# PHB 2 power creep



## phil500 (Apr 9, 2009)

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I just got the phb 2 and WOW, i feel my phb 1 builds are at a total disadvantage. Im not talking about the mastery or other fixes, but the classes.

I went to the shaman right away, and couldnt believe how much better a shaman can be than a cleric.  This is mostly since clerics have to choose to either ignore half their powers or suffer from serious MAD and have to pay for a weapon and an implement.  More generally, most the classes in phb1 need 2 stats to hit and a 3rd for random bonuses.  All the classes in phb2 seem to only need 1 stat to hit.

As for the powers, I havent really has time to pore over them but the invoker seems better than the wizard.

I took a look at the invoker and divine bolts hit me: this is what magic missile should have been.  two hits of 1d6+mod damage to either one or 2 targets?  thats better than twin strike.  Vanguards lightning is strictly better than scorching burst.  However, grasping shards is the real star, as it doubles as a minion nuker and slower, ie makes scorching burst and ray of frost obsolete.  With divine bolts and grasping shards an invoker wont miss only having 2 at wills.  I remember wizards were often human because they wanted the 3rd.

Anyone else see some power creep there, or is it cause I just looked at these certain classes?


----------



## Herschel (Apr 9, 2009)

phil500 said:


> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I just got the phb 2 and WOW, i feel my phb 1 builds are at a total disadvantage. Im not talking about the mastery or other fixes, but the classes.
> 
> I went to the shaman right away, and couldnt believe how much better a shaman can be than a cleric. ..




What are you talking about? The Shaman's AC is way to low to be useful. It's the suckiest suck that's ever sucked suck. 

I guess the Shaman has now run the overreaction cycle.


----------



## fba827 (Apr 9, 2009)

phil500 said:


> I went to the shaman right away, and couldnt believe how much better a shaman can be than a cleric.





It's entirely dependent on the type of character you want to play.
Sure, the shaman may have some better striker abilities or defender abilities, but they can't touch the cleric in healing ability or radiant damage output (radiant damage being the damage type with a large number of creatures that aren't resistant and in fact vulnerable to).


Sure, if you compare a particular power against another (such as your invoker vs wizard power example) you'll find some better than others.

But, in the end, I think you'll find that the phb2 classes are more about tactical situations and phb1 classes are more "straightforward" as a whole.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 9, 2009)

A single attack stat for all powers isn't necessarily power creep, just versatility creep. It's definitely more choices, but that's only more powerful if the powers in the PHB are balanced against each other and the ones in the PHB2 aren't.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 9, 2009)

phil500 said:


> More generally, most the classes in phb1 need 2 stats to hit and a 3rd for random bonuses. All the classes in phb2 seem to only need 1 stat to hit.




Indeed. They seem to have figured out how to design classes. Paladins and Star Pact Warlocks have a few unfortunate design flows. However I'd argue that clerics are still quite good, as they don't really need 3 stats, you either build a strength cleric (str/wis), or a wisdom cleric (wis/cha). Humans run into some problems with at-will powers, but I'm sure Divine Power will clear up those clogs.

But a lot of the PHB classes are already designed this way, Rogues, Archer Rangers, a number of Fighter builds, Warlords, etc. And there are a few PB2 classes that need multiple stats, such as the Barbarian relying on Dexterity for AC in addition to needing Strength and Con or Cha. Fortunately there is a little bit of built in defense with the Barbarian. I feel they did a very respectable job with class design in PHB2.

There are a few powers that make me scratch my head though.



phil500 said:


> I took a look at the invoker and divine bolts hit me: this is what magic missile should have been. two hits of 1d6+mod damage to either one or 2 targets? thats better than twin strike. Vanguards lightning is strictly better than scorching burst. However, grasping shards is the real star, as it doubles as a minion nuker and slower, ie makes scorching burst and ray of frost obsolete. With divine bolts and grasping shards an invoker wont miss only having 2 at wills. I remember wizards were often human because they wanted the 3rd.




Right again. They figured out how to make controllers. The Wizard should have some "fixes" coming its way with Arcane power (at least we hope).


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 9, 2009)

Mengu said:


> Right again. They figured out how to make controllers. The Wizard should have some "fixes" coming its way with Arcane power (at least we hope).




We've been pretty much told as much by some of the designers.  They decided to err on the side of caution with the Wizard, so the at-wills reflect that.

However, has anyone actually played a high level Wizard?

I would venture to say that they're still one of the most powerful classes at paragon level in either PHB1 or PHB2.

It might not have the ability to output huge DPS like a rain of blows fighter, but they have tons of powers that stun, daze, and blind mutliple creatures as well as modify terrain that can make any fight almost trivial.


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 9, 2009)

I never got that.  'You have to ignore half your powers at each level.'  In reality, you have to ignore 3/4s of your powers, cause you only -get- one unless you're a wizard.  And for clerics, that's -only- if you don't go Str/Wis. As it turns out, you're not as disadvantaged so long as your power choices are decent.  The thing is, Charisma usually gives you bonus healing for a cleric, and not much else.  Fact is, you're already getting that from Wisdom anyways, so it's not like you're losing much in going Str/Wis.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 9, 2009)

The two big issues you raise have been discussed a few times ))

Specifically 
a) Looks like they've ditched the 'two half classes in one' vision which prevailed for Cleric, Paladin, Warlock in PHB1

b) Wizard at-wills are somewhat sucky compared to the new controller at-wills.

FWIW, there is a thread or two in house rules which are considering the impact of modifying dual ability classes in PHB 1 so that, for instance, all the ones which currently use Str to attack become Wis to attack (and use Str for any secondary abilities - toning down Righteous Brand a little bit right away!). 

Cheers


----------



## jasin (Apr 9, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> A single attack stat for all powers isn't necessarily power creep, just versatility creep. It's definitely more choices, but that's only more powerful if the powers in the PHB are balanced against each other and the ones in the PHB2 aren't.



In practice, versatility creep _is_ power creep, since it allows you a broader selection in which to find synergies with stuff you already have.


----------



## Runestar (Apr 9, 2009)

> However, has anyone actually played a high level Wizard?
> 
> I would venture to say that they're still one of the most powerful classes at paragon level in either PHB1 or PHB2.




Orb wizards come to mind. At epic, you can expect to remove 1 out of 5 foes from each encounter permanently. Unless your DM runs solos or elites. Then it can potentially improve to 2 of 5 foes or 5 of 5 foes (effectively). 

Their strengths clearly do not stem from their ability to deal AoE damage.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Apr 9, 2009)

I just started a new party and the could use all the books (no dragon magazine).

Some of them wanted to try new things and some went for power, this is what I ended up with:

Half-orc Barbarian 
Dwarf Fighter
Human Invoker
Elf Avenger
Elf Ranger
Gnome Bard

Two selected a PHB2 race, the rest went for PHB1 races.
Two selected PHB1 classes, the rest went for PHB2 classes.

We have played two short sessions at level 1 (2 encounters each session)

What I experienced as a DM:
The Invoker has a MUCH easier time attacking 2+ enemies every single round than a wizard, and all the damage goes NOW, rather than later.

The ranger still has some problems hitting at low levels, even with free weapon expertise. Pretty decent damage anyhow and a lot of potential.

The Dwarven fighter with a waraxe and the Battle Vigor feature (even at only +2 temp hp at level 1), works like hell. He is sticky, can take one hell of a beating and when he hits, it really hurts. WOW, second wind as a minor action is under-evaluated.

The Barbarian critted 7 times the last session and went ballistic.

The Bard chose Majestic word and generally healed for 12 hp and gave 5 temp hp, this rocks. In addition, the sliding helped a lot to prevent getting flanked.

*The player of the Elf Avenger was a no-show - his girlfriend was visiting. I bet he had a good time anyway 

To me, it seems that the new and old classes are about as powerful, they just work differently. For instance the Bard doesn't really look that powerful at first sight, but he does a lot for the party.

The Barbarian is a bit less tactical than the rogue since you don't rely on flanking to do damage, but on the other hand, you have to be positioned correctly to be able to use the extra free charge/free basic attacks you get all over the place. 

I bet the Avenger will do a lot for the Fighter/Barbarian to help with flanking and keeping ranged attackers busy. In addition, the ability to let another character roll two attack dice instead of one is pretty nice when the Barbarian hits for 1d12+1d6+4 and the Fighter hits for 1d12+10...


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 10, 2009)

I ain't too worried. I see more diversity than power-creep. The barbarian has me a little worried, if any class.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 10, 2009)

IMO one of the most important things in a class is their at wills. 4E comabt drags (even when I am dropping about 20% of the baddies HPs) so at wills come in to play a lot.

If you compare the PHB at wills to Wiz at wills they are better but not much, The Rouse has admitted the Wiz at wills are less than ideal (i.e. they suck)
If you compare the Wiz at wills (the lowest) to the at wills of any class that has come since the PHB they suck the big one. The at wills of any class since released are head and shoulders above the Wiz's. Miles better, so much so that I don't let my Wiz player look at them, he'd get depressed 

Even at this level the power creep is on, however we don't really care- we are not fighting each other or other PCs, we are DnDing and the Wiz is good enough to be useful (admittedly I've given him a masters wand to give push one with MM).

So yes there is power creep, but does it matter? Those that want to maximise will swap to latter classes, those that don't really care will stick with what they've got....same for every edition of DnD.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 10, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Even at this level the power creep is on, however we don't really care- we are not fighting each other or other PCs, we are DnDing and the Wiz is good enough to be useful (admittedly I've given him a masters wand to give push one with MM).



I did the same. It's a fun bit of control (although there was some confusion until we realized the push was optional.)


----------



## phil500 (Apr 10, 2009)

phil500 said:


> I took a look at the invoker and divine bolts hit me: this is what magic missile should have been.  two hits of 1d6+mod damage to either one or 2 targets?  thats better than twin strike.




maybe i misread divine bolts.  if you choose one target, do you hit for 2d6+2(mod)?

twin strike says explicitly 1[w] per attack, wheras looks like divine bolt doesnt allow that.


----------



## Larrin (Apr 10, 2009)

phil500 said:


> maybe i misread divine bolts.  if you choose one target, do you hit for 2d6+2(mod)?
> 
> twin strike says explicitly 1[w] per attack, wheras looks like divine bolt doesnt allow that.




Exactly, if the power doesn't say specifically "two attacks" in the attacks line, you only get one attack per target.  Divine bolts say nothing to this effect, thus you get one attack per target, be it one or two targets.  So its only a two target twin strike, no 'double tap' on one target.

(note: sinces its not "two attacks" you also only roll damage once.  Its basically like an area attack that doesn't require enemies to be close to eachother, just within 10 of you)


----------



## robsenworldaccount (Apr 10, 2009)

*Power Creep Yes; Wizard suck No*

I get the feeling most people on these forums repeat what everyone else has said.  That being understood, let me interject counter culture idea.  Power Creep Yes; Wizard suck No.

The power creep can harm d&d.  That is if you want a CR and not an easy win. This is only because the power creep isn't reflected in the monsters and all of the original phbI classes(yet).

Now, on to wizards. If you take Ray of Frost, or Scorching Burst, I doubt you will have as much fun as I do.

Cloud of Daggers and Thunderwave, the two of these at-wills provide near endless control possibilities.  High wiz increases said threshold. The power in cloud of daggers come from its ability to be a target, rather than specifically a creature. The power of thunderwave is it's scaling. That and the virtue of being able to place them in posistion for a bad arse encounter power.

I won't attempt to discuss a plethora a situations of which the powers can be effectively combined, but I willl give and example of one that occurred las game.  

           -     +
            ++++
            0--

Legend: 
+ <-- Enemy
- <-- Ally
0 <-- Caster

The Classic
Cloud of Daggers Big Bad Monster in the back row
Action Point
Thunderwave Big Bad Monsters Friends through Big Bad monsters clouded square.
Result: Feeling special and doing significant damage.



If you set it up correctly, these two powers can cause some VERY competitive damage.  In addition, I have done more dmg in a single round w/ wiz than with any striker ( a duh for many of you).

In summation, Do we have a Power Creep Yes; Wizards suck No.


----------



## robsenworldaccount (Apr 10, 2009)

*Power Creep Yes; Wizard suck No*

I get the feeling most people on these forums repeat what everyone else has said.  That being understood, let me interject counter culture idea.  Power Creep Yes; Wizard suck No.

The power creep can harm d&d.  That is if you want a CR and not an easy win. This is only because the power creep isn't reflected in the monsters and all of the original phbI classes(yet).

Now, on to wizards. If you take Ray of Frost, or Scorching Burst, I doubt you will have as much fun as I do.

Cloud of Daggers and Thunderwave, the two of these at-wills provide near endless control possibilities.  High wiz increases said threshold. The power in cloud of daggers come from its ability to be a target creatures in a square, rather than specifically having to connect with a creature. The power of thunderwave is it's scaling. That and the virtue of being able to place monsters where you will want them (in the radius of your next encounter power for ex) is not credited enough.

I won't attempt to discuss a plethora a situations of which the powers can be effectively combined, but I willl give and example of one that occurred last game.  

             -       +
              ++++
              0--

Legend: 
+ <-- Enemy
- <-- Ally
0 <-- Caster

The Classic
Cloud of Daggers Big Bad Monster in the back row
Action Point
Thunderwave Big Bad Monsters Friends through Big Bad monsters clouded square.
Result: Feeling special and doing significant damage.



If you set it up correctly, these two powers can cause some VERY competitive damage.  In addition, I have done more dmg in a single round w/ wiz than with any striker ( a duh for many of you).  The downside is you need help from your party in order to set some of these things up(delays readying ect), or at the least to not blow them up.

In summation, Do we have a Power Creep Yes; Wizards suck No.


----------



## keterys (Apr 10, 2009)

You can't push enemies through another enemy's square, so your trick doesn't work quite that way.

It works fine if you kill the CoD target or just push the CoD target out of the square first (so he doesn't take the damage, but oh well).

At any rate, other than the silly feats the classes seem fine at first glance. The invoker looks better designed than the wizard, but I wouldn't say more powerful. The shaman heals very different from a cleric and if you're looking for a good healer I'd turn to the cleric first - now if you want a pseudo defender option too, the shaman has some cool abilities through their spirit.

The druid is just really different.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 10, 2009)

robsenworldaccount said:


> I get the feeling most people on these forums repeat what everyone else has said.






robsenworldaccount said:


> I get the feeling most people on these forums repeat what everyone else has said.




While some just repeat themselves.


----------



## robsenworldaccount (Apr 10, 2009)

Yes you can
I called WotC and specifically asked.


----------



## keterys (Apr 10, 2009)

Interesting. PHB286:
'Clear Path: Forced movement can’t move a target into a space it couldn’t enter by walking. The target can’t be forced into an obstacle or made to squeeze into a space.'
would seem to clearly state otherwise, but I suppose as long as you guaranteed they had the movement to pop out the other side it might dubiously be allowable. Probably more fun that way, anyhow, so I'll start ruling differently on that.

I wish calling WotC were actually meaningful evidence


----------



## beverson (Apr 10, 2009)

keterys said:


> Interesting. PHB286:
> 'Clear Path: Forced movement can’t move a target into a space it couldn’t enter by walking. The target can’t be forced into an obstacle or made to squeeze into a space.'
> would seem to clearly state otherwise, but I suppose as long as you guaranteed they had the movement to pop out the other side it might dubiously be allowable. Probably more fun that way, anyhow, so I'll start ruling differently on that.
> 
> I wish calling WotC were actually meaningful evidence




You can always move through a friendly square, that goes for pc's AND monsters...therefore the target CAN "enter by walking", and thus can be forced through.  It just can't END there.


----------



## keterys (Apr 10, 2009)

Yep - not sure where we started running that wrong, but never seen it done any other way at any other table (and, trust me, that's actually a lot of people). I'm actually happy to rule otherwise


----------



## abyssaldeath (Apr 10, 2009)

Larrin said:


> (note: sinces its not "two attacks" you also only roll damage once.  Its basically like an area attack that doesn't require enemies to be close to eachother, just within 10 of you)



Incorrect. You still need to roll damage twice.



			
				PHB 270 said:
			
		

> RANGED ATTACK
> Targeted: Ranged attacks target individuals.
> A ranged attack against multiple enemies consists of
> separate attacks, each with its own attack roll and
> damage roll.



The Ranged attack doesn't need to say two attacks. It just needs to target more then one enemy.


----------



## keterys (Apr 10, 2009)

That said, I imagine it would be convenient and fine for most groups to just roll damage once.


----------



## Dreadite (Apr 10, 2009)

keterys said:


> That said, I imagine it would be convenient and fine for most groups to just roll damage once.




They do just that in the Penny Arcade podcasts (it seems to save time and is quite convenient for the DM to track as well...)


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 10, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> (although there was some confusion until we realized the push was optional.)



Oh, thanks we haven't realised that yet. However only 2 sessions so far, never really come up. I guess, unless specifically stated, ALL forced move stuff is optional to the forcer!

EDIT: and we have been missing pushing through (as long as not ending) enemies squares, d'oh... learn some thing every day, sometimes twice


----------



## Caliban (Apr 10, 2009)

I've definitely felt a power increase with PHB2.  I wouldn't call it a creep, more of a headlong dash.

I used to enjoy running modules, now it just irritates me.  

Between Martial Powers and PHB2, it seems every class now has one or more immediate interrupt/reaction powers that trigger on an attack,  one or more ways to do forced movement, and higher attack bonuses (due to the Expertise feats), and are generally just better.

I can't plan anything when I'm DM'ing because the main bad guys are going to be moved, dazed, or knocked prone before their initiative comes up, and when I do try to attack or use a power, I have to check with the players to see if I'm "allowed" to do it without interference.   Attacke the invoker?  take damage and get pushed 3 square.  Attack the sorcerer?  Take damage.   Attack the barbarian?  get hit with an 3[w] immediate interrupt attack.  Attack the wizard?  Shield.    and on and on.    

It used to be just one or two classes.  Now it seems like most of them can do it to one degree or another.    Monsters that grab are useless - the bard can automatically get you out by either using a minor action to heal you and slide you, or use an encounter power to slide all allies and push enemies, and most PHB2 classes can achieve something similar.    

It's supposed to be fun for the DM to run to.  Now I just feel like I'm setting up a bag of hit points and XP for the players to annihilate in a round or two.  I can't just make the monsters harder - I run LFR modules and everything is preset.  I've seen encounters that were fun and challenging for a PHB1 group be steamrolled by groups using Martial Power and PHB2 classes powers and feats. 

I'm just rapidly losing my enthusiasm for running the game, and I'm starting to lose it for playing the game as well. 

Rant over.


----------



## keterys (Apr 10, 2009)

Caliban said:


> I've definitely felt a power increase with PHB2.  I wouldn't call it a creep, more of a headlong dash.




Interesting...



> one or more ways to do forced movement




They... didn't seem uncommon before? From Positioning Strike, Thunderwave, Tide of Iron, etc?



> I can't plan anything when I'm DM'ing because the main bad guys are going to be moved, dazed, or knocked prone before their initiative comes up, and when I do try to attack or use a power, I have to check with the players to see if I'm "allowed" to do it without interference.




Shield, Disruptive Strike... or really half a dozen ranger abilities  Plus warlocks and rogues have lots of 'and I hit you back' type things.



> Monsters that grab are useless - the bard can automatically get you out by either using a minor action to heal you and slide you, or use an encounter power  to slide all allies and push enemies, and most PHB2 classes can achieve something similar.




Grab isn't intended to be a very strong power, and thunderwave and tide of iron accomplished similar things before... Song of Triumph is particularly movey, but I'm not seeing it as innately more powerful than, say, Divine Glow.  



> It's supposed to be fun for the DM to run to.  Now I just feel like I'm setting up a bag of hit points and XP for the players to annihilate in a round or two.




Maybe you need a break? Seriously, when things start to get tougher it's easy to latch onto any excuse but a short vacation may do the deed. I understand objecting to things completely out of left field like, say, battleragers or nigh invulnerable shaman pets, but forced movement and immediates?



> I can't just make the monsters harder - I run LFR modules and everything is preset.




Completely mistaken - at the beginning of every LFR mod is an entire section suggesting that you change the difficulty of the module to match your players (higher or lower). If they're steamrolling, increase away.


----------



## Caliban (Apr 11, 2009)

keterys said:


> Completely mistaken - at the beginning of every LFR mod is an entire section suggesting that you change the difficulty of the module to match your players (higher or lower). If they're steamrolling, increase away.




No, I'm not "completely mistaken". I've actually read that section, which it appears that you have not. At most, you can add a single creature or group of minions to make the encounter more difficult. (You can also be a giant jackass and rule against the players on anything that is even slightly ambigious, or try to enforce your own "house rules" in a LFR mod but I don't do that.)

As for the rest of your post. I was responding to the original poster, not you. I wasn't asking for (and did not want) your input. You telling that I'm wrong is not "meaningful evidence" as you call it. I've run and played dozens and dozens of modules since LFR came out, both before and after PHB2/Martial Powers. I have a dozen characters ranging from lvl 2 to (several at) lvl 9. I have a large basis of experience upon which my opinion has been formed (limited to the heroic tier, since the LFR campaign hasn't put out Paragon lvl modules yet).

Admin here. This post is a nifty example of how to get yourself suspended for rudeness. Think of it as an object lesson, and please avoid it in the future. ~ PCat


----------



## Drowbane (Apr 11, 2009)

Power Creep has been a very real part of D&D for as long as I've known what to do with a 20-sided die. 

Its the nature of the beast, no edition is going to eliminate it.

To sell new books you need bigger and better... history has shown that this usually manifests as boosts to combat power for the PCs.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 11, 2009)

Well, I too play a lot of LFR.  I've got 10 characters now.

I also DM a lot.  I DMed Escape from Sembia 12 times at one con almost a year ago and have pretty much DMed and played nonstop since.

I don't see the powercreep you're talking about.

Other than fixing controller at-wills, I just don't see it.

Cleric is still the best healer.  Bear Shaman can come close if you're in a melee heavy party that likes to bunch up.

Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is.

There is more than enough power in the books before PHB2 came out that I'm not seeing the power creep.  And yeah, I've played paragon level games (playtested the PHB even) and can say that in my experience, the PHB1 classes can still hold their own against the PHB2 classes.

It might just be that you're seeing more of the high-heroic level games now.  Characters get more options as they level, so it may just be that rather than PHB2 presenting power options.

Cedric Atizado


----------



## Caliban (Apr 11, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> It might just be that you're seeing more of the high-heroic level games now. Characters get more options as they level, so it may just be that rather than PHB2 presenting power options.
> 
> Cedric Atizado





That's not it. I'm seeing brand new characters cakewalk mods that were at least somewhat challenging specifically due to options from Martial Powers (which increased the power of martial classes from PHB1) and PHB2. 

And the power creep I'm talking about has nothing to do with who can heal the most, or who is the stickiest fighter, so bringing that up is irrelevent.


----------



## Victim (Apr 11, 2009)

Most of the PHB 2 things seem okay - a few barbarian encounters seem rather problematic but those are the exception.

AV - definitely without the errata, and even with it - along with MP seem to offer far more power, ignoring the revised math feats.  AV opened things up with new superior weapons, item bonuses to attacks, daamge and defenses, lots of useful powers and properties (often at low level - Bloodclaw and Jagged are only one level above normal mage), and tons of miscellaneous powers that are handy.  Strikebacks are still encounter counterattacks.

MP has the Battlerager.


----------



## Brig (Apr 11, 2009)

Caliban said:


> That's not it. I'm seeing brand new characters cakewalk mods that were at least somewhat challenging specifically due to options from Martial Powers (which increased the power of martial classes from PHB1) and PHB2.
> 
> And the power creep I'm talking about has nothing to do with who can heal the most, or who is the stickiest fighter, so bringing that up is irrelevent.




It's not the options provided in splat books it is how easy 1-4 LFR mods are. I have been through all of those mods and they are all cake walks (before MP & PHB2) except two and those can be with a balanced and tactical party. I believe most of the 4-7 mods are also on the easy side, but I have yet to run/playall of them yet. I here they get a little more challenging at 7-10.


----------



## jasin (Apr 11, 2009)

Another example I've just noticed.

With PHB1, at Epic, the most competent person for restoring the dead to life is probably a cleric. Pay 50,000, spend 8 hours casting raise dead, and a dead ally returns to life, with a penalty that will go away in half a dozen encounters. Not too bad, really.

With PHB2, at Epic, the most competent person for restoring the dead to life is a shaman. Use your 22nd-level daily utility power, and everyone within 5 squares comes back to life, in a single standard action, without cost, without penalty.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2009)

jasin said:


> In practice, versatility creep _is_ power creep, since it allows you a broader selection in which to find synergies with stuff you already have.



If versatility creep is power creep, then by definition putting out more splatbooks leads to power creep. And if so, then maybe we'd just better get used to it, because ain't no way that any RPG with continued support is going to stop putting out splatbooks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 11, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is.




I throw the BS card.

BattleRager Fighter is tougher than a basic Fighter any day of the week.

+1 to hit versus dozens of extra hit points per encounter?

No contest. Not even close.


----------



## jasin (Apr 11, 2009)

hong said:


> If versatility creep is power creep, then by definition putting out more splatbooks leads to power creep. And if so, then maybe we'd just better get used to it, because ain't no way that any RPG with continued support is going to stop putting out splatbooks.



True, and we are used to it (and to a point, we like it).

However, there's still the question of just how much power creep is necessary, and along how many independent axes, as it were.

Putting out new warlock powers it a bit of power creep, and to be expected from any splatbook that deals with a subject related to warlocks.

Putting out a feat that lets warlocks get +1 to attacks is a bit more, and pushes up the baseline, not just some combos.

Putting out a class that's much like the warlock, but it only has a single attack stat is a bit more, and might make warlocks as a whole mostly obsolete.

Now, it is debatable whether having classes with two different attack stats was ever a good idea. I'm leaning towards no, since in practice, it seems to split the class into two effective subclasses, each with half the options.

So the move towards a single attack specifically is mostly a good thing, but I don't like the feeling I'm getting, that I've been sold a game that's still in development, and that the power creep we're seeing isn't WotC letting the baseline drift, but WotC trying to establish a baseline in the first place.


----------



## keterys (Apr 11, 2009)

Caliban said:


> No, I'm not "completely mistaken". I've actually read that section, which it appears that you have not. At most, you can add a single creature or group of minions to make the encounter more difficult.




There is no "at most" - you are specifically instructed "Don't make the adventure too easy or too difficult for a group. Never being challenged makes for a boring game" along with the specific suggestion of using the scaling the encounter to add more enemies if encounters are too easy. That is certainly the easiest way, but you can also adjust levels upwards and downwards, change the ratio of minions to non-minions, change the location of traps, even order of encounters - in fact, such things have been directly encouraged in the case of replays by campaign staff.

"In short, being the DM for a Living Forgotten Realms adventure isn’t about following every word on the page; it’s about creating a fun, challenging game environment for the players. A great deal of good information on being a DM for a D&D game can be found in Chapters 1-2 of the Dungeon Master's Guide."



> As for the rest of your post. I was responding to the original poster, not you. I wasn't asking for (and did not want) your input. You telling that I'm wrong is not "meaningful evidence" as you call it. I've run and played dozens and dozens of modules since LFR came out, both before and after PHB2/Martial Powers. I have a dozen characters ranging from lvl 2 to (several at) lvl 9. I have a large basis of experience upon which my opinion has been formed (limited to the heroic tier, since the LFR campaign hasn't put out Paragon lvl modules yet).




I've had a similar level of experience of play. The level 1-4 LFR mods are just plain easy with PHB characters or PHB2 characters - if anything the PHB2 group I ran through it had a harder time than some of the PHB groups I've run, but that's probably because they're unfamiliar with the powers. That's one thing people have certainly gained - experience with the rules. People hardly ever show up with the really horrible combinations lately.

There are certainly some outliers - both new fighter options, especially battlerager, spitting cobra stance, guileful switch, for instance. Of course, those are all in Martial Power, not PHB2. AV's superior weapons and several items certainly upped the power level... but that's still not PHB2. 

Looking at the PHB2 just for heroic tier, the shaman's pet can be hard to figure out for many DMs and end up quite powerful as a result - especially if a module has a way for it to completely block a corridor against weaker foes. The barbarian's damage numbers are certainly impressive, but not more so than a ranger's. The avenger is hardly breaking anything at low level, no many how many vicious fullblades they wield. Bards are good for forced movement, it's true - that's their shtick, and it's not exactly broken. If they hadn't addressed the Valor build there would be more to complain about there. Invoker is a more well-rounded wizard, but behaves much the same but with worse dailies so that's still fine. Druid is extraordinarily interesting and a great bit of design on showing new controller options... but broken? Are we looking at the same low level powers? Sorcerer I'd at least grant you a gut check on since it does look more powerful than a warlock. They're designed to do area striking, and they're quite good at it. They don't appear to be more powerful than a ranger, but I'd say they're certainly more robust than a warlock. There's a lot of complaints about the warlock's damage output, so make of that as you will. Etc.

Anyhow, I can totally believe any complaint that there is power creep in PHB2 - lord knows I've ranted and raved about expertise and such - but there is just about every book, because that's the nature of RPG publishing. But a headlong dash? You should really bring some evidence to the table if you're going to say that. I find MP far more dashy than PHB2. Far more.

P.S. While I don't have 10 LFR characters like cdrjcsn, I do have 5 LFR characters in the heroic tier, as well as a non-LFR character, and I primarily DM (about twice a week). I've been running for barbarians and bards since the previews went up, and plowing two groups of characters through LFR mods since the PHB2 hit a few weeks back.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2009)

jasin said:


> So the move towards a single attack specifically is mostly a good thing, but I don't like the feeling I'm getting, that I've been sold a game that's still in development, and that the power creep we're seeing isn't WotC letting the baseline drift, but WotC trying to establish a baseline in the first place.




Eh. This is a "sunk cost", to delve into economic terms for a moment. It doesn't matter what's happened before; only what happens from now on. Now if you didn't trust WotC to get the baseline right, that would be a valid reason to be suspicious about splats.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 11, 2009)

keterys said:


> But a headlong dash? You should really bring some evidence to the table if you're going to say that.




I think that Shifter has totally dominated the Cleric build.

Having both Righteous Brand and Lance of Faith at +4 to hit at first level is pretty meaty. The Rogue just waits for RB to hit and his Daily is almost home free.

And the Shifter Cleric is an A shaped Cleric, not a V shaped one. That's real significant. The Laser Cleric is no longer the bad boy. He's second fiddle to the Shifter Cleric that can take any of the Laser powers (except maybe Cha ones where his boost might be lower), and any of the Battle Cleric powers. In addition to regenerating himself so that he can concentrate his healing on other PCs.

This is just one example.


----------



## keterys (Apr 11, 2009)

What, because it gives +2 Str and Wis, but has no other benefits that help being a cleric? I'd hate to think how broken half-elven warlocks were in the PHB, cause they got both Con and Cha.

Now, half-elves getting an at-will at paragon? That's serious power creep for half-elves. Though, it makes me happy that half-elves no longer get the short end of the stick racially... haven't made up my mind whether it was just enough, too much, or a little too high level.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 11, 2009)

keterys said:


> What, because it gives +2 Str and Wis, but has no other benefits that help being a cleric? I'd hate to think how broken half-elven warlocks were in the PHB, cause they got both Con and Cha.




Those are the benefits. As for other Cleric benefits, Longtooth Shifting saves on healing resources due to regeneration and also increases damage to all attacks, even laser attacks. 

Have you ever played a Laser Cleric? I have. They get in trouble when surrounded if they do not have a high Str so they can use a melee weapon. Big trouble because of OAs.

A Shifter Cleric is almost never in trouble surrounded. He just switches to Str attacks instead of Wis attacks until he is no longer surrounded.


Sure, one could play a 16 Str 18 Wis non-Shifter Laser quasi-Battle Cleric with a few melee capabilities. Or, one could play an 18 Str 16 Wis non-Shifter Battle quasi-Laser Cleric.

But typically, most people prefer to not bump Str this high and use Dex and Light Armor if playing a Laser Cleric.

Compared to the non-Shifter clerics, the Longtooth Shifter averages more damage, regardless of which type of attack (being +2 damage to all attacks when bloodied is nice).

Laser Clerics have limited range. The Shifter Cleric does not worry about that. He armors up and wades into combat. That way, he is close to his Defender and gives Combat Advantage.

Sure, a normal Battle Cleric can do this too. But he's not as good with things like Radiant damage. The Shifter dominates the normal Battle Cleric and can still Paragon Path into the good Laser Cleric paths (best of both worlds).


Let's look at the to hit math:

First level 18 Str 18 Wis Shifter Cleric vs. 16 Str 18 Wis non-Shifter Laser quasi-Battle Cleric 

Foes tend to have AC level +14, other defenses level +12

Mace +6 vs. AC 15, Laser +4 vs. defense 13 vs. Mace +5 vs. AC 15, Laser +4 vs. defense 13

The Laser damage is the same excepted when bloodied. The Mace damage is better all of the time. How much better? Average damage per attack against same level foes is:

Non-bloodied
Shifter Mace: 5.275
Other Mace: 4.3
Shifter Laser: 5.275
Other Laser: 5.275

Bloodied
Shifter Mace: 6.475
Other Mace: 4.3
Shifter Laser: 6.475
Other Laser: 5.275

The only time the other Cleric evenly competes is if they are doing Laser attacks and they are still not bloodied.

The Bloodied surrounded (high Str) Non-Shifter Cleric that is forced to use a melee weapon does 2/3rds the average damage as the Bloodied surrounded Shifter Cleric.


4E is about action economy. The Shifter Cleric takes out foes quicker, hence, the party finishes encounters quicker and uses fewer resources doing it. He also wades into combat in order to give Rogues and Defenders Combat Advantage more often which in turn finishes encounters quicker. The Laser Cleric hangs back and doesn't give this advantage.


The Cleric has finally arrived.


----------



## keterys (Apr 11, 2009)

So... it is the same as the half-elf warlock in the PHB. Man, I hate the reliance on ability scores that people feel. I wonder if people are thinking the same thing for the Half-Orc for Ranger, though.

Fwiw, I have played clerics and had many played at my table - divine glow and other close powers tends to serve the non-strength ones well, and while ability to melee is a very good thing and I do like str+wis builds for clerics quite well, I'd not begrudge the strengths of the elven cleric who is dealing good damage at range 30 or the focused laser cleric who has stronger sacred flames from his charisma (though I'd not think the bargain worthwhile)


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 11, 2009)

keterys said:


> divine glow and other close powers tends to serve the non-strength ones well




Not in my experience. When surrounded (i.e. with 2 or more foes where he cannot just shift back and laser), Divine Glow disappears in one round and the Cleric is stuck with using his few close Dailies or swinging and missing a lot, or at best retreating and doing no offensive action that round.

The problem is that Divine Glow is the only such close attack encounter power until level 13 (and there are only two Dailies). There are zero At Will close powers.

Divine Glow is one round out of many. And of course, taking Divine Glow as an "oh shoot I'm in melee" power means that it might often be saved for later in the encounter (not necessarily a good thing) or alternatively it is used too early and does not fulfill it's oh shoot purpose.

Melee was the bane of Laser Clerics (and even Elven Bowmen Clerics). It kept them in check. Now, there is no check. They can handle almost any situation and contribute even more to the success of the team.


----------



## Otterscrubber (Apr 11, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> We've been pretty much told as much by some of the designers.  They decided to err on the side of caution with the Wizard, so the at-wills reflect that.
> 
> However, has anyone actually played a high level Wizard?
> 
> ...



Also they have some great defensive abilities for resistances.  Gotta love Stoneskin and Resist Elements (the power not the ritual).  They can be super durable, or make someone else super durable.


----------



## Wyrd (Apr 11, 2009)

Mengu said:


> Right again. They figured out how to make controllers. The Wizard should have some "fixes" coming its way with Arcane power (at least we hope).




Unfortunately, if it is "fixed" in Arcane Power, and not fixed via errata to the PHB, then it is still power creep, if the game ever gets tot he point that a character made with just 1 book is not balanced against characters created with a later book, you have power creep, which is likely unavoidable as time goes on.

WOTC wants you to buy new books, eventually that will push them to include new sparklies that just everyone has to have.


----------



## Caliban (Apr 11, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Not in my experience. When surrounded (i.e. with 2 or more foes where he cannot just shift back and laser), Divine Glow disappears in one round and the Cleric is stuck with using his few close Dailies or swinging and missing a lot, or at best retreating and doing no offensive action that round.
> 
> The problem is that Divine Glow is the only such close attack encounter power until level 13 (and there are only two Dailies). There are zero At Will close powers.
> 
> ...





More than that, one feat allows any character to make basic melee attacks with their best attribue. Melee Weapon Training means you can have a laser cleric (or wizard, or low strength rogue, or archer ranger, etc.) who can just switch to basic melee attacks when surrounded or making an Opportunity Attack (and probably do more damage than their at-wills anyway) - regardless of their race. 

Thanks to weapon and implement expertise more attacks land across the board for all characters.

Thanks to the rulings on weapons used as implement the PHB1 feats that give damage with certain elemental types are rendered moot. Just take weapon focus in a Staff (for wizards or invokers), dagger (for sorcerers), sword (for sword mages), get a pact weapon (for warlocks). Almost every implement class now has a weapon based implement they can use Weapon Focus with. (And in my e-mail exchange with Customer Service, the guy basically admitted that this was a change in how they ruled it previously). 

All the classes have had their effectiveness increased due to new feats and powers, or new build (tempest fighters can outdamage many strikers now, battle ragers are more resilient than a PHB1 fighter builds and just as sticky, etc.)

Sorcers are now the best striker, and make wizards almost obsolete (especially with Invokers). "Controllers damage multiple targets" - bah. Dragon sorcerers do close blasts and do striker damage to every target, and then do more automatic damage if you try to attack them. Chaos bolt can potentially hit every enemy on the board if the sorcerer is rolling decent (and I've seen it bounce up to 10 times). The only thing the wizard really has left is movable zones of automatic damage. Everything other "controller" thing they can do is done better by one or more of the new classes.  (And I like my wizards - I have a lvl 9 elven orb wizard, a lvl 9 human staff wizard, a lvl 7 eladrin staff wizard [was wand but I used an option to switch him to staff wizard] and I will soon be starting an Deva staff wizard, unless I give up and just make a sorcerer). 

Twin Strike was one of the best at-will, so now they have class that can effectively "Twin Strike" with any of their melee powers. You don't have to choose between an increased chance to hit and less damage now. You get full damage and a greatly increased chance to hit. I like my Avenger, but the power creep is very evident - add in the "Righteous Rage of Tempus" cheese on top of it and like I said, it's faster than a creep. 

It just reminds me of Magic the Gathering, where every new set introduces one or more new game mechanics. Every new book allows the characters to manipulate the rules or environment in new ways. Unforseen interactions are going to result in more and more "broken combos" - or even just basic class features.


----------



## Victim (Apr 11, 2009)

Hybrid dwarf clerics - while lacking a STR bonus, can take Plate and Axe Mastery with an easy 13 initial Con (no extra high stat surcharge) - make for similarly versatile clerics IMO.  The minor Second Wind also allows for more healing to hit the rest of the group.  Plus Dwarven Weapon Training for cheap damage bonuses and access to better weapons.  

And I don't really see ranged clerics having problems with getting surrounded all the time.  Especially since marks can be used to punish people for taking OAs - if a defender tags one of the flanking buddies, then the cleric can shift away from the other.  Any OA the first target attempts will draw fire.  So either the defender's extra offense helps to make up for the problems the cleric is having, or the deterrent effect allows them to get away.

An elf cleric worried about melee should just look at picking up some powers that Shift.  Like Boots of the Fencing Master for an encounter minor action shift 2.

I can't really complain about the wizards I've seen.  In rather short online games, both the 13th level wizard (Spell Storm) in a game I ran and the 20th level wizard I played (Divine Oracle) seemed to do well.  Ignoring shiny newness, I'd generally prefer wizard over the new controllers.  And wizards will be getting their own new shinies soon too.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 11, 2009)

Caliban said:


> More than that, one feat allows any character to make basic melee attacks with their best attribue. Melee Weapon Training means you can have a laser cleric (or wizard, or low strength rogue, or archer ranger, etc.) who can just switch to basic melee attacks when surrounded or making an Opportunity Attack (and probably do more damage than their at-wills anyway) - regardless of their race.




I'm not too bothered by Melee Training. As long as they do not allow any same class powers with the primary ability score, I'm ok.

A melee basic attack. With a staff? Ok.


One of the problems I have historically had with DND is that we have these high level Wizards that have been in hundreds of caverns and have brilliant IQs, but are too stupid to look up and see the Piercer (i.e. low perception). They have a dagger and a staff, but cannot use them against anyone. Their abilities never scaled to stay up with the competition (even slightly).

I kind of like the fact that a PC can blow off a feat and can now do a minor Opportunity Attack and now has one more minor At Will attack in his arsenal. Having just the two At Wills is pretty repetitive and boring.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 11, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I kind of like the fact that a PC can blow off a feat and can now do a minor Opportunity Attack and now has one more minor At Will attack in his arsenal. Having just the two At Wills is pretty repetitive and boring.



Hey can you explain this to me? What do you mean by blowing a feat for one more minor (by this I take it you don't mean action) At Will attack? Do you mean melee training means his MBA is effective, rather than he has a NEW attack. Sorry I don't have PHB2 and am getting feat confusion!


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 11, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Not in my experience. When surrounded (i.e. with 2 or more foes where he cannot just shift back and laser), Divine Glow disappears in one round and the Cleric is stuck with using his few close Dailies or swinging and missing a lot, or at best retreating and doing no offensive action that round..




That's why laser clerics are elves and multi-class to ranger so that they have _Yield Ground_ for sticky situations like that.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 11, 2009)

I won't say that the phb 2 classes are necessarily better, but I think they introduce new mechanics that are better...and will hopefully come back to the original classes with their respective splats.

*Aftereffects:* To me, this is the future of "save ends" type dailies. Currently I find "save ends" dailies to be last too little to compare against the sustain dailies that last the whole fight. However, with an aftereffect, you can now have dailies that last another round or two, and that's significant.
*
Effect based powers:* The avenger is a great example of this, nearly all of his dailies have an effect in the power. It reduces the need for high attack bonuses, and allows a players to activate powers without the forced flavor requirement of a attacking a person. 

Further, we are now seeing some effect based encounter powers. I can't think of it off hand, but one of my favorite new attack powers is the avenger encounter power that allows phasing as the effect. That's not just a cool attack power, that's like a utility power rolled into one! That's a power that is neat and interesting, and it required no major structural overhaul.

*Improved at-wills* The druid is probably the hallmark of this, but I think WOTC is getting the message that since at will powers are going to be commonly used, people want them to be pretty cool...especially for controllers.


So far, the only true power creep with classes I have felt is the sorcerer vs the warlock. The sorcerer's striker mechanic is flat out better than the warlocks imo and seems to serve the same striker/controller role that the warlock does now.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 12, 2009)

mach1.9pants said:


> Hey can you explain this to me? What do you mean by blowing a feat for one more minor (by this I take it you don't mean action) At Will attack? Do you mean melee training means his MBA is effective, rather than he has a NEW attack. Sorry I don't have PHB2 and am getting feat confusion!




Yes, it means it is now an effective MBA. In the case of a Staff at first level, a possible example:

+2 staff +4 Int = +6 MBA D8+4 damage instead of +2 MBA D8 damage or whatever.

But, it is still minor in the big scheme of things. And it cost a feat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 12, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> That's why laser clerics are elves and multi-class to ranger so that they have _Yield Ground_ for sticky situations like that.




At 8th level with the cost of 2 feats. Doesn't help much for levels 1 to 7.


----------



## NilesB (Apr 12, 2009)

Larrin said:


> (note: sinces its not "two attacks" you also only roll damage once.  Its basically like an area attack that doesn't require enemies to be close to eachother, just within 10 of you)




Nope, Ranged and melee attacks with muliple targets roll damage for each target separately, check page 270 of the PHB1 for confirmation.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 12, 2009)

Caliban said:


> As for the rest of your post. I was responding to the original poster, not you. I wasn't asking for (and did not want) your input.




If you're replying to a single person and do not welcome input from others, perhaps a private message would be better than a public thread? Otherwise, isn't it kinda the nature of forums that posting in them assumes a willingness for group conversation?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Apr 12, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I won't say that the phb 2 classes are necessarily better, but I think they introduce new mechanics that are better...and will hopefully come back to the original classes with their respective splats.




I do think they're somewhat more efficient than the PHB1 stuff, which isn't really that surprising.  A PHB2 cleric would have Wis used for every attack, which would kind of hose my minotaur battle cleric (though not too badly).

But they're not automatically more powerful.  I shifted from a rogue to an avenger, and I'm noticing that I've lost some damage output.  This is even when taking DPR into account, since the rogue was hitting about 80% of the time with his Piercing Strike with combat advantage (and I could get CA very often).  On the other hand, the avenger is vastly more durable and better defended.



> *Aftereffects:* To me, this is the future of "save ends" type dailies. Currently I find "save ends" dailies to be last too little to compare against the sustain dailies that last the whole fight. However, with an aftereffect, you can now have dailies that last another round or two, and that's significant.




I do believe I saw a few Aftereffects in PHB1.  But not many.  PHB2 has a lot more of them.

It does make them more worth using against elites and solos, though, since they're *always* going to save.

I notice that my avenger's dailies seem to reward being used at the beginning of the fight, rather than being saved for later, since otherwise you lose out on damage, movement, or attack bonus.



> So far, the only true power creep with classes I have felt is the sorcerer vs the warlock. The sorcerer's striker mechanic is flat out better than the warlocks imo and seems to serve the same striker/controller role that the warlock does now.




One issue with sorcerer is it's going to have a lot of AoE, and not the happy fun "only enemies" AoE.  So he's not as team-friendly for melee characters, which really means they need War Wizardry from FRPG, and probably want Arcane Reach for more flexibility.

Brad


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 12, 2009)

Caliban said:


> Sorcers are now the best striker, and make wizards almost obsolete (especially with Invokers). "Controllers damage multiple targets" - bah...
> The only thing the wizard really has left is movable zones of automatic damage. Everything other "controller" thing they can do is done better by one or more of the new classes.



Argh, why do people keep saying this? Damage is nearly irrelevant to a wizard--they're all about the status effects/terrain manipulation. And no class on the books beats the wizard for status effects over large areas. From Thunderwave to Legion's Hold, they do their job very effectively. 


> I like my Avenger, but the power creep is very evident - add in the "Righteous Rage of Tempus" cheese on top of it and like I said, it's faster than a creep.



And this is what makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. Have you even looked online about them? Avengers honestly need a damage boost--they're pretty low DPR for a Striker at the moment. The Ranger is still top of the charts in damage terms.

(RRoT needs an errata, though, not going to dispute that.)


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 12, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> And this is what makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. Have you even looked online about them? Avengers honestly need a damage boost--they're pretty low DPR for a Striker at the moment. The Ranger is still top of the charts in damage terms.




Ranger with twin-strike and two bastard swords and Quarry:

2pd = 2(.5)(1d10+x) + .75(1d6) = 8.125+x DPR where x is item enhancements and feat-based damage boosts.

Avenger with mordenkrad and 18 Wisdom and Oath (but no Censure):
pd + p(1-p)d = 2pd - p^2d = 
2(.45)(2d6brutal1+4+x) - (0.2025)(2d6brutal1+4+x)
=0.9(12+x) - 0.2025(12+x)
=0.6975(12+x)
=8.37+0.6975x

The difference between Avenger and Ranger then is:

0.245-0.3025x

Which means that if 0.245 > 0.3025x, then Avenger does more damage.

0.245 > 0.3025x

Of course, that means that if x>1 then the Ranger does more damage.... so long as the Avenger does not Censure.

If you have Censure tho, the difference is a -lot- more signifigant.


That's the thing with Avengers tho.  You -can't- spreadsheet them.  They're reliant on tactics and factors that simply never show up on a spreadsheet.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 12, 2009)

I'm not really entirely convinced with this argument about wizard at-will vs invoker at-will personally. At best the difference is VERY slight indeed. Wizard at-wills do NOT suck. Unimaginative wizard players may think so, but that is their problem.

Avenging Light - Very marginal difference from MM. Some will argue the 2x range of MM makes up for this. One thing is for sure, if you NEED a range 20 at-will, then AL is worthless in that situation and invokers have NO range 20 at-wills.

Grasping Shards - attacks fort and is best compared with Scorching Burst. Definitely more controllery, we applaud, but slowed is a conditionally useful effect, damage is ALWAYS useful and SB wins hands down on that.

Sun Strike - Compares favorably with Ray of Frost. 1 slides, the other slows. RoF is a FORT attack, so SS is slightly better in that respect.

Vanguard's Lightening - Very slightly better than SB. The conditional damage isn't a huge factor really. Still a bit nicer.

Divine Bolts - Yup, it is better than either MM, RoF, or SB hands down.

Notice I haven't even compared with the 2 BEST BY FAR wizard at-wills yet, CoD and Thunderwave. Invoker has nothing to compare with Thunderwave. Some love it and some hate it, but in my DMing experience I've seen Thunderwave used to devastating effect a number of times. It certainly adds a dimension to the wizard at-wills that invoker totally lacks. CoD is always a bit of a hard case to judge. Could be compared with Sun Strike or AL, but it does again have its own unique uses.

I just don't see that overall wizard's at-wills are worse than invoker's. Imagine swapping the whole list from one class to the other with the obvious primary stat switched and wizard would not become a more powerful class. It would certainly become more powerful if you could pick and choose between all 10, but then so would invoker. I would venture to say if you had all 10 to choose from any given player would choose from both lists depending on what they wanted to build. The worst you can say is that MM and SB would be relegated to special uses (long range fire and situations where you WANT fire damage specifically).

People seem to WANT there to be a power creep argument. Well, if PHB2 is power creep it is the continental drift of power creep! The new classes and races are interesting and different, but hardly different from the old ones power wise.


----------



## Herschel (Apr 12, 2009)

keterys said:


> ...At the beginning of every LFR mod is an entire section suggesting that you change the difficulty of the module to match your players (higher or lower). If they're steamrolling, increase away.




This is a very important note. LFR games are not campaign games, nor are they designed to be. You never know what you'll end up with at the table.

You coould have three Wizards (which happens quite a bit around here, at least in the higher level games), no leader, three leaders, no defender, no striker, new players.........you get the picture. I doubt many people go out to an RPGA event hoping for a TPK (although it has happened a few times here that I've seen) and the adventures have to be able to fit with whatever group you see, even if the highest Charisma is a 12. 

If you actually have a fairly optimal group and experienced players they will have a fairly easy time. 

Yesterday we ran throup IMPL1-2 with three Wizards, two Swordmages and a Cleric and had the most trouble in the second encounter (two Flaming Spheres did some nice things) and the skill challenge with no Charisma over 12 and nobody trained in Intimidate/one in Diplomacy w/ minimal bonus. The six wizard dailies were really nifty and judicious use made the first and last encounters much easier.


----------



## Caliban (Apr 12, 2009)

yesnomu said:


> And this is what makes me think you don't know what you're talking about. Have you even looked online about them? Avengers honestly need a damage boost--they're pretty low DPR for a Striker at the moment. The Ranger is still top of the charts in damage terms.
> 
> (RRoT needs an errata, though, not going to dispute that.)





And that only shows that you don't know what you are talking about.   Avengers average damage is on par with the rangers or a little higher, when you factor in their increased hit chance with all their melee powers, whcih include their attribute bonus to damage unlike twin strike.


----------



## Caliban (Apr 12, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> If you're replying to a single person and do not welcome input from others, perhaps a private message would be better than a public thread? Otherwise, isn't it kinda the nature of forums that posting in them assumes a willingness for group conversation?




I notice that you didn't send this as a private message.  Don't give advice you aren't willing to follow.  Just makes you look like a busybody.


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2009)

"Busybody"? On a public forum?


----------



## CubeKnight (Apr 12, 2009)

Caliban said:


> I notice that you didn't send this as a private message.  Don't give advice you aren't willing to follow.  Just makes you look like a busybody.



Lessee, the conditions were:
a) If you're replying to a single person 
b) do not welcome input from others

So, as long as he either wasn't replying to you OR does welcome input from anyone else, I don't see how he's not following his own advice.


----------



## phil500 (Apr 12, 2009)

Caliban said:


> That's not it. I'm seeing brand new characters cakewalk mods that were at least somewhat challenging specifically due to options from Martial Powers (which increased the power of martial classes from PHB1) and PHB2.




But maybe your players are getting better at finding the really dirty tricks.  the monsters in the modules dont get any better (in terms of builds).

what are the issues you have with martial power?

As to the versatility thing, anyone who plays magic the gathering knows that versatility creep is power creep.

I dont have enough experience, but one thing that jumped out at me from phb2 and martial power is how easy it is to get temp HP.


----------



## Victim (Apr 12, 2009)

Caliban said:


> And that only shows that you don't know what you are talking about.   Avengers average damage is on par with the rangers or a little higher, when you factor in their increased hit chance with all their melee powers, whcih include their attribute bonus to damage unlike twin strike.




An Avenger gets his attribute bonus to all his melee powers, yes.  A ranger will usually be getting his attribute bonus more than once, since ranger encounter and daily powers (ie, basically everything but Twin Strike) generally hit multiple times with full attribute bonuses on each.  Attribute and weapon bonuses several times > the same bonuses once.

DracoSuave above goes over Twin Strike versus Avenger attacks, to the ranger's advantage.

Who does more peak damage?  The ranger, because of the possibility of double hits.  Especially when you start to consider situations not centered around 50% hit chance.  Providing a ranger with an attack bonus (Righteous Brand, Warlord's Favor, etc, or debuffs to the target's defenses) can significantly boost his damage.  While not exactly maxed out, the Avenger benefits less from those effects.  And it's harder to set up bonuses for the Avenger, since the positioning restriction on the Oath can make it more difficult to gain CA.  The ranger with buffs will shred things, while the Avenger isn't doing much more than normal.  So, even assuming a generous parity in damage between the characters normally, the ranger ought to be pulling ahead if the rest of the group is working.  Plus melee rangers have an AC debuffing power of their own, even if they can't get help.

There's a reason that many Avenger builds in CO are all about using Avenger powers as little as possible - they're just not that great.  It takes a lot for the Avenger to compare with fairly conventional rangers.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 12, 2009)

hong said:


> "Busybody"? On a public forum?



He won't be answering you for a few days. I'm really, really tired of rudeness.


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 12, 2009)

Victim said:


> Avenger v. Ranger



Not only that, but the one thing that could bump up the Avenger-the Censures-are hard to get. A Retributive Avenger has to make sure his AC isn't too high for monsters to hit, and a Pursuit one has to work to get monsters to a place they don't want to be--otherwise they'll end up blissfully ignoring him. Not only that, but he has to make sure he doesn't get flanked or mobbed, which makes everything even harder.

I do think CO boards underrate the Avenger, since he's very hard to plot. But it's difficult for him to get up to the damage level of the Ranger, or even the Barbarian or Rogue. He needs some tweaks, not just RRoT-spam.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 12, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I won't say that the phb 2 classes are necessarily better, but I think they introduce new mechanics that are better...and will hopefully come back to the original classes with their respective splats.
> 
> *Aftereffects:* To me, this is the future of "save ends" type dailies. Currently I find "save ends" dailies to be last too little to compare against the sustain dailies that last the whole fight. However, with an aftereffect, you can now have dailies that last another round or two, and that's significant.




Technically speaking it was introduced in PHB1 - Disintegrate has it in all but name (5d10, ongoing 10 save ends; if the target saves it takes ongoing 5 damage, save ends).

But I agree, it should have been in more.

Another thing which I see in PHB2 which should have been used much more in PHB1 IMO is dailies which do half ongoing damage on a miss. Most of the pHB1 dailies which do ongoing damage do none on a miss. I figure that they probably ought to do half their ongoing damage, if only so that the poor PC using the power feels they got some value out of it!

Cheers


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 13, 2009)

Agreed. Either that, or dailies which are reliable (you don't lose them if you miss.)


----------



## hong (Apr 13, 2009)

Victim said:


> An Avenger gets his attribute bonus to all his melee powers, yes.  A ranger will usually be getting his attribute bonus more than once, since ranger encounter and daily powers (ie, basically everything but Twin Strike) generally hit multiple times with full attribute bonuses on each.  Attribute and weapon bonuses several times > the same bonuses once.




Critical hits can make a big difference for the avenger, though. They have roughly double the chance of critting, or better with a jagged weapon or various PP abilities. Stacking extra on-crit damage can go a long way to closing the gap.


----------



## Victim (Apr 13, 2009)

hong said:


> Critical hits can make a big difference for the avenger, though. They have roughly double the chance of critting, or better with a jagged weapon or various PP abilities. Stacking extra on-crit damage can go a long way to closing the gap.




Sure, compared to most characters, the Avenger's ability to make an attack with two attack rolls really improves his chances of critting.  But the ranger also has that benefit via just making two attacks.  This is somewhat weaker in the sense that the ranger generally has two smaller attacks, so the crit isn't maxing as many Ws.  OTOH, the avenger is limited to getting just one crit, while the ranger can rarely crit with both of his attacks.

Similarly, the melee ranger can use Jagged or Bloodiron (although that's more daggermaster...) weapons.

Our ranger would crit all the time, especially with Biting Volley and Elven Accuracy.


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 13, 2009)

I do agree with the point that a ranger using Encounters or Dailies will outdo the damage of an Avenger using Melee Basic Attack.

Of course, this is a strawman argument and should be disregarded immediately.

My point was that a Ranger using Twin Strike was doing damage -only a little higher- than an Avenger using Melee Basic Attack, with the difference actually being quite small.

So, yes, a Ranger using a broken at-will does more damage than an Avenger using nothing.  But if we start breaking out Encounters, Dailies, and even Avenger at-wills, the situation changes.  After all, Rangers don't have dailies or encounter powers that have -guaranteed- damage.  The Avenger does.

The problem is that an Avenger -can't- be compared on a spreadsheet, because the Avenger is tactically-dependant.  Player-skill has a direct effect on his damage, unlike a Ranger.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 13, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> The problem is that an Avenger -can't- be compared on a spreadsheet, because the Avenger is tactically-dependant. Player-skill has a direct effect on his damage, unlike a Ranger.




So, what kind of skill do you use, to make the DM attack you with other monsters to gain Censure of Retribution damage? And what kind of skill do you use to make the DM move the target willingly away from you so you can get Censure of Pursuit damage? Bluff DM?

It's very difficult to benefit from the Censures, compared to any other striker bonus damage class feature, and they rarely come into play. I agree there is player skill involved to try and make the best of it, but so does playing a rogue or warlock (ranger is kind of the brainless striker, though with some brains you can also help the rest of the party while you're dishing out your damage).

The odd thing is, the Pursuing Avenger is better against backline artillery and controllers, since they would be the ones most likely to willingly move away from the Avenger, but this also means they will be drawing crazy amounts of fire from multiple enemy back liners, and could really use Censure of Retribution.

Another oddity is that some powers like Avenging Echo, that would really make a Pursuing Avenger's target want to get away from him, have riders that are more beneficial to the Isolating Avenger.

I consider myself a fairly tactical player, but I'm being challenged figuring out ways of how I might be able to benefit from Censures.

Group tactics can definitely help. A Bard/Retribution Avenger team can have some fun with Misdirected Mark on anything that's not the Avenger's Oath target. This puts the target in a place where it either has to take a -2 attack, or potentially give the avenger bonus damage if it hits (using Bond of Retribution makes it better). This sort of synergy is not unlike the synergy between a warlord and a rogue for granting flanks with wolfpack tactics, and giving the rogue extra attacks when he misses.

I'm pondering if the reason why the Avenger doesn't have the explosive damage of rogues and rangers is because he has a little too much of the non-striker roles in him. An Avenger can achieve defender-like AC, has defender-like hit points, and a Pursuing Avenger can be sticky in essense by punishing an oath target that ignores him. Despite what the book says, I think the Pursuing Avenger's secondary role is defender.

Also Divine Guidance gives every Avenger a leader-like encounter ability to help their allies finish off their oath target. Turning the Barbarian's Avalanche Strike from a miss to a potential hit is a pretty phenomenal leader power (this is another place where party tactics come into play, oath targets are good targets for encounter and daily powers).

I any case, I think the Avenger is less of a striker than other strikers, because he does other stuff too. I definitely wouldn't want the Avenger to be the only striker in a party (some unique party compositions with lots of secondary striker roles excepted).


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 13, 2009)

Caliban said:


> I notice that you didn't send this as a private message.  Don't give advice you aren't willing to follow.  Just makes you look like a busybody.




I didn't send it as a PM because I welcome any and all replies to my public post.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 13, 2009)

I didn't notice any power creep as far as races, classes, rituals, or items are concerned. 
There's arguably a few feats in PHB2 that represent power creep, but they've already been discussed in expansive detail:

1) Weapon Expertise
2) Epic Fortitude/Reflexes/Will

What I dislike most about the former is that it scales so well. A heroic-level feat that grants +3 to hit at epic levels? Sign me up!

What I find odd about the latter three feats is that they grant an untyped bonus. If it was a feat bonus, I'd say they're fine and label them as 'pre-planned' power creep. As they are I'm not sure I like them.

Actually, I think it's highly likely they planned to include feats similar to these right from the beginning, they just decided not to put them right into PHB1. Similar to their decision to not include metallic dragons and frost giants in MM1.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 13, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I throw the BS card.
> 
> BattleRager Fighter is tougher than a basic Fighter any day of the week.
> 
> ...




The straight fighter will have higher AC (unless the battlerager decides to ignore half of its class feature) that is effective on melee and ranged attacks.

The +1 to hit is actually a pretty big deal.  5% more chance to hit with powers that affects your role as a defender. 

Sticky is not just about absorbing damage.  It means that you are enough of a threat that opponents will hesitate attacking others.

I saw a 22 Con 8th level battlerager in play (Dwarf).  Opponents just chose to ignore him and went after squishier members of the party because his bonus to hit was pretty lousy.

Perhaps that has colored my view of Battleragers.  Yes, I see the benefits.  But I don't think that you can say that the benefits are overwhelmingly more useful than a simple +1 to hit and higher AC.


----------



## keterys (Apr 13, 2009)

Battleragers have no need to be lower AC or lower attack other than the 1 from talent (though certainly they can specialize as to what the group needs or their own particular interests)... the +1 attack can instead just be compared to 3 or so temp on every hit.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 13, 2009)

keterys said:


> Anyhow, I can totally believe any complaint that there is power creep in PHB2 - lord knows I've ranted and raved about expertise and such -




How would you feel if you found out that Expertise was actually in the design of the game from the very beginning?  



> you're going to say that. I find MP far more dashy than PHB2. Far more.



  I totally agree here.  It just felt that some aspects of MP was not playtested properly.

There's some powerful stuff.  But there's also a lot of powerful stuff in the core PHB1.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 13, 2009)

keterys said:


> Battleragers have no need to be lower AC or lower attack other than the 1 from talent (though certainly they can specialize as to what the group needs or their own particular interests)... the +1 attack can instead just be compared to 3 or so temp on every hit.




And the ability to stack temp HPs from invigorating powers.

Something to consider definitely, but it's not a clear cut case of "better" which someone claimed earlier.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 13, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> I saw a 22 Con 8th level battlerager in play (Dwarf).  Opponents just chose to ignore him and went after squishier members of the party because his bonus to hit was pretty lousy.
> 
> Perhaps that has colored my view of Battleragers.  Yes, I see the benefits.  But I don't think that you can say that the benefits are overwhelmingly more useful than a simple +1 to hit and higher AC.




Have you seen a fighter built to be a pure PHB fighter and then had its version changed from +1 to hit to battle rager? That to me is the major hole in Battlerager design. A BR built as a full-blooded BR is (in theory) balanced with a standard fighter. But a BR built as a standard fighter gains a lot of staying power at the expense of a single +1 to hit.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 13, 2009)

James McMurray said:


> Have you seen a fighter built to be a pure PHB fighter and then had its version changed from +1 to hit to battle rager? That to me is the major hole in Battlerager design. A BR built as a full-blooded BR is (in theory) balanced with a standard fighter. But a BR built as a standard fighter gains a lot of staying power at the expense of a single +1 to hit.




Yeah, it really helps in increasing staying power.  No arguments there.

But the question is though, does the fighter need it?

Is it worth lowering average damage per round by around 10% and reducing the chance to land with OAs, dailies and encounter powers by 5%?

There aren't that many ways to get +1 to hit.  Lots of ways to gain/recover HPs.

Deterrence is one of the duties of a Defender, not just endurance, and lowering your chance to hit impacts that.


----------



## James McMurray (Apr 13, 2009)

That's why I asked if you'd seen it.  I haven't, so it's all guesswork on my part. Though my gut tells me that 5% less chance to hit isn't going to be noticable enough to stop the monsters from acting how they normally would unless the GM is doing some serious metagaming.


----------



## keterys (Apr 13, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> How would you feel if you found out that Expertise was actually in the design of the game from the very beginning?




The same? It's junk whether it's intentional junk or accidental junk. Festering, steaming, burbling junk.

But, yeah, I'm overall very happy with the PH2 so far. I think they really stretched their legs with the design of a lot of things and I think the system is in a much better place with the addition of the classes and design concepts.


----------



## jasin (Apr 13, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> Yeah, it really helps in increasing staying power.  No arguments there.
> 
> But the question is though, does the fighter need it?
> 
> Is it worth lowering average damage per round by around 10% and reducing the chance to land with OAs, dailies and encounter powers by 5%?



Worth for whom?

It's more more power for the battle rager (which strongly correlates with more fun) and more danger for the rest of the group (which strongly correlates with less fun).

More fun for me at the expense of fun for others. That's pretty much the definition of unbalanced in a RPG.


----------



## Victim (Apr 14, 2009)

Our battlerager stuck with mass marking powers (Come and Get It, Sweeping Blow even using a hammer, and Passing Attack plus dragon breath racial), so he was difficult to ignore.  He needed far less healing in most fights than the previous weapon talent fighter, which meant that my warlord's scarce heals could go towards other people more often.  

Per hit damage was higher than before because of a different weapon type (hammer versus sword) and the battlerager bonus damage.  

Battleragers are also extremely effective against monsters that make multiple attacks, like Tomb Guardian skeletons (or many somewhat weaker enemies).  Sure, they lose a point of AC in Chain as opposed to Scale, and thus suffer slightly more hits.  But they also blunt the high end damage possible on multiple hits.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 14, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> Yeah, it really helps in increasing staying power.  No arguments there.
> 
> But the question is though, does the fighter need it?




That's not the question. The (inaccurate) statement you made was:

"Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is."

Replace +1 to hit with BRV and yes, the PHB II Fighter is a lot tougher. You said so yourself: "it really helps in increasing staying power".

And, he is just as sticky. NPCs do not know that one attack in 20 will miss that would have hit, so there should be zero difference in how the DM plays the NPCs.



cdrcjsn said:


> Is it worth lowering average damage per round by around 10% and reducing the chance to land with OAs, dailies and encounter powers by 5%?
> 
> There aren't that many ways to get +1 to hit.  Lots of ways to gain/recover HPs.
> 
> Deterrence is one of the duties of a Defender, not just endurance, and lowering your chance to hit impacts that.




So, let me get this straight. Each power hits 1 time in 20 more than it would have.

So, if there are 10 round encounters, the +1 to hit helps on one round out of every TWO encounters. In 7 rounds encounters, the +1 to hit helps on one round out of every THREE encounters. 95% of the time, the result of an attack between the two Fighters are identical.

And, the NPCs do not know that a given Fighter is 1 less to hit. There is no "lowering your chance to hit impacts deterence" because foes will not detect this. If it does not occur 19 rounds out of 20, how do the NPCs detect it? The two Fighters should appear equally as sticky to NPCs.

BRV, on the other hand, helps on more than half of the rounds. It even helps on rounds where the Fighter is not hit with a Burst or Melee attack (because the temp hit points still help against other types of attacks).

BRV not only gives more temp hit points to the Fighter, but it also allows the Leader to concentrate heals on other PCs. Pro group.

The defender is the most attacked PC in the group. BRV allows that defender to use fewer Healing Surges and hence, allows him to fight in more encounters per day. Pro group.

+1 to hit is helpful. Just nowhere near as helpful as BRV. If the Fighter does not hit one time in 20, it just means that a different PC out of the other 4 will have to hit. That extends one encounter in every two by maybe a half round.


One final note: If a Fighter goes unconscious just once, he loses ~+10 to hit (i.e. 50% chance to hit goes to 0%). So, a single round of unconsciousness is equivalent to 10 rounds (or 1 encounter) of +1 to hit. BRV decreases the number of times a Fighter goes unconscious.


----------



## keterys (Apr 14, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> One final note: If a Fighter goes unconscious just once, he loses ~+10 to hit (i.e. 50% chance to hit goes to 0%). So, a single round of unconsciousness is equivalent to 200 rounds (or 20 encounters) of +1 to hit.




You're off by a factor of 20 here, just for reference. 10 rounds, 1 encounter.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 14, 2009)

keterys said:


> You're off by a factor of 20 here, just for reference. 10 rounds, 1 encounter.




Fixed that. It's amazing how the brain stops working when one gets old.


----------



## Smeelbo (Apr 14, 2009)

*Let's see how it plays out...*



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> It just reminds me of Magic the Gathering, where every new set introduces one or more new game mechanics. Every new book allows the characters to manipulate the rules or environment in new ways. Unforseen interactions are going to result in more and more "broken combos" - or even just basic class features.



This is the future of D&D. More powers, more combinations, and hence more broken combinations, faster than the errata can be published.  I predict that no later than the summer of 2011, a revised _PHB/MM/DMG_ will be published that will not be very backward compatable, and that _Hasbro_ will at that time regularize the _"aging out"_ of problematic material. It may be called _5th Edition, 4.5, Revised 4E,_ even_ 4E Type II_, but it will happen, and for essentially the same reasons it happened with _Magic The Gathering_, even though there are striking differences between the dynamics of the two games.

Simply put, in order to manage the game successfully while still being able to introduce _(and hence sell)_ new material, the total complexity of the game will need to be capped, and this will be accomplished by removing older material in order to make room for the sale of newer material.

Count on it.







			
				Jhaelin said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it's highly likely they planned to include feats similar to these right from the beginning, they just decided not to put them right into PHB1.



Again, I return to my observation after my very first reading of the 4E PHB: _"They plan to sell us a 'Book of +2s.'"_ I had not expected it so soon, but there it is.

As for whether _PHB2_ is out of line, my intention is to keep playing and see how it all actually turns out. I have completely reversed my initial opinion of 4E, so I will keep my mind open. Hopefully, I'll get to actually play again soon, instead of just DMing.

*Smeelbo*


----------



## Dan'L (Apr 14, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> That's not the question. The (inaccurate) statement you made was:
> 
> "Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is."
> 
> ...




Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another?  Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks?  1-handed, 2-handed, BRV, Tempest -- they're all basic fighters.

I understood the statement "Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is" to be referring to the Fighter class, which now has four builds, in comparison to the other defender classes.  Not being the one who made the statement, I can't be 100% sure that's what was meant, but that's how I took it.

So, arguing that one fighter build is stickier or tougher than another does zip in refuting the assertion that fighter is stickier/tougher than: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden.  Now, I haven't seen the Warden in play yet, but I'll vouch that the Fighter is stickier/tougher than the Paladins and Swordmages that I've seen.

-Dan'L


----------



## yesnomu (Apr 14, 2009)

Smeelbo said:


> Simply put, in order to manage the game successfully while still being able to introduce _(and hence sell)_ new material, the total complexity of the game will need to be capped, and this will be accomplished by removing older material in order to make room for the sale of newer material.



I dunno. Unlike Magic, where you can choose each individual card in a deck, in D&D your choices are much more sharply curtailed. Powers, for example: you get your class's powers, and one or two per type from a single multiclass. (Excepting Versatile Master/Eternal Seeker here, I agree those have a much higher abuse potential). As long as class choices are individually balanced, and classes are designed to fit their role, Wizards shouldn't ever have to phase out PHBI's classes. Likewise, many powerful feats are class-based, and only a few magic items can be used together at a time. There's a sharply limited area for intersections.

PHBI, AV, MP and PHBII have all had a set of overpowered things, many of which haven't been errata'd yet. But lists of these are easy to find online, along with suggested fixes (cruise the Wizards errata forums, for example). Most importantly, the majority of the content in all these books is fine. A rogue with AV and MP has more options, but not a whole lot more raw power than a straight PHB one (Fighter is more debatable).


----------



## DracoSuave (Apr 14, 2009)

I remember the days of Sword and Fist.

Things are -not- as bad as they were in the early days of 3.0.  S&F had more errata for it than any splat out yet.


----------



## jasin (Apr 14, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another?  Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks?



Because one of them appears in a book that is necessary for the game, and one of them appears in an optional supplement, WotC's 4E policy of designating everything as "core" notwithstanding.


----------



## keterys (Apr 14, 2009)

Also, the MP fighter talents are widely decried on the internet* for their imbalance, while the PHB ones generally lauded.

* Which doesn't say much, but hey.


----------



## Mengu (Apr 14, 2009)

keterys said:


> Also, the MP fighter talents are widely decried on the internet* for their imbalance, while the PHB ones generally lauded.
> 
> * Which doesn't say much, but hey.




Way to discredit your own statement. 

Well, cries from the internet got them to issue errata for infinite attack powers like Blade Cascade, but they don't seem to care much about the battlerager and tempest issues. I guess toning down Marked Scourge did indirectly help a bit for tempest issues, but not much.


----------



## keterys (Apr 14, 2009)

Honestly, remove double weapons and change dual strike so it _only_ works as an attack each on two targets (making it less of a way to deal striker damage and more a way to mark two enemies) and you've solved the Tempest, far as I'm concerned. That's not far to go.

The battlerager just isn't workable with the minion system, nevermind the low damage potential of a startling number of creatures. I'd be a lot happier if you took out invigorating stacking and made it so you only gained temp hp when taking actual damage... that'd make it a lot more viable. That and I'd probably junk Brash Strike


----------



## Bayuer (Apr 14, 2009)

Battlerager is very overpowered. My player is playing one in my new campaign. He take dwarf, fight with battleaxe and shield (S16,Con18,Wis14) and use Brash Strike with makes +7 to hit and deals 1k10+7 dmg (+9 if he got temp HP). AC 18. He take feat from MP called Dwarf Stoneblood, so every time he is hit with melee or close attack he gains +6 temp HP. It is like DR6/- almost all the time. Yes, he grants Combat Adventage with Brash Strike but he got 6 temp. and after hit he will have this again.

The first hit... dwarf takes DMG --> +6 temp HP. And now he lost almost non HP for entire fight. Of course you can throw at him area and ranged attacks and it will hurt him, but when he fights one on one he's hardly to be damaged.

I don't know what is on other levels, but I think with scalling CON he still will be very strong. Compared to +1 to hit fighter... Nah. No way. BR is much better!


----------



## Regicide (Apr 14, 2009)

keterys said:


> Honestly, remove double weapons and change dual strike so it _only_ works as an attack each on two targets (making it less of a way to deal striker damage and more a way to mark two enemies) and you've solved the Tempest, far as I'm concerned. That's not far to go.
> 
> The battlerager just isn't workable with the minion system, nevermind the low damage potential of a startling number of creatures. I'd be a lot happier if you took out invigorating stacking and made it so you only gained temp hp when taking actual damage... that'd make it a lot more viable. That and I'd probably junk Brash Strike




  The fact that BRs pretty much ignore half the damage tossed at them is pretty ridiculous and there is no way that WotC didn't see it when they put it in.  But it's like trying to hold back a flood.  Nerf these for being OP and a year from now you'll have 50 things nerfed and more house rules than core rules.  I think you just need to accept the underlying theme of "let the players win."  These things only really become a problem when all your players start taking tempests and battleragers.  If there are enough OP choices to keep people playing a variety of things, then whatever.  Toss harder monsters at them, play modules that are 2 levels "too high" for them etc.



DracoSuave said:


> I remember the days of Sword and Fist.
> 
> Things are -not- as bad as they were in the early days of 3.0.  S&F had more errata for it than any splat out yet.




  If you ignore the fact that the first 2 pages of S&F errata is just a standards thing and tagging powers with what type they are and generally doesn't impact play, the amount of errata for it is pretty close to that of AV.  Plus for 4E they aren't putting editing mistakes in updates so much/at all like they sometimes did in 3/3.5.

  That also begs the question, doesn't AV actually need more errata?  It's more a factor of them bothering to do the errata than how much it's needed.  Look at Book of Nine Swords, I don't even think they did any errata for it, and it could do with a few pages minimum.  You think battlerager is OP, whooo boy, let me tell you some of the crap BoNS partys can pull...


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 14, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> So, arguing that one fighter build is stickier or tougher than another does zip in refuting the assertion that fighter is stickier/tougher than: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden.  Now, I haven't seen the Warden in play yet, but I'll vouch that the Fighter is stickier/tougher than the Paladins and Swordmages that I've seen.




That was my initial argument, but we got sidetracked regarding the merits of Battlerage vigor vs PHB1 options.

I've seen a Warden in play in both heroic and paragon levels.  They're fine and have a lot more controller options, but the Fighter is still stickier as a defender.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Apr 14, 2009)

Regicide said:


> The fact that BRs pretty much ignore half the damage tossed at them is pretty ridiculous




That's the thing.  BRV doesn't ignore half the damage thrown at them.

If you build them like a regular fighter, then it's around 3-4 temps per melee/close attack.  That doesn't include ranged, area or ongoing damage which are a significant source of damage as you go up in levels.

That for a 5% chance to hit less with your encounter powers and dailies as well as an average reduction in damage of close to 10% (assuming you're hitting about half the time).

It's a trade-off that a lot of people are willing to make.

Then again, a lot of people still underestimate the benefits of a bonus to hit.  For me though, there are a lot of ways to gain hit points in this game.  Not as many ways to gain a bonus to hit, and I absolutely hate missing with my dailies.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 14, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another?  Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks?  1-handed, 2-handed, BRV, Tempest -- they're all basic fighters.
> 
> I understood the statement "Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is" to be referring to the Fighter class, which now has four builds, in comparison to the other defender classes.  Not being the one who made the statement, I can't be 100% sure that's what was meant, but that's how I took it.




We are discussing PHB II vs. PHB I. If what you say is true, he would have pointed it out himself. He has now indicated (in a later post now that you have pointed it out) that was his intent all along, but never said so during the actual discussion.

No, he was originally claiming that PHB II Fighters were not better than PHB I Fighters as a refutation to the statement that PHB II introduced a lot of power creep. Otherwise, combining all sets of Fighter builds does nothing to refute what he was trying to refute.


----------



## Regicide (Apr 14, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> That's the thing.  BRV doesn't ignore half the damage thrown at them.
> 
> If you build them like a regular fighter, then it's around 3-4 temps per melee/close attack.  That doesn't include ranged, area or ongoing damage which are a significant source of damage as you go up in levels.




  3-4 at first without using any invigorating attacks or feats.  Often they end up ignoring more than half the damage thrown at them.



cdrcjsn said:


> That for a 5% chance to hit less with your encounter powers and dailies as well as an average reduction in damage of close to 10% (assuming you're hitting about half the time).




  You're not factoring in their bonus damage, which with mighty feat is +4 per hit by epic, or a possible 8 extra damage per round on dual strike.  The +1 to hit is still better, but they're not there to be the top damage dealers, defenders are there to mitigate incoming damage and let the rest of the party go about dealing it.


----------



## jasin (Apr 14, 2009)

cdrcjsn said:


> Then again, a lot of people still underestimate the benefits of a bonus to hit.  For me though, there are a lot of ways to gain hit points in this game.



After every melee hit?



> Not as many ways to gain a bonus to hit, and I absolutely hate missing with my dailies.



+1 to hit is worth about a feat, less at higher tiers.


----------



## keterys (Apr 15, 2009)

Only true if you could get Expertise multiple times in some stacking manner. Once you assume everyone has it, it's worth a bit more


----------



## Dan'L (Apr 15, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> We are discussing PHB II vs. PHB I. If what you say is true, he would have pointed it out himself. He has now indicated (in a later post now that you have pointed it out) that was his intent all along, but never said so during the actual discussion.




Point of fact, he did.  It was in the very words he used.  Just because you did not read them clearly, doesn't mean he needed to to state it separately.  And just because he followed your redirection of the converstaion to discuss the separate issue of power creep within the Fighter class doesn't mean his original statement is any less correct.



> No, he was originally claiming that PHB II Fighters were not better than PHB I Fighters as a refutation to the statement that PHB II introduced a lot of power creep. Otherwise, combining all sets of Fighter builds does nothing to refute what he was trying to refute.




Okay, now you're getting off again.

1) There are no PHB II Fighters.  No one here, therefore, can have been making any claims about them.  There are two fighter class builds in the MP book, but discussing these builds does nothing to address issues of power creep from PHB II, only perhaps power creep from MP.

2) If you read his statement, he very clearly is comparing Defender classes, not class builds of the Fighter class.  He was claiming that Fighters were stickier/tougher than other Defender classes, as I pointed out and he confirmed.  You misunderstood him; nothing wrong with that.

3) Therefore, if you take the Fighter class as it existed before PHB II's release, examine it as fulfilling the Defender's role vis-a-vis stickyness & toughness, you will find that the PHB II did nothing to upset the Fighter class' ability to be the stickiest/toughest defender.  So, in this one respect at least, PHB II did not increase the stakes.

...

Now, the separate discussion about Fighter builds from MP v. PHB I is bound to be an internet grumbling from here until 5th Edition.  Power creep?  Only time & playing will truly tell.

-Dan'L


----------



## Dan'L (Apr 15, 2009)

Regicide said:


> 3-4 at first without using any invigorating attacks or feats.  Often they end up ignoring more than half the damage thrown at them.




Yeah, but I'd rather not be hit in the first place than ignore half the damage.



> You're not factoring in their bonus damage, which with mighty feat is +4 per hit by epic, or a possible 8 extra damage per round on dual strike.  The +1 to hit is still better, but they're not there to be the top damage dealers, defenders are there to mitigate incoming damage and let the rest of the party go about dealing it.




Because this build you're talking about?  Dual Strike with the BRV for extra damage?  What's that, 16 AC at level 1?  Vs. a 19 AC for a Sword & Board?  You're going to need those temp HPs, or you're not going to be much of a Defender.

Sure you can max out one thing or another, but it's the overall balance of a character that makes it playable.  It's all in the particular flavor of balance in the builds that make one appeal to a player more than another; one player's immovable force is another player's doorstop.

I think the true test will be checking back in 6 months or so and seeing what percentage of players of fighters pick which builds.  It could be that an overwhelming number will play BRV over any other build, but quite frankly the people I've talked to who've played them have seemed to have grown bored with them fairly quickly.  YMMV, though.

-Dan'L


----------



## satori01 (Apr 15, 2009)

Frankly, I think the PHB II encourages the use of BR Fighter...because a quick perusal of PHB II shows that the Warden, Barbarian, and Druid all have an at will power that will give X ability modifier in Temp HPs.

Battlerager Vigor is still better in terms of Temp HPs (because of stacking) than simply training in Endurance and taking an Invigorating at will.


----------



## Nail (Apr 15, 2009)

satori01 said:


> Frankly, I think the PHB II encourages the use of BR Fighter...because a quick perusal of PHB II shows that the Warden, Barbarian, and Druid all have an at will power that will give X ability modifier in Temp HPs.



That was my impression too.

Currently, I'm playing a human BRV fighter.  I created the character before MP as a sword-n-board WT fighter, then swapped Weapon Talent for BRV when Martial Powers came out.  As built, my PC doesn't out-shine the other PC in the party.  I'm actually pretty careful to build this PC so that's the case.

...but if I could have built the BRV fighter from the ground up (and taken the Dwarven Race and all those tasty feats!), it would be a broken PC.  Of that I have no doubt.  The amount of hammer damage I could put out, and the amount of melee damage I could take, would be legendary.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 15, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Okay, now you're getting off again.




Ok, you're right. I concede the point.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 15, 2009)

Nail said:


> ...but if I could have built the BRV fighter from the ground up (and taken the Dwarven Race and all those tasty feats!), it would be a broken PC.  Of that I have no doubt.  The amount of hammer damage I could put out, and the amount of melee damage I could take, would be legendary.




We had a player who did this build. When we switched DMs, he switched to an Invoker, partially because his build seemed so broke.

AV added some seriously potent weapons. MP added some seriously potent build options.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Apr 15, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> So, let me get this straight. Each power hits 1 time in 20 more than it would have.
> 
> So, if there are 10 round encounters, the +1 to hit helps on one round out of every TWO encounters. In 7 rounds encounters, the +1 to hit helps on one round out of every THREE encounters. 95% of the time, the result of an attack between the two Fighters are identical.




_Line removed by admin. I know you added a "snark" label and meant to be funny, but still something we'd rather not see. The rest of the post, though, is fine. ~ PCat_

You completely missed the possibility multiple actions/attacks in an encounter.  Every time a Fighter OAs, you're getting an extra "punch" on that +1.  This is especially helpful if you're using Mark-heavy powers and have "squishies" optimized for damage instead of defending and are playing in Terrain+ combats.

BRV fighters, on the other hand, are less likely to hit with those OAs and are therefore less likely to be as sticky, especially if the Natural Fighter doesn't pump his Constituion as much in lieu of his Wis and/or Str.

And on the side-note, monsters being aware of powers is a Rule 0 application.  If they're aware of powers being used on them as per RAW, it can also be said in the same vien that monsters can tell if their powers are being soaked by the BRV fighter.  GM discretion, ofcourse.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 16, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> You completely missed the possibility multiple actions/attacks in an encounter.  Every time a Fighter OAs, you're getting an extra "punch" on that +1.  This is especially helpful if you're using Mark-heavy powers and have "squishies" optimized for damage instead of defending and are playing in Terrain+ combats.
> 
> BRV fighters, on the other hand, are less likely to hit with those OAs and are therefore less likely to be as sticky, especially if the Natural Fighter doesn't pump his Constituion as much in lieu of his Wis and/or Str.




In order to do an Apples and Oranges comparison, one has to just consider Fighters who replace +1 with BRV.

And you are correct. I ignored OAs. It's still one attack in 20 and will typically occur less than once per encounter (assuming not an extremely long encounter).

Now, DM style can affect this. One DM might rarely have a marked foe OA and another DM might have it occur all over the place.



Intense_Interest said:


> And on the side-note, monsters being aware of powers is a Rule 0 application.  If they're aware of powers being used on them as per RAW, it can also be said in the same vien that monsters can tell if their powers are being soaked by the BRV fighter.  GM discretion, ofcourse.




According to the PHB rules, monsters are only definitively aware of power's effects on them, not PC's power's and abilities' effects on themselves (unless for some reason the effect is obvious like Flying).


Do you think that a monster should KNOW that a Fighter is +1 to hit? Is it obvious? If so, is it obvious that a Fighter is using a +2 weapon instead of a +1 weapon?

Where does one draw the line?

At what the PHB states. Powers that affects the monsters and powers that are obvious.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Apr 16, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> In order to do an Apples and Oranges comparison, one has to just consider Fighters who replace +1 with BRV.




So we're watering down the conclusion down to "in situations where BRV is not optimal, it isn't optimal"?  Doesn't say much for how "overpowered" the feature is- because in my experience, a STR/WIS fighter does much more to keep the party alive than a BRV twinky Fighter, simply because of how many OAs are missed because of the extra points in CON.



> And you are correct. I ignored OAs. It's still one attack in 20 and will typically occur less than once per encounter (assuming not an extremely long encounter).
> 
> Now, DM style can affect this. One DM might rarely have a marked foe OA and another DM might have it occur all over the place.



"Typically", it will specifically occur once every 20 OA attacks, and more like once every 4 or 5 when you consider the ease of access to feats like Heavy Blade Opportunity and otherwise, in an optimal Sticky-Fighter build.  

And BRV fighters are the exact kind of Non-Sticky fighters it is easier to move around.  If the DM doesn't slide around the Fighter to give the squishy caster a few more death saves, you're really not playing the combat as challenging as it means to be.



> According to the PHB rules, monsters are only [/b]definitively[/b] aware of power's effects on them, not PC's power's and abilities' effects on themselves (unless for some reason the effect is obvious like Flying).
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



(Bolding mine)

So intelligent monsters aren't able to use logic that somehow this Dwarf Thug is not even being effected by their attacks?  It doesn't need to be a definitive instant reaction to understand that THPs are being stacked like cordwood. 

BRV is pretty much as obvious as you can get with a class's ability for a Fighter.  Goblins figure out that the Wizard has a Shield spell from the staff in my campaign because it is _obvious_.  It is just as obvious that no actual damage is being done to a BRV Fighter, because anything else would be ignoring the game-state as-is.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 16, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> So we're watering down the conclusion down to "in situations where BRV is not optimal, it isn't optimal"?  Doesn't say much for how "overpowered" the feature is- because in my experience, a STR/WIS fighter does much more to keep the party alive than a BRV twinky Fighter, simply because of how many OAs are missed because of the extra points in CON.




Your experience is anecdotal.

My experience with a BRV Fighter (compared to several other Fighters) is the exact opposite. Most people who have posted experience with a BRV Fighter have agreed with my anecdotal experience.



Intense_Interest said:


> "Typically", it will specifically occur once every 20 OA attacks, and more like once every 4 or 5 when you consider the ease of access to feats like Heavy Blade Opportunity and otherwise, in an optimal Sticky-Fighter build.




The BRV Fighter can get those feats as well. So, it is still one in 20 attacks.

Take a Fighter with a CON of at least 12. Swap out +1 to hit with BRV. Everything else is the same.

The BRV Fighter wins in the long run. He lasts longer and saves on resources. He misses one attack in 20. But, he has an entire group to make up that single successful attack (i.e. the encounter might last a fraction of a round longer, woo hoo).



Intense_Interest said:


> And BRV fighters are the exact kind of Non-Sticky fighters it is easier to move around.  If the DM doesn't slide around the Fighter to give the squishy caster a few more death saves, you're really not playing the combat as challenging as it means to be.




Nonsense. Both Fighters are equally as sticky. They both mark. They both threaten their foes with their marks.

Only if the DM is metagaming numbers does a foe bypass the BRV Fighter's mark and not do so for the +1 Fighter's mark.



Intense_Interest said:


> So intelligent monsters aren't able to use logic that somehow this Dwarf Thug is not even being effected by their attacks?  It doesn't need to be a definitive instant reaction to understand that THPs are being stacked like cordwood.




What THPs are those? How does the monster see them? With its X-Ray vision through the Dwarf's armor?

And, who said the BRV Fighter had to be a Dwarf?

How does the monster know the difference between a BRV Fighter and a +1 Fighter that is simply several levels higher? How does the monster know the difference between a BRV Fighter and a +1 Fighter with Toughness?

The monster has never met the Fighter. It does not automatically know why the Fighter can take a beating and keep standing.

You are just making up this stuff about monsters knowing about THPs out of the blue. The rules do not state this.



Intense_Interest said:


> BRV is pretty much as obvious as you can get with a class's ability for a Fighter.  Goblins figure out that the Wizard has a Shield spell from the staff in my campaign because it is _obvious_.  It is just as obvious that no actual damage is being done to a BRV Fighter, because anything else would be ignoring the game-state as-is.




Quote a rule.

This is a rules forum.

Opinion is fine, but quote a rule for such silliness.

Hit point damage is not actual damage in 4E anyway. It is easily recovered within minutes without any magic at all. The only time it is actual damage is when the PC dies. Otherwise, it's just some form of exhaustion, minor nicks, or some other pseudo non-actual damage.


The only thing the Goblins know is that after hitting this guy a lot of times, he's real tough. Nothing more. Nothing less. Duh!

What are your goblins, psychic?


----------



## Regicide (Apr 16, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> BRV is pretty much as obvious as you can get with a class's ability for a Fighter.  Goblins figure out that the Wizard has a Shield spell from the staff in my campaign because it is _obvious_.  It is just as obvious that no actual damage is being done to a BRV Fighter, because anything else would be ignoring the game-state as-is.




  Just as obvious to the monster would be that they're going to lose the fight and should be running away.  When minions are dying to a flick of the wrist and a BRV fighting takes your best shot and laughs in your face, you don't go after the wizard instead because he's squishier...  You get the F out of Dodge.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Apr 16, 2009)

I did 134 damage in one round with my barbarian today, killing one level 6 monster and bloodying a second. I'm level 5. I'll break it down, since I figure someone will ask:

Walk up, Frost Wolf Rage. Enemy takes the basic attack. It misses. I crit for 55 + 1d12 + 2d6 = 71 with my +2 fullblade. Instantly bloodied and almost dead. I Rampage (and hit) for another 1d12 + 9 for 15. Death. I gain 10 temp HP (which is 100% gravy at this point) and use my free action charge to Howling Strike another baddie for 1d12 + 1d6 + 7 = 18. Burn my action point, since I'm obviously on a roll, and Rage Strike for another 3d12 + 7 = 30. Bloodied.

The entire table was speechless. Nerf barbarians, seriously.


----------



## Victim (Apr 16, 2009)

So with a critical hit, two Daily powers, and an action point, a barbarian did a lot of damage.  

I think our ranger can put out similar numbers with Biting Volley + Attack on the Run.  Granted, that's a bit higher level.  But when you have a good striker class unloading lots of resources, hitting with everything, and critting, what do you expect to happen?

IIRC, our ranger would have had something like +7 damage (+4 Dex, +2 Greatbow, +1 Weapon Focus) at that level.  Split the Tree hits for 2d12+7 on two targets plus +1d8 from Quarry on one guy.  So critting does 39+2d6 (46) damage to one target, and then 2d12+7 (20) to the other guy.  Action Point for Two Fanged Strike: 2d12+14+3 (my warlord would add 8 more damage with tactical assault): another 30 points.  And he pops someone with Disruptive Strike when they act: another 1d12+7 (13). 

Not quite as high, but still over a hundred to two guys.  And only using 1 Daily power (but Two Fanged Strike does more damage than his level 5 Daily).  And less dependent on fortunate conditions since the ranger doesn't need to drop enemies or score crits to get extra attacks.


----------



## hong (Apr 16, 2009)

Our ranger did precisely that, with 2 crits thrown in. Hit somewhere near the 200 mark, IIRC.


----------



## Kinneus (Apr 16, 2009)

Sounds less like power creep and more like a striker acting like a striker.

People complain about grind and high monster HP... I think a striker as badass as the Barbarian is a good thing.

Some of the PHB 2 classes are probably better designed than the PHB 1 classes. Sorcerer versus Warlock, for instance. This is less about the PHB 2 classes being unexpectedly strong, however, and more with the various roles (striker and controller, primarily) finally being what they are meant to be.

In some (very specific) cases, I think the PHB 2 classes might be a bit weaker than the PHB 1 classes, or just toned down. Compare an Invoker's Encounters and Dailies to a Wizard's Encounters and Dailies. Compare Righteous Brand or Sacred Lance to the Shaman's Watcher's Strike or even the Bard's Guiding Strike. It's less power creep and more fine-tuning.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Apr 16, 2009)

So a level 9 ranger with 2 crits and an action point can outdamage a level 5 barbarian with 1 crit and an action point? Nice argument...

At even 7th level I could have stacked another 3d12 + 7 minimum on top of that as an immediate interrput. If I got a 2nd crit, my damage would also soar near the 200 mark, and 2 levels earlier, with regular and temporary HP out the wazoo.


----------



## hong (Apr 16, 2009)

To be precise, a level 5 barbarian who got lucky and managed to kill a monster in 1 round.

The ranger can do 2 attacks per round, on demand, and can crank it up to 4 once every 2 encounters, again on demand.


----------



## Victim (Apr 16, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> So a level 9 ranger with 2 crits and an action point can outdamage a level 5 barbarian with 1 crit and an action point? Nice argument...
> 
> At even 7th level I could have stacked another 3d12 + 7 minimum on top of that as an immediate interrput. If I got a 2nd crit, my damage would also soar near the 200 mark, and 2 levels earlier, with regular and temporary HP out the wazoo.




I added in the lower level version via edit.  The campaign ended months ago, so I'm not exactly remembering what happened TODAY - fun with Attacks on the Run happened near the end of the game, so it's the most recent incident to recall.  There where several instances in which luck, and resource expenditure conspired for huge damage spikes.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Apr 16, 2009)

hong said:


> To be precise, a level 5 barbarian who got lucky and managed to kill a monster in 1 round.
> 
> The ranger can do 2 attacks per round, on demand, and can crank it up to 4 once every 2 encounters, again on demand.




How is it any less lucky than a double-critting ranger? 2 attacks per round with an at-will? What abilities recharge every 2 encounters?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 16, 2009)

Kinneus said:


> Sounds less like power creep and more like a striker acting like a striker.
> 
> ...
> 
> Some of the PHB 2 classes are probably better designed than the PHB 1 classes. Sorcerer versus Warlock, for instance. This is less about the PHB 2 classes being unexpectedly strong, however, and more with the various roles (striker and controller, primarily) finally being what they are meant to be.




But isn't that the very definition of power creep right there?

The warlock is an arcane striker, but the sorcerer is "better designed" aka does more damage, aka is a more powerful striker than a warlock.

I notice nobody posts saying how their warlock managed to do 100+ damage in one round


----------



## Victim (Apr 16, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> How is it any less lucky than a double-critting ranger? 2 attacks per round with an at-will? What abilities recharge every 2 encounters?




It's not necessarily any more lucky.  But barbarians have several abilities that magnify the impact of good luck.  A crit, besides providing a maximized attack, bonus crit dice, and often high crit, also adds an extra attack.  

Action points recharge every two encounters.  Twin Strike provides two attacks on an at will.

----------------------------------

If the warlock is weaker than other PHB classes, then it's not really power creep to have a arcane striker on par with rogues or rangers.

While not 100 damage in a round, our warlock did dominate a few encounters with Hunger of Hadar (and there were other times when the power, while useful, was not so impressive)


----------



## hong (Apr 16, 2009)

What I meant was, this is something that results from a combination of factors. The fewer the constraints on when you're able to crank up the damage, the better.

In fact, I got it slightly wrong. It's not so much that the barbarian took down the first monster in 1 round, it's that the damage is split across 2 monsters. The ranger can land all 4 shots on 1 target if required, which is generally more useful because of the focus fire principle.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Apr 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I notice nobody posts saying how their warlock managed to do 100+ damage in one round




Hmm. strange that. My dwarf warlock is currently 7th level. He is impressed by the damage the elf ranger does, but as he does more than the party fighter and paladin, he is happy. I get more irked that having +11 to hit seems not enuff rather than doing 2d8+d6+10 damage isnt enough!!

I think one person in our group owns a PHB2, but nothing has been used from it yet. Is the sorceror genuinely more powerful than the warlock given the warlock targets a wide range of defences with a range of damage flavours?

It seems folks are saying that PHB2 at wills have more 'effect' stuff and in general roles are what WOTC originally envisaged maybe its not power creep, but power catch-up as PHB2 is now the baseline from the off?

maybe one benefit of playing an unsupported system is that you have all the stuff from the off, so no creep can occur.

anyway good discussion for someone like me who dont own it.


----------



## keterys (Apr 16, 2009)

It's not _that_ hard for a warlock to do that kind of damage... but usually not to one target.

Still, if I assumed my level 5 warlock had Hunger of Hadar down (2d10+3 every time someone enters or starts in it) and I crit with Diabolic Grasp someone next to the area, I could slide them into it twice, leaving them there... it'd be 36 or so from the crit and 6d10+9 from the automatic damage, oh then a sustain attack for another 1d6+8. That's without an action point, and the Hunger could easily have hit more than one target or done more damage, over the course of the entire battle. A single target attack before the diabolic grasp could easily edge things over 100.


----------



## keterys (Apr 16, 2009)

The main reason I think the sorcerer is better designed than the warlock is that it has a shtick (multi target damage) that it really works and its striker benefit applies to all attacks, making it much more consistent.

Then again, I also am not that worried about the fact that rangers deal more damage than warlocks - I actually don't like the design of rangers since they rely entirely on what I see as a flaw in the system with multiple attacks on a single target. Barbarians do get extra bursty when they crit, since they can often rampage and swift charge right after... but that's generally then back to normal for the rest of the combat. I don't like the way their powers are designed with the +1W baked in, since it basically makes multiclassing (or half-elfing) to them too good and unattractive for them to MC out. Rather it was a separate feature somehow, but eh.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 16, 2009)

TheNovaLord said:


> I think one person in our group owns a PHB2, but nothing has been used from it yet. Is the sorceror genuinely more powerful than the warlock given the warlock targets a wide range of defences with a range of damage flavours?



Well, I don't know. Has anyone actually tried to analyze and compare the two classes?

For me it doesn't really matter how powerful a class is. If I like the flavour of a class, I'll play it even if I have to tweak the hell out of it to be on par with others.

To my great surprise the warlock class was my favorite after reading PHB1, although it was the class I was least interested in after the previews. I just love their mix of powers and the cool pact boons.

After reading PHB2 I was similarly surprised that my favorite class was the sorcerer. It seems I'm an arcane striker person 

Anyway, I'm a bit dubious about the chaos sorcerer build. I definitely wouldn't consider playing one without the Disciplined Wild Soul feat.
It's absolutely must-have for this build since randomly determining one out of ten energy types means you often will have zero benefit from this class feature.

What I love about the dragon sorcerer is that you can have a character built around a single energy type and not suffer for it.

One thing I've been wondering about after reading the sorcerer:
Is it actually beneficial if all of your powers have an energy type? 
It seems that powers that do untyped damage are generally more useful.


----------



## Nail (Apr 16, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> BRV is pretty much as obvious as you can get with a class's ability for a Fighter.  Goblins figure out that the Wizard has a Shield spell from the staff in my campaign because it is _obvious_.  It is just as obvious that no actual damage is being done to a BRV Fighter, because anything else would be ignoring the game-state as-is.



(Whoa....goblins know a Wizard has the shield spell 'cuz he carries a staff?  I don't think you meant that: could you clarify?)

Why is it obvious that no damage is done?

I think I would agree with you if you said: "_When the monster hits the BRV fighter, it's pretty clear to all that the BRV fighter managed to shrug off some of the damage_."


----------

