + 3 (weap. enh.) + 2 (weap. focus) = 1d4 + 5 (wow not so great huh?) = 7.5 average
Damage on crit = 9 + 3d10*2 = 42 average
Damage on crit with crit feats = 9 + 2d4 + 1d10 + 3d10*2 = 52.5 average

Twin strike + sneack attack average damage chart:
2 miss = 0
1 hit, 1 miss = 5 + 1d4 + 3d8 + 4 = 25
2 hits = 10 + 2d4 + 3d8 + 4 = 37.5
1 miss, 1 crit = 37 + 2d4+1d10+3d10*2 = 70 (80.5 with crit feats)
1 hit, 1 crit = 42 + 3d4 +1d10+3d10*2 = 77.5 (88)
2 crits = 46 + 4d4 + 2d10+6d10*2 = 112 (133)

I ran 4 builds dpr calc:
Without weap focus nor crit feats = 0 + 5.98 + 14.15375 + 4.08 + 14.3325 + 2.43 = 40.97 dpr
Without weap focus but with crit feats = 0 + 5.98 + 14.15375 + 4.71 + 16.38 + 2.9025 = 44.12 dpr
With weapon focus alone = 0 + 6.5 + 15.84375 + 4.2 + 15.1125 + 2.52 = 44.17 dpr
With both weap focus and crit feats = 0 + 6.5 + 15.84375 + 4.83 + 17.16 + 2.9925 = 47.32 dpr

As you can see, weapon focus alone outbreak the use of devastating critical + rogue weapon mastery: +3,20 dpr vs +3,15 dpr[/sblock]

Thanks for the link to volatility Lich  I do happen to have gone for schooling for that though.


----------



## Istar (Apr 29, 2010)

when in may is this comining out and in what publication.'

is their a may rules update or something ?


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 29, 2010)

Istar said:


> when in may is this comining out and in what publication.'
> 
> is their a may rules update or something ?



The March update documents mentions that the next update will be out on May the 4th.


----------



## Istar (Apr 30, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> The March update documents mentions that the next update will be out on May the 4th.




mmmm...

hard to plan or develop a charcter thru 30 levels when they change the rules every 5 minutes, more effort on getting it right first time me thinks

ie. POTG


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 30, 2010)

You should not plan 20 levels ahead... adapt to the game... 

It is more troublesome to have character changed after you have developed him in play... but if the character is not taking away anyones fun, just ignore the changes...


----------



## Herschel (Apr 30, 2010)

QFT. You no longer need to microplan through level 30, that's something 4E has done well in getting away from.


----------



## renau1g (Apr 30, 2010)

They also got rid of a lot of the "trap" options from 3.5e. 

My girlfriend (now wife) wanted to play a dabbler and I suggested bard as they had a bit of everything, but she wanted to multiclass, so after taking a level in fighter, a level in wizard, a level in rogue and the toughness feat (because she wanted to be you know tougher) her character was a pretty useless mess... in 4e it's pretty hard to eff it up that badly, except with hybrids, you can make some pretty bad hybrids.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 1, 2010)

Herschel said:


> QFT. You no longer need to microplan through level 30, that's something 4E has done well in getting away from.




You do have to plan for stats, though, for most of the 19-20 crit range feats, unless you use a bow, or are an avenger who's willing to settle for only critting his/her/its Oathed target.

But, yes, now you don't have to do a careful balancing act of skills, feats, and class levels in a specific latticework that sucks to level through but's awesome once you get past it.  (sigh)  Dellydd, my poor TWF dwarf fighter/cleric/dwarven thane/priestsomething, I'm so sorry.

Brad


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 2, 2010)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> You do have to plan for stats, though, for most of the 19-20 crit range feats, unless you use a bow, or are an avenger who's willing to settle for only critting his/her/its Oathed target.




The point is that NOT having those feats doesn't cripple you. And having them only gives you 1/20 more crits per attack roll. You're writing like they let you crit all the time or something.


----------



## keterys (May 2, 2010)

And on many characters (ie, ones that make area and close attacks), those feats aren't really all that important anyways.

Plus, a lot of DMs will let you bounce a couple stat points around when you figure out things are askew.


----------



## Aulirophile (May 2, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> The point is that NOT having those feats doesn't cripple you. And having them only gives you 1/20 more crits per attack roll. You're writing like they let you crit all the time or something.



Having them increases your crit rate by 100% (5% > 10% doubles your crit rate). Which is fairly significant and it isn't the only feat I can think of offhand that requires specific stat allocation at level 1 for most classes. It won't make your character unplayable or anything, but it isn't fun being one of those people who plan your character at most 2-3 levels in advance and then find out a decision you made 21 levels ago is going to seriously impact your choices.


----------



## keterys (May 2, 2010)

Sure, let's say a character makes 90% melee attacks and does 11+6d12 extra damage on a crit (which is better than most characters). That's 50 extra damage on 4.5% of attacks, or 2.25 extra average damage per swing which is less of a bonus than Weapon Focus.

Certainly a great thing to qualify for.

But if you don't? No big deal - there are other cool feats too. 

And, again, DMs should be nice and let people rejigger ability scores a couple points if they find out at 21st they screwed up a little.

Personally, my fighter is a lot closer to 50% melee or less and will likely deal quite a bit less extra damage, especially in his low 20s. Some characters will manage better, especially with high crit weapon.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (May 2, 2010)

RE Crit feats.

I'm hoping that they follow the trend set by the Bow crit feat and remove prereqs from them all.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 2, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> You're writing like they let you crit all the time or something.




Um, no, at no point did I say that. Where the hell did that come from?

Brad


----------



## Shazman (May 3, 2010)

Istar said:


> mmmm...
> 
> hard to plan or develop a charcter thru 30 levels when they change the rules every 5 minutes, more effort on getting it right first time me thinks
> 
> ie. POTG




I agree.  There is something called "play testing" that is supposed to be done prior to releasing new feats, powers, classes, etc. so that the  combos deemed to be "broken" can be stopped before they see print.  Even the three core rulebooks have a sickening amount of errata.   Hey WotC! Play testing is the way you are supposed to do quality assurance for your products.  You might want to try it sometime!


----------



## twilsemail (May 3, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I agree. There is something called "play testing" that is supposed to be done prior to releasing new feats, powers, classes, etc. so that the combos deemed to be "broken" can be stopped before they see print. Even the three core rulebooks have a sickening amount of errata. Hey WotC! Play testing is the way you are supposed to do quality assurance for your products. You might want to try it sometime!




They do playtest.  I'm amazed at how often people who make these posts seem to think that playtesters are onmiscient.  All it takes is one person outside of that pool noticing a combination that the playtest pool didn't to warrent an update.  The fact that they're putting effort into keeping the game balanced impresses me a hell of a lot more than if they just ignored everything they printed after the playtesting phase.


----------



## renau1g (May 3, 2010)

Also I am fairly certain it is impossible to playtest every possible combination of race/class/feat/MC/hybrid/item combo in the game. The permutations of that would boggle my mind and probably be somewhere around infinite at this point in the life cycle. 

Also, not everyone is hardwired to look for the ultra cheezy super op'd broken combos as much of that requires interpreting the rules in a way that works for you, but most DM's would say, "nope I read them this way...sorry charop-made PC ... no soup for you"

Honestly, if someone showed up at my game with a daggermaster/sorcerer I'd tell them to go back and make a different PC. I'm pretty up front with my players, keep the cheeze to a minimum.


----------



## twilsemail (May 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> Honestly, if someone showed up at my game with a daggermaster/sorcerer I'd tell them to go back and make a different PC. I'm pretty up front with my players, keep the cheeze to a minimum.




I just asked the player why he needed his MBAs to be that awesome. After a lot of discussion he went with a different PP.

Edit: I'm more than willing to let someone play something sub-optimal, but I figured that probably wasn't what he was going for.


----------



## renau1g (May 3, 2010)

MBAs? That's not the issue, it's the crits on any sorcerer powers using the dagger. No, suboptimal isn't the problem, OP'd is


----------



## twilsemail (May 3, 2010)

renau1g said:


> MBAs? That's not the issue, it's the crits on any sorcerer powers using the dagger. No, suboptimal isn't the problem, OP'd is




The intent with Daggermaster was, fairly obviously, a dude what stabs people right good.  In that vein, and until the update tomorrow (possibly), I'm ruling that the DM benefits apply to Weapon powers.  Oversights like this one are what happens in a living game where the rules are constantly evolving.  This is precisely why their verbage is becoming more and more specific and limiting.

I would expect much lamenting and gnashing of teeth from players world wide that use the dagger as an implement.  My money is on seeing a either Weapon or Rogue ending up in the description of Dagger precision somewhere.  Alternately there may be an even larger change to PPs in general.  Who knows?

I'm fairly surprised that this hasn't happened already.


----------



## renau1g (May 3, 2010)

Oh, I'm with you on the spirit of the PP, but in RPGA I've seen a bunch of them floating around... *blech* That's why I still prefer home games, we can rule the way we see fit on things that stretch RAI, but still fall within RAW. 

Go, Go, Nerfhammer


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 3, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I agree.  There is something called "play testing" that is supposed to be done prior to releasing new feats, powers, classes, etc. so that the  combos deemed to be "broken" can be stopped before they see print.  Even the three core rulebooks have a sickening amount of errata.   Hey WotC! Play testing is the way you are supposed to do quality assurance for your products.  You might want to try it sometime!




This is rather condescending

How many playtesters do you think they have? Dozens, even at most low three digits? And upon release, how many players do they have? Thousands, maybe even 5 digits.

That big a group of people are bound to think of more than the smaller group.

Publish something of your own and see how many people find holes in YOUR product.


----------



## Istar (May 4, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> This is rather condescending
> 
> How many playtesters do you think they have? Dozens, even at most low three digits? And upon release, how many players do they have? Thousands, maybe even 5 digits.
> 
> ...




Are these digits in reference to their IQ's or are you giving us the fingers ?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 4, 2010)

I think it was written in a way that you should be able to make sense of it... probably...

don´t know where you get the IQ reference from... really...


----------



## Phaezen (May 4, 2010)

WotC have put up an interview which gives some insight into the rules update process.


----------



## Shazman (May 4, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> This is rather condescending
> 
> How many playtesters do you think they have? Dozens, even at most low three digits? And upon release, how many players do they have? Thousands, maybe even 5 digits.
> 
> ...




Okay, I guess I was too harsh, but having to check to see if your characters still are legal every single month after the updating /nerfing of all kinds of rules is getting ridiculous.  Most of the obviously broken things that get updated are "very obviously" broken and should have been fixed before they were printed.  These things wouldn't even require playtesting, just a quick glance at the rule by someone that has reasonable knowledge of the game.  I do still contend that they do need to put some more effort into playtesting and editing new rules before they are released.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 4, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Okay, I guess I was too harsh, but having to check to see if your characters still are legal every single month after the updating /nerfing of all kinds of rules is getting ridiculous.  Most of the obviously broken things that get updated are "very obviously" broken and should have been fixed before they were printed.  These things wouldn't even require playtesting, just a quick glance at the rule by someone that has reasonable knowledge of the game.  I do still contend that they do need to put some more effort into playtesting and editing new rules before they are released.



Thanks to the wonder of the free market, you are welcome to start your own game company and set your own priorities for your company.


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Okay, I guess I was too harsh, but having to check to see if your characters still are legal every single month after the updating /nerfing of all kinds of rules is getting ridiculous.  Most of the obviously broken things that get updated are "very obviously" broken and should have been fixed before they were printed.  These things wouldn't even require playtesting, just a quick glance at the rule by someone that has reasonable knowledge of the game.  I do still contend that they do need to put some more effort into playtesting and editing new rules before they are released.




I say the same thing about most video game companies that release sometimes buggy products that are patched at a later time (looking at you Bethesda), but at least WoTC is addressing them and I'd much, much prefer this to the previous method of minimal errata. Nobody really bats an eye when a VG makes a patch/update to correct issues/exploits so I fail to see why this is an issue.


----------



## Obryn (May 4, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Most of the obviously broken things that get updated are "very obviously" broken and should have been fixed before they were printed.  These things wouldn't even require playtesting, just a quick glance at the rule by someone that has reasonable knowledge of the game.  I do still contend that they do need to put some more effort into playtesting and editing new rules before they are released.



When viewed by thousands of eyes, every bug is shallow.

-O


----------



## Thanlis (May 4, 2010)

As expected, the Daggermaster crit range is for rogue and daggermaster powers only now.


----------



## renau1g (May 4, 2010)

I've started a whole thread to discuss all the changes if anyone's interested

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/276175-may-rules-update.html#post5172180


----------



## MrMyth (May 4, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Okay, I guess I was too harsh, but having to check to see if your characters still are legal every single month after the updating /nerfing of all kinds of rules is getting ridiculous. Most of the obviously broken things that get updated are "very obviously" broken and should have been fixed before they were printed. These things wouldn't even require playtesting, just a quick glance at the rule by someone that has reasonable knowledge of the game. I do still contend that they do need to put some more effort into playtesting and editing new rules before they are released.




I think it would be fantastic if every book was perfect the second it was released. There are plenty of elements in the rules I'd change if I could, even though I enjoy the game. 

And yet, I recognize that having the perfect game - much less _my _perfect game - is an impossibility. I think claiming, from a distance, that they just need a bit more playtesting and editing... is divorced from the reality of the situation. 

As it is, I am very, very glad they put out these updates. I'd much prefer this to the past, where we might have just as many problems in the books - which never got addressed at all.

If someone is frustrated with having their character become illegal every month? They don't need to use the updates. Unless they are in the RPGA, in which case that is one of the costs of being in a fully supported living campaign. In a home game? No one is going to give you grief if you haven't made sure everything is perfectly up to date. And for most players, it will happen automatically just through use of the Character Builder. 

I can see the frustrations people have in the current system. But every other approach that I see suggested is either worse (in my view) or implausible.


----------



## Obryn (May 4, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> If someone is frustrated with having their character become illegal every month? They don't need to use the updates. Unless they are in the RPGA, in which case that is one of the costs of being in a fully supported living campaign. In a home game? No one is going to give you grief if you haven't made sure everything is perfectly up to date. And for most players, it will happen automatically just through use of the Character Builder.



Honestly, you can also avoid updates if you don't tow the super-optimization line.  I mean, as a reasonable player, I _know_ there's something iffy about combining Sword Burst and Enlarge Spell.  Or with feycharging.  Or with using a Warlock PP to make my Avenger a super-crit-fisher.  Or with MCing into Fighter just to grab Pit Fighter and make my Battlemind's Brutal Barrage utterly insane.

So... usually, I don't.  My players usually don't, either.

-O


----------



## Herschel (May 4, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Honestly, you can also avoid updates if you don't tow the super-optimization line. I mean, as a reasonable player, I _know_ there's something iffy about combining Sword Burst and Enlarge Spell. Or with feycharging. Or with using a Warlock PP to make my Avenger a super-crit-fisher. Or with MCing into Fighter just to grab Pit Fighter and make my Battlemind's Brutal Barrage utterly insane.
> 
> So... usually, I don't. My players usually don't, either.
> 
> -O





QFT. I try to make viable characters with flavor, not milk the system. I "strongly encourage" my players to do so also.


----------



## BobTheNob (May 4, 2010)

The funny thing about people becoming frustrated that their builds become illegal is that generally the build which become illegal those ultra-cheesy rule breakers where players are less about playing the game and more about finding every way they can to mathematically break the games back.

I really dont spare a tear for those sorts of players...


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (May 4, 2010)

Preach it


----------



## Akaiku (May 4, 2010)

Herschel said:


> QFT. I try to make viable characters with flavor, not milk the system. I "strongly encourage" my players to do so also.




That is rather a false dichotomy if I ever seen one. Also, just use infinite gm powers to kill cheesy players till they learn. Or perhaps just say, "You can't do this."


----------



## Mithreinmaethor (May 5, 2010)

How do you make the little comments inside of someones post?


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (May 5, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> How do you make the little comments inside of someones post?




By awarding experience - its the little green icon on the left at the bottom of the poster's profile bar.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 5, 2010)

Mithreinmaethor said:


> How do you make the little comments inside of someones post?




Push the green thumbs up under the user name and give them xp, which allows you to comment on the poster's genius.

Feel free to practice here


----------



## bganon (May 6, 2010)

Just to provide an example, I've got three level 5 characters who've been around for quite a while (play has been slow) and the only errata that's affected them noticably has been the latest, which improved Infernal Wrath.  Everything else has been either errata to things no character uses, or is along the lines of "oh, I thought it worked that way already" (e.g. Footwork Lure).


----------



## mneme (May 6, 2010)

Eh -- one player's synergy is another player's cheese.

I wouldn't use Tempus until they nerfed it (because that was clearly broken, with nothing extra added) but I don't see that Enlarged Spell is that much better for the swordmage (where it lets him hit lots of enemies with an at-will) than it is for the wizard (where it let him hit lots of enemies with an at will).  The enemies-only factor is a big deal, but near as I can tell, reigning it in was more a matter of reserving an optional class feature for the wizard (where, yes, it's made slightly more balanced by enemies-only powers being rare, with no enemies-only at wills in-class that are usable with Enlarge Spell) than it was killing a broken build.

Daggermaster or Pit Fighter, OTOH...yeah, that was pretty obvious cheese (Kensai isn't -nearly- as bad--because Kensai isn't that much better for most classes than it is for mono-class fighters (ok, rangers.  But rangers can be stormlords)).  But oddly enough, you can optimize and still roleplay--funny thing, that.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 6, 2010)

mneme said:


> But oddly enough, you can optimize and still roleplay--funny thing, that.




You can also not optimize and role-play. Funny that. 

Optimizing, in my experience, can make a game a lot less fun for those who do not optimize in a party.


----------



## FireLance (May 6, 2010)

Dice4Hire said:


> Optimizing, in my experience, can make a game a lot less fun for those who do not optimize in a party.



It's pretty group-dependent, though. According to some other posters, not optimizing can make a game less fun for the players who do.  And in the case of my group, everyone appreciates optimization, even if they don't always optimize their characters 100% themselves (I know I don't).

When the dwarven ranger/pit fighter in a previous campaign spent an action point to use _armor splinter_ and followed up with _blade cascade_ and dealt over 300 points of damage to a beholder in a single round, everyone had fun*, including the DM. 

Optimization, in itself, is neither good nor bad. It really boils down to the attitude of the group, and in some cases, the individual player. 

* EDIT: I guess it helped that it was a group effort. The dwarven ranger had attack bonuses from my tactical warlord's _lead the attack_, and damage bonuses from the paladin's _wrath of the gods_ and the invoker's _pennant of Heaven's armies_.


----------



## renau1g (May 6, 2010)

mneme said:


> wizard (where, yes, it's made slightly more balanced by enemies-only powers being rare, with no enemies-only at wills in-class that are usable with Enlarge Spell) than it was killing a broken build.
> .




Well....except Winged Horde, but yeah, besides that one.


----------



## mneme (May 6, 2010)

True.  For some reason I was thinking Winged Horde didn't have a damage die, like chilling cloud.
Soyeah.  There's nothing special about Swordburst + Enlarged Spell vs Winged Horde + Englarged Spell (plus enough static bonuses to make sure you always do damage)--this isn't a case where the feature is better as a borrow than it is for the primary class.  It's reasonable enough for Wizards to decide that it's not the kind of feature that -should- be borrowed, but that's another issue.


----------



## Storminator (May 6, 2010)

FireLance said:


> It's pretty group-dependent, though. According to some other posters, not optimizing can make a game less fun for the players who do.  And in the case of my group, everyone appreciates optimization, even if they don't always optimize their characters 100% themselves (I know I don't).




In RPGs, the odd man out is always wrong.

PS


----------



## sigfile (May 6, 2010)

mneme said:


> True.  For some reason I was thinking Winged Horde didn't have a damage die, like chilling cloud.
> Soyeah.  There's nothing special about Swordburst + Enlarged Spell vs Winged Horde + Englarged Spell (plus enough static bonuses to make sure you always do damage)--this isn't a case where the feature is better as a borrow than it is for the primary class.  It's reasonable enough for Wizards to decide that it's not the kind of feature that -should- be borrowed, but that's another issue.




Swordmages weren't the problem, though.  Daggermaster sorcerers with enlarge spell and ruthless spellfury were the problem.  I'm not sure that particular build needed to be gutted every way possible, but there it is.


----------



## keterys (May 6, 2010)

I'd not be surprised if Swordmages doing burst 3 sword bursts with White Lotus Master Riposte every round instead of most other powers were considered at least a small part of the problem.


----------



## sigfile (May 6, 2010)

I'm sure it got mentioned in discussion, but I don't think it contributed much to the decision.  A fully pimped out swordburst killed minions and made for some unpleasant choices for the enemy forces.  A fully pimped out Blazing Starfall ate encounters.


----------

