PDA

View Full Version : (4th Ed.) What? No PHB II thread yet?



Grynning
2009-03-18, 07:53 PM
I suppose since much of the material was previewed that a lot of the discussion has already been had, but I figured I'd get a little going. I got the book yesterday and have flipped through it pretty extensively, and there's a couple things I had to say.

Good Stuff:

I love Chaos Sorcerers. Neat mechanics, flavorful possibilities, and overall a very good choice for a ranged striker in a party. Dragon Sorcerers are pretty neat too, I just like the random aspects of the Chaos path. As for other classes, Barbarian and Bard both seems to have turned out well, as have Druids, finally giving us all of the 3.5 base classes (except the Monk...but really, who cares about Monks :smalltongue:).

The new races are pretty well done, particularly Devas, and I think they're good additions. While I'm still not sure about the Half-Orcs +Dex bonus, it does fill a gap in the available player races that previously could only be occupied by a Bugbear. I'm happy with the choices for what to include here.

Powers seem to have been designed to be more useful to both "specs" of a given class, with fewer of the path based bonuses and more general utility. I see this as a good thing, since with previous powers you would often run into a situation where there was little choice due to your build.

Bad Stuff:

I sense a bit of power creep. The new feats seem generally better than those available in previous books, especially racial feats. Granted, a lot of previously printed feats were kind of lame, so this is one area that I see this as an improvement. Class features, on the other hand, seem to have greatly increased in power and I'm not sure I like that. Avengers get two attack rolls against their target (in lieu of the extra damage die of other strikers) and extra AC like a Swordmage, Barbarians get some free attacks and defense bonuses, Sorcerers get a boatload of situationally useful goodies, Wardens get lots of HP, an extra save, etc. Seems like there may be some overshadowing of previous classes by this new batch.

The new Divine classes don't strike me as very interesting. Avengers are cool in flavor, but mechanically they seem a little messy and gimicky. Invokers just don't grab me either, I see little reason to play one over a Wizard unless you want to be a Dwarf caster.

New equipment is a little blah. Making instruments Wondrous Items is a poor choice IMO, they should have just made them Implements. Also, a new wand using class and no new wands?

Neutral Stuff

Druids have definitely had a bit of WoW influence. I don't see this as good or bad, I just find it interesting that I can very closely replicate a WoW feral druid with D&D now (this actually made one of my friends very happy, he loves his WoW cat druid).

Charisma based Barbarians...odd, but I see what they were going for. Barbarians suddenly being able to act as the "face" will be interesting. I really wish they'd given them a Wis or Dex based build instead, as Charisma seems to be the most overused stat in the game right now (stupid Dragonborn messed it up for everyone).

Well, please add your own thoughts on the book and/or respond to mine. Happy gaming!

Gralamin
2009-03-18, 08:05 PM
Current Weapons that matter at all:
Spiked Chains (With Spiked Chain Mastery)
Double Sword
Khopesh
Glaive
Great Spear

This is because Weapon Expertise is a untyped bonus, and thus stacks with itself. So if you have Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blades) and Weapon Expertise (Axes), you gain a total of +2/tier to weapon powers using a Khopesh. Remember that Basic attacks are weapon powers. I think this will be erratia'd sometime, but I think Weapon expertise should be +1 ever.

Other then that, I really like Avengers, Invokers, and Shamans.
Avengers are a striker focused on always hitting, damage isn't as good, but who cares when you can roll 4 attack rolls against a target? (With Elven Accuracy, as it explicitly stacks.).
Invokers are awesome Controllers. Much, Much better then wizards.
Shamans are just awesome.

Mando Knight
2009-03-18, 08:14 PM
Druids have definitely had a bit of WoW influence. I don't see this as good or bad, I just find it interesting that I can very closely replicate a WoW feral druid with D&D now (this actually made one of my friends very happy, he loves his WoW cat druid).
Well, other than nature-lover (or nature-fanatic), how else do you play a druid? Feral nature-priest seems to be encouraged by 3.5's mechanics as well...

Charisma based Barbarians...odd, but I see what they were going for. Barbarians suddenly being able to act as the "face" will be interesting. I really wish they'd given them a Wis or Dex based build instead, as Charisma seems to be the most overused stat in the game right now (stupid Dragonborn messed it up for everyone).
Do Barbarians get Diplomacy as a class skill? If not, then a Cha-rbarian is probably the "face" of the party only when the face desired is like that of an angry Ancient Red Dragon...

ocato
2009-03-18, 08:15 PM
I too smell power creep, though I've yet to playtest any of it so I can't comment for certain. I felt that accuracy was something difficult to obtain, but they threw in a feat for weapon/implement +1 to attack rolls. I doubt those feats will get passed up by many characters, if any. The Melee training feat was cool though, allowing non-strength based characters to actually stand a chance at hitting with a basic attack.

The AC bonus for not wearing heavy armor on some classes strikes me as... interesting. At first I was afraid of strikers running rampant with defender-esq AC doing wanton damage with impunity. I saw a world where my defender fighter was useless. However, when I took a closer look, I saw that the bonus isn't big enough to make a huge difference (except maybe on the Avenger, but they are more or less built to find one monster and remove it from the fight via man to man showdown, so the bonus to AC is less excessive). Also, a Striker with 50,000 AC still isn't a defender because of the utility/control a defender brings to the party.

Bards excite me (still) and I am eager to try one. Very eager. I've ridden through the ups and downs of Bard popularity/strength and am happy to see that right out of the 4e box, Bards are exactly what I wanted: versatile and strong. Maybe not zomg uber strong, but there is enough of a base to make a serious character (especially with the cherry-picking of multiclass feats).

Overall, I didn't see anything that made me want to chuck existing classes out the window. I haven't taken a hardcore look through every power of every class, but what I see is versatility. Not so much of a "The 4e X Class is useless and no one will ever play one." More along the lines of "The 4e X Class wasn't quite what you wanted? Here, try this subtle thematic and mechanical alternative!"

Grynning
2009-03-18, 08:27 PM
Do Barbarians get Diplomacy as a class skill? If not, then a Cha-rbarian is probably the "face" of the party only when the face desired is like that of an angry Ancient Red Dragon...

Multi-classing, Skill Training, untrained checks with high Cha, etc. Intimidate can also be a good "face" skill if you RP it correctly.


@ Gralamin: On the Weapon Expertise thing - I would already house-rule away it stacking even if they don't swing the errata nerf-bat at it with a quickness. It's pretty obvious that it's not intended to work that way.

Gralamin
2009-03-18, 08:35 PM
Multi-classing, Skill Training, untrained checks with high Cha, etc. Intimidate can also be a good "face" skill if you RP it correctly.


@ Gralamin: On the Weapon Expertise thing - I would already house-rule away it stacking even if they don't swing the errata nerf-bat at it with a quickness. It's pretty obvious that it's not intended to work that way.

Its obvious, but It also screws with the math as is. It'd still be a worthwhile (and not necessarily a must have) to make it a simple +1 to hit ever.

Also, any character who needs a strength based multiclass should strongly consider barbarian, since most of its strength comes from powers, and not the features you miss out on.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-18, 08:35 PM
Current Weapons that matter at all:
Spiked Chains (With Spiked Chain Mastery)
Double Sword
Khopesh
Glaive
Great Spear

This is because Weapon Expertise is a untyped bonus, and thus stacks with itself. So if you have Weapon Expertise (Heavy Blades) and Weapon Expertise (Axes), you gain a total of +2/tier to weapon powers using a Khopesh. Remember that Basic attacks are weapon powers. I think this will be erratia'd sometime, but I think Weapon expertise should be +1 ever.


As I always say when that gets mentioned, this might be RAW, but it surely isn't RAI. Good luck finding a DM who allows that - and no, it's not a houserule if he doesn't allow that, it's preventing abuse and going by the spirit of the rules instead of the letter.
And yeah, it's going to be errata'ed faster than you can say "I get double attack bonus from two Weapon Expertises!".

<Insert here a rant how DND players need to have everything spelled 100% clearly or else they will interpret it in the most abusable way possible.>

I like PHB2. I was afraid some stuff might be overpowered (Wardens being superior to any other defenders, for example), but it didn't turn out to be the case after a deeper read. There is some power creep, yes - but it's mostly in feats, which anyone can take, instead of new classes.

Galeheart
2009-03-18, 08:41 PM
I'm really looking forward to Saturday, at which point I'll open the box that I get in the mail and tear into that book for a good few hours (figuratively speaking).

I love that they brought Druids back, and Avengers just scream Holy Assassin (which I think is actually a prestige class for them). In fact, now that we have a class for every single divine slot, I've got a neat campaign idea running through my head, involving the party as a strike force in an extremist clergy's arsenal. Hurrr.... :smallamused:

What's got me most worked up, however, are the Shamans. Mainly because I can recreate one of my most well-developed and fun to play characters in D&D format, as my campaign setting ripped the tauren completely from WoW (down to the name of their homeland, Mulgore). I'm a sucker for native american culture is all I can say.

On that note, I have noticed that some of 4e's new choices are coming eerily close to WoW features, what with the Shamans and all. This might be an attempt to make it more mainstream, but it doesn't do too much to harm the game. I'm perfectly fine with it so long as D&D stays D&D.

Grynning
2009-03-18, 08:46 PM
Forum wonkiness made a double post, sorry.

Draz74
2009-03-18, 08:46 PM
(eg. Rangers with pets, Shamans, etc).

Besides nitpicking your Latin grammar, I'd like to point out that Rangers have had pets long before WoW -- 2e at the latest.

RTGoodman
2009-03-18, 08:48 PM
I'd have made the thread or commented before or something, but my copy still hasn't arrived. :smallannoyed: See, I was all complimentary to Amazon and saying that they've never been late or anything, and now here we are. Well, I suppose it isn't LATE since it has until Friday, but still... the thing shipped on LAST Friday or Saturday! :smallsigh:



On that note, I have noticed that some of 4e's new choices are coming eerily close to WoW features (ie. Rangers with pets, Shamans, etc).

Uh... D&D has been doing all of those things LONG before WoW. For the most part, anyway.


EDIT: Oh, the ninjas...

Random NPC
2009-03-18, 08:51 PM
I love the Avengers. They may not be big on damage, but damn they are slick. It's like a How-It-Should-Be Samurai. They seem just right for me. No stickiness of the Fighter (which wasn't my cup of tea), no overly acrobat flourish of the Rogue. A melee class I can see myself playing.

Now I can't stop thinking of a Deva Avenger of the Silver Flame in Eberron :smallbiggrin:

Galeheart
2009-03-18, 08:53 PM
Besides nitpicking your Latin grammar, I'd like to point out that Rangers have had pets long before WoW -- 2e at the latest.

Ah, that I'd forgotten. I thought they didn't have them in 3.X....

*runs off to check his now dusty library of old books*

Oh, it seems I was mistaken. Silly me, it's been forever since I've actually seen a ranger in play, and I haven't read through their section in quite some time. ^_^;

As for my Latin, it was never my best subject.

((Lies. You aced it in both High School and College. You should have known better.))

*swats at voice in head*

As I said, not my best subject.:smallbiggrin:



EDIT: Oh, the ninjas...

Given that the person who ninja'd you has a pirate avatar, that was deliciously ironic.

Reinboom
2009-03-18, 08:55 PM
"Matter at all" vs. "DM will allow this" is significant.
You can take a step up and also mention that you can get a doublesword as an implement as well (and alongside it's +3 prof bonus) becomes one of the most important weapons.

Of course, obviously legal by raw... questionable by "Will a DM allow this?"


Weapon/Implement Expertise has a point. It fixes a mistake in the original core that scales monster AC a little too fast. The fact that it stacks with itself as an accident taken in to account, the original idea stands.
With that said however, I despise the idea of "fixing a problem with a feat". As, well, it simply deletes a feat spot and might not be obvious to players.


Also, I'm amused by the Harbinger of Doom. I rather enjoy the mechanics, but... its flavor is just horrible however, in my opinion.

On classes, I would like to point out something that interested me on my most favored class in this: the Shaman.
At-will, though conditional, no hit required, healing that doesn't cost healing surges and doesn't cap at bloodied.
That makes me happy. :smalltongue:

RTGoodman
2009-03-18, 08:58 PM
Also, I'm amused by the Harbinger of Doom.

I, uh, don't think that's quite the reaction WotC was looking for with a name like that. :smallwink:

Gralamin
2009-03-18, 09:00 PM
As I always say when that gets mentioned, this might be RAW, but it surely isn't RAI. Good luck finding a DM who allows that - and no, it's not a houserule if he doesn't allow that, it's preventing abuse and going by the spirit of the rules instead of the letter.
And yeah, it's going to be errata'ed faster than you can say "I get double attack bonus from two Weapon Expertises!".

<Insert here a rant how DND players need to have everything spelled 100% clearly or else they will interpret it in the most abusable way possible.>


You seem to like putting words in my mouth, unless that was a general comment that you didn't separate from addressing me. I know no sane DM would allow it. I've stated multiple times that I would prefer it to be a +1 period. However, I'm sure you've heard why RAW discussion is usually used. Also, I'm pretty sure its not just a D&D player problem, but something you see more often due to the number of players of D&D compared to other systems.

Grynning
2009-03-18, 09:03 PM
I'd have made the thread or commented before or something, but my copy still hasn't arrived. :smallannoyed: See, I was all complimentary to Amazon and saying that they've never been late or anything, and now here we are. Well, I suppose it isn't LATE since it has until Friday, but still... the thing shipped on LAST Friday or Saturday! :smallsigh:


I will never go through Amazon for game books (or likely for anything) again after the way they handled 4th ed's release. I ordered my set about 2 months in advance because of the big discount they were offering. When release day came, I waited two weeks, feverishly checking my order status which kept showing a later delivery date each day, then finally called (having already bought a PHB to sate myself in the meantime). They informed me it would be another month before I got my books. I canceled my order and my account immediately, and the girl on the phone didn't even try to retain me as a customer (being in corporate customer service myself, I found this insulting). I bought the books from my FLGS and will always do so in the future. /rant

Back on topic, it seems I am alone in my dislike for Avengers. I guess they're just not my style.

back @ Gralamin (10 minutes late) Why, in particular, is the Invoker "better" than the Wizard? I've looked over their powers and features and don't see how they accomplish much more in the control/AoE department, they just have some leader-ish bonuses to help out the group a bit and less enemy de-buffing.

Gralamin
2009-03-18, 09:17 PM
Weapon/Implement Expertise has a point. It fixes a mistake in the original core that scales monster AC a little too fast. The fact that it stacks with itself as an accident taken in to account, the original idea stands.
With that said however, I despise the idea of "fixing a problem with a feat". As, well, it simply deletes a feat spot and might not be obvious to players.

I'm not to sure about that. Sure Monster defense increases by 30, and player attacks increase by about 25, but I'm not sure a +3 bonus is needed to stay around 50% hit chance when starting conditions are included.

You can easily have a +7 to hit AC at level 1, vs an AC of about 15 on average. That hits on an 8 or above, in other words a 65% chance to hit. 30 levels later, that looks like a +32 to hit AC, vs an AC of about 44. You now need a 12 to hit, in other words a 45% chance to hit.

A + 1 bonus ever makes this end up at 50% chance to hit (55 if you have a weapon talent or similar). A +3 Bonus makes it a 60% chance to hit (65 if you have weapon talent or similar). This is more then the about half I expect from 4e, and I'm honestly not sure we need that large of a bonus. (I am sure that +6 to hit is way to much).


back @ Gralamin (10 minutes late) Why, in particular, is the Invoker "better" than the Wizard? I've looked over their powers and features and don't see how they accomplish much more in the control/AoE department, they just have some leader-ish bonuses to help out the group a bit and less enemy de-buffing.

They have more debuffs and control sooner and (Almost) more often. Fourfold Invocation of Doom, for example, is a daily 9 power that dazes the entire battlefield, much better then what Wizards have.

In addition they almost never attack an ally, something that really hurts wizards. It doesn't make much sense in character to sling spells at your friends, or hang around with a guy who does, after all. If you hurt your allies with an effect and hurting your enemies about equally, are you really changing anything?

Reinboom
2009-03-18, 09:19 PM
As I always say when that gets mentioned, this might be RAW, but it surely isn't RAI. Good luck finding a DM who allows that - and no, it's not a houserule if he doesn't allow that, it's preventing abuse and going by the spirit of the rules instead of the letter.
And yeah, it's going to be errata'ed faster than you can say "I get double attack bonus from two Weapon Expertises!".

<Insert here a rant how DND players need to have everything spelled 100% clearly or else they will interpret it in the most abusable way possible.>

I like PHB2. I was afraid some stuff might be overpowered (Wardens being superior to any other defenders, for example), but it didn't turn out to be the case after a deeper read. There is some power creep, yes - but it's mostly in feats, which anyone can take, instead of new classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_rule
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/house%20rule

Those linked, " it's not a houserule if he doesn't allow that" is quickly canceled by me saying
"Yeah, I can think of a game or group I would allow this as written in".
:smallconfused:

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-18, 09:20 PM
Would I be able to purchase a PHB II at my local Barnes and Noble on Saturday? I don't want to go there and find that it's only out for people who've pre-ordered it, or that the release date I read was for Japan or something. :smallredface:

Tengu_temp
2009-03-18, 09:24 PM
You seem to like putting words in my mouth, unless that was a general comment that you didn't separate from addressing me. I know no sane DM would allow it. I've stated multiple times that I would prefer it to be a +1 period. However, I'm sure you've heard why RAW discussion is usually used. Also, I'm pretty sure its not just a D&D player problem, but something you see more often due to the number of players of D&D compared to other systems.

General comment - I went on this rant more than once in the past, and will probably do so many times in the future as well.

And no, until I see the proof that shows otherwise I will keep by my stance that this is mostly the problem with DND players - most other RPGs don't type out truisms in their rulebooks, instead assuming that the GM and players will use common sense instead of abusing rules and using "the rules don't say I can't do that!" as an excuse.
This is not the case with all DND players, and not even with most DND players. But there's way too many of them than I'd like.



"Yeah, I can think of a game or group I would allow this as written in".


Does this group also say that, in 3.5, monk is not proficient with his fists and you can take actions if you're dead?

Grynning
2009-03-18, 09:29 PM
Would I be able to purchase a PHB II at my local Barnes and Noble on Saturday? I don't want to go there and find that it's only out for people who've pre-ordered it, or that the release date I read was for Japan or something. :smallredface:

Official release date in the US was Tuesday the 17th, my friends bought it at Borders and I got it at the Dragon's Lair here in Austin. I had heard something to the effect that it would not be released until game day (Saturday the 21st) but apparently that was incorrect.

Gralamin
2009-03-18, 09:31 PM
Would I be able to purchase a PHB II at my local Barnes and Noble on Saturday? I don't want to go there and find that it's only out for people who've pre-ordered it, or that the release date I read was for Japan or something. :smallredface:

Release date was the 17th, most stores tend to stock books like this by the 20th at latest. It'll probably be there for you.


General comment - I went on this rant more than once in the past, and will probably do so many times in the future as well.

Ah, well try to make it clear its different then a statement to an individual, as that can easily lead to misunderstanding


And no, until I see the proof that shows otherwise I will keep by my stance that this is mostly the problem with DND players - most other RPGs don't type out truisms in their rulebooks, instead assuming that the GM and players will use common sense instead of abusing rules and using "the rules don't say I can't do that!" as an excuse.
This is not the case with all DND players, and not even with most DND players. But there's way too many of them than I'd like.

Again, it's probably due to the different numbers, as well as how accessible it is to talk to large numbers of D&D Players. White Wolf, Green Ronin, and similar communities tend to be smaller, and less active (Though I'm sure there are exceptions). Because of this, there is less of an ability to know how a good majority (or at least vocal minority) of players play the game.

ColdSepp
2009-03-18, 09:36 PM
I like it. Mostly. Reading the classes closely makes it clear the power creep isn't in them. A the races are neat, IMO, but I am not to fond of gnomes.

The classes seem to have some overlap, but on close reading there is room for both old and new classes.

The Warden is like a Fighter, in the same way a Swordmage is. A bit closer, but the Fighter has some handy tricks of his own that I feel more then balance them out. Same for all the other classes.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-03-18, 09:45 PM
From what I've heard of PHBII feats, I'm not impressed. Expertise, and three epic feats that grant +4 to NADs? Lame, WotC, lame. I definitely won't be allowing those, and might even be inspired to ban armor specs and paragon NAD boosters.

Honestly it's great that WotC finally realized that 4e's math doesn't work out quite as well as it should, but FaFs (Feats as Fixes) are just sad.

Grynning
2009-03-18, 09:52 PM
Expertise, and three epic feats that grant +4 to NADs? Lame, WotC, lame. I definitely won't be allowing those, and might even be inspired to ban armor specs and paragon NAD boosters.

Umm...I confess I am too overcome with immature laughter to figure out what your intended meaning behind that acronym is :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-18, 09:55 PM
I vaguely recall the Warden preview awhile back; why exactly are they the "clearly superior" Defender choice now? :smallconfused:

EDIT:

Umm...I confess I am too overcome with immature laughter to figure out what your intended meaning behind that acronym is :smalltongue:

NADs is, by far, my favorite D&D acronym, ever. Not only is it amusing, but it is also accurate - your Non-AC Defenses are usually lower (sometimes a lot lower) than your AC; it really does hurt when someone aims for your NADs! :smallbiggrin:

Blackdrop
2009-03-18, 09:56 PM
Umm...I confess I am too overcome with immature laughter to figure out what your intended meaning behind that acronym is :smalltongue:

NAD- Non-Armor Defenses

Reinboom
2009-03-18, 10:04 PM
You can easily have a +7 to hit AC at level 1, vs an AC of about 15 on average. That hits on an 8 or above, in other words a 65% chance to hit. 30 levels later, that looks like a +32 to hit AC, vs an AC of about 44. You now need a 12 to hit, in other words a 45% chance to hit.

The actual math that builds these figures? The +7 is easy to get, but...
Letsee..
18 start stat. 20 focused (race). +8 from levels. (28).
+9 from stat.
It's usually a safe assumption here, however, that in most groups this is not true, but is spread out a little bit. I would say a more common average by this point is +8 (or +7, but it's always safer to assume higher).
+6 weapon enhancement
+3 proficiency.
So, +18.
+15 from levels.
+33.

Listing the ACs of monsters (monster manual only):

Level 30:(+33) [12.5]
43, 48
Level 29:(+32) [12]
43, 45
Level 28:(+32) (stat bonus level) [10.2]
42, 42, 42, 44, 42
Level 27:(+30) [11.7, skewed. Remove skew (39): 12.16¯]
42, 43, 43, 41, 43, 41, 39
Level 26:(+30) [11.75, skewed. Remove skew (44): 11.42]
40, 41, 44, 43, 42, 42, 42, 40
Level 25:(+29) [10.625]
41, 40, 39, 38, 41, 39, 42, 37


Nevermind, got bored, did math. You're right.

Mando Knight
2009-03-18, 10:13 PM
I love the Avengers.

I dunno why, you just made me want to make a team of Avengers with various builds and multiclasses to create... The Avengers!

Shadow_Elf
2009-03-18, 10:19 PM
Hey, I played a Warforged Warden in a one-off dungeon today.
So, comments!

1. I liked the Warden better than the other defenders. Why? Not because he's better. Because he's more my style. I'd rather have so many HP that I'm unkillable rather than more point in defences. With Font of Life and the ridiculous number of HP I had, I could shrug off a lot of damage. :smallwink:

2. Warden + Dedicated Healbot = Lots of Fun. Our party cleric was healing Surge Value + 5d6 + 9 hp with HW @ level 17. With my surge value of 41+5 (Storm Sentinel), this proved to be very handy. :smallamused:

3. So many Healing Surges, it's trivial. This was weird, having played up until now characters who NEVER had enough surges. At level 17, 16 surges was really fun. :smallcool:

4. Useful and flavourful powers. My utilities were not sidelined, and my Polymorphing Powers were all very awesome. :smallsmile:

5. Crowning Moment of Awesome: The Elder White Dragon flies out of its lair. I make a jump check in my Form of the Charging Boar, landing on its back. The DM rules that my tusks pin its right wing, causing it to falter. The party TW Ranger jumps on, pinning the other wing with his sword. The three of us fall 1000 ft (yes, we rolled 100d10), and take 556 damage. With Storm Step and a Tumble check, I take like 15 damage from the ordeal. My companion and the dragon essentially explode. :smalltongue:

Looked at a lot of the other material. The thing I'm looking forward to trying out the most is Shapeshift Druid + Boots of Teleportation + Hunting Wolf Form (Paragon Feat). Teleporting 9 squares at-will comes a Wolf from another dimension, tearing things apart and then vanishing again. Awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Grynning
2009-03-18, 10:20 PM
I dunno why, you just made me want to make a team of Avengers with various builds and multiclasses to create... The Avengers!

Well, you've got a Throwing Shield from AV for Captain America, a Warforged could be Iron Man (although stat-wise that's a bad combo with an Avenger). Can't think of how you'd do any others off the top of my head.

Better start a new thread on that before we derail this one...

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-18, 10:25 PM
Multiclass Feats, people. Think outside the box!

You take multiclass avenger feat for each character in the team. Multiclassing says clearly, that you then count as an avenger in all ways and for all cases relating to it. Including pun-related antics of awesome.

Hulk would surely have to be a Barbarian-Avenger, of course. Not sure about paragon classes.

[edit - Good point]. back on topic, I particularly like the inclusion of the background stuff, it should be a great tool for encouraging players to actually consider background. A few in my group can be rather half-arsed with background, frankly, I see this as a good development.

Also, man. There's some good art in that book.

NPCMook
2009-03-18, 11:14 PM
@Gralamin: The Khopesh, I can understand why they labeled this weapon with 2 different types, because it is in fact 2 different weapons, it can either be an Axe or a Heavy Sword. It all depends on how you build it, I know in AV they show the Sword variant, and not the axe variant
The Great Spear, technically this is/should be a double weapon, it just doesn't have defensive and off-hand, pick an end and that's the polearm, the other is a spear
The Glaive, have you ever seen a Glaive?
If you feel you should get both bonuses no matter what, congratulations, you are a munchkin.

Weapon Expertise vs. Implement Expertise:
I see a lot of people worrying about these stacking, they don't if you are a sorcerer don't get a +2 for casting an at-will while wielding your dagger, the spell saws implement, therefore you only gain the Implement Expertise Bonus
On a side note: No, these feats aren't as game breaking/power creeping as you think. Making a solid +1 all the way through doesn't "fix" the feat, it just makes it less worth taking. In fact, lets go ahead and ban all the feats that give bonuses to attack. Some of you may see my point others will say its stupid since the others you have to meet certain requirements to get that bonus, then you missed the point.

@Tequila: So what makes Epic Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower different from Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes and Great Fortitude? Is it that, the Epic versions stack? The only difference is in Epic Tier I can take 4 feats for a +6 to my NADs. Which honestly yeah, it needed to happen, it also means I don't have to go back to Paragon Tier or Heroic Tier to dig around for feats.

@Oracle: People consider them superior because depending on which path they choose they can add their Wisdom or Constitution modifiers to their Armor class when they are wearing Light or No armor. This just fixes the issue since a Warden doesn't rely on Dex or Int, like the Swordmage does. The thing I think people miss is that a Warden's Primary stat is his Strength, which he can't add, Con and Wis are Secondary.

Overall, I like the book, I think it is well done, excluding some of the reused art again. Non-Rogue Gnomes are now the Rogues best friend in Paragon. A lot less racial class feats this time around, of course there is Arcane power next month, I'm sure they crammed them all in there. I was a bit disappointed that Half-Orcs did not get the Dual Heritage racial that Half-Elves got, also didn't care for the new fluff. The background rules they give for custom backgrounds aren't as good as the ones they seem to use their pre-generated ones. The Custom background rules state choose whether to gain an extra language, gain a +2 to associated skills or to add those to your class list, where as the pre-generated ones give you a +1/+2 and add the skill(s) to your class list. I like the idea of Background bonuses, because it basically lets you add an extra 1 or 2 skills to your class list, instead of taking a feat on them. I also think the book seems to favor the new races a lot more than PHB 1. I haven't looked a whole lot at the new classes except for Warden, because I may talk to my DM about switching from a Swordmage to a Warden, or just multiclassing into Warden. Also what's up with the Tiefling Bard only having 1 boob?

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-18, 11:31 PM
Nono, She's got two. It's just that left boob is of mortal scale, and the right is Boob-Zilla!

Gralamin
2009-03-19, 01:16 AM
@Gralamin: The Khopesh, I can understand why they labeled this weapon with 2 different types, because it is in fact 2 different weapons, it can either be an Axe or a Heavy Sword. It all depends on how you build it, I know in AV they show the Sword variant, and not the axe variant
They show a stylized version of an actual Khopesh. Khopesh translates to "Sickle Sword", and is more of an Axe. I believe you might be thinking of the Falcata, what the Khopesh evolved into.


The Great Spear, technically this is/should be a double weapon, it just doesn't have defensive and off-hand, pick an end and that's the polearm, the other is a spear
Thats not even close to how the Greatspear is described. Its a longspear, with a broad head and strong haft. (AV 10). "It should be a double weapon" is something there is no justification for.


The Glaive, have you ever seen a Glaive?
Yes


If you feel you should get both bonuses no matter what, congratulations, you are a munchkin.
I do not feel they should have both, I'm saying they do by RAW.



Weapon Expertise vs. Implement Expertise:
I see a lot of people worrying about these stacking, they don't if you are a sorcerer don't get a +2 for casting an at-will while wielding your dagger, the spell saws implement, therefore you only gain the Implement Expertise Bonus
I thought this was well established.


On a side note: No, these feats aren't as game breaking/power creeping as you think. Making a solid +1 all the way through doesn't "fix" the feat, it just makes it less worth taking. In fact, lets go ahead and ban all the feats that give bonuses to attack. Some of you may see my point others will say its stupid since the others you have to meet certain requirements to get that bonus, then you missed the point.
According to the math, they are quite powerful, and I'm not sure if you fully understand the impact they have. Yes there are other feats that give bonuses to attack, but each of them are either one shot (Elvish Accuracy) or require a specific situation (Back to the Wall). Perhaps I am "missing the point", but I think its more likely you don't understand how potent the effects actually are.



The background rules they give for custom backgrounds aren't as good as the ones they seem to use their pre-generated ones. The Custom background rules state choose whether to gain an extra language, gain a +2 to associated skills or to add those to your class list, where as the pre-generated ones give you a +1/+2 and add the skill(s) to your class list.
There is a disparity yes, but its rather obvious and easy to fix.

NPCMook
2009-03-19, 01:25 AM
They show a stylized version of an actual Khopesh. Khopesh translates to "Sickle Sword", and is more of an Axe. I believe you might be thinking of the Falcata, what the Khopesh evolved into. Fair Enough


Thats not even close to how the Greatspear is described. Its a longspear, with a broad head and strong haft. (AV 10). "It should be a double weapon" is something there is no justification for. The picture they use for the Great Spear depicts it more as a double weapon


I thought this was well established. The way some people go on about it, they seem to not see it.


According to the math, they are quite powerful, and I'm not sure if you fully understand the impact they have. Yes there are other feats that give bonuses to attack, but each of them are either one shot (Elvish Accuracy) or require a specific situation (Back to the Wall). Perhaps I am "missing the point", but I think its more likely you don't understand how potent the effects actually are. I think its nice then again I have a DM who've we as the PCs tend to go through long bouts of whiffing when we need to hit, carrying combat on an extra 10 minutes because none of us could hit the monster.

Reinboom
2009-03-19, 01:28 AM
-snip-

1. Munchkin is a term most commonly designated to a group of players who outright cheat while using twistedly interpreted, misquoted, or making up rules to "back them". For example, a Novaing with Psionics in 3.5 - not quoting the level limit. It must also be noted that gameplay and game discussion is very different, and significant, to this term. As a munchkin applies this to a game. Saying these things 'can stack by RAW' is not munchkining, it's a form of honest optimization, and in the case of something that is obviously not intended for gamplay, theoretical optimization.

2. There are classes/powers that allow the use of a Weapon as an Implement. A sorcerer using a dagger would not enable this (unless the Sorcerer can wield it as an implement, I have not read enough in to the class), however, a swordmage can use their sword as their implement.

3. You misuse the term power creep here, and I don't see anyone outright declaring this gamebreaking (a much much more extreme term). Power creep is, quite simply, a clear increase of power levels, whether large or small. Weapon Expertise is clearly better than most 'general' feats in power level. Whether this makes it a must have, game breaking, overpowered, stupid, etc. is questionable to each given person. Ultimately, however, is it power creep? Nearly unarguably. There is also a clear trend of specific feats (racial and class) of having a slight power increase. Once again, power increase. It doesn't have to be significant.

4. A 20% shift of the dice is much more significant than the +2 granted in Iron Will, etc. I will not discuss the power level of this, not point of this post, and this point is just pointing out this difference.

-edit-
In other news, I will be DMing for one flight of our delayed game day on Saturday.

Kerouac
2009-03-19, 01:30 AM
Going to be playin' a Gnome Bard on Sunday I think. I run a separate campaign set in Dragonlance setting, but since one of our players isn't going to be there another one is going to take a shot and run Keep On The Shadowfell on weeks when someone can't be there. I'm pretty excited, especially since I've NEVER played a Bard before (and I'm a professional musician so it's basically me in game form :smallbiggrin: ) and it's been a really long time since I was a PC instead of a DM.

I'll try to let you all know how it goes. :)

NPCMook
2009-03-19, 01:58 AM
1. Munchkin is a term most commonly designated to a group of players who outright cheat while using twistedly interpreted, misquoted, or making up rules to "back them". For example, a Novaing with Psionics in 3.5 - not quoting the level limit. It must also be noted that gameplay and game discussion is very different, and significant, to this term. As a munchkin applies this to a game. Saying these things 'can stack by RAW' is not munchkining, it's a form of honest optimization, and in the case of something that is obviously not intended for gamplay, theoretical optimization. My group uses the term differently



2. There are classes/powers that allow the use of a Weapon as an Implement. A sorcerer using a dagger would not enable this (unless the Sorcerer can wield it as an implement, I have not read enough in to the class), however, a swordmage can use their sword as their implement. Some people seem to think that as a Swordmage or Sorcerer if you have Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise you should gain both bonuses when using powers, I was stating that unless the power has the Weapon or Implement Keyword you add the designated bonus.


4. A 20% shift of the dice is much more significant than the +2 granted in Iron Will, etc. I will not discuss the power level of this, not point of this post, and this point is just pointing out this difference. So a +2 is okay, but a +4 is just to powerful? I can understand, Epic Will, and Iron Will/Robust Defense effectively, if you max your Will Defense, now makes it so Vecna has to roll a 9+ to hit you with his Basic Attack. Though this is Epic, almost nothing touches your AC, most attack go for your NADs, so why shouldn't we be allowed to boost them more?

potatocubed
2009-03-19, 02:26 AM
I ordered it from Amazon and got an email a couple of days ago saying they would be delivering it around the 17th of April. So I said 'get stuffed' and sent a friend to buy it from my FLGS instead.

I really like the new classes. I'm not convinced by the job they've done on bards but I'm all over avengers (especially the divine assassin paragon path), wardens and chaos sorcerers. The chaos sorcerer especially is everything I hoped it would be.

I find all the pages on backgrounds to be a total waste, but that's probably just because I've been roleplaying forever and I know perfectly well how to make a backstory by now. Roleplaying newbies might appreciate the help, I guess.

On the subject of power creep, forget Weapon Whateveritis. Bards and druids both have a clause built into their 'bonus Ritual Caster' class feature that allows them to cast one (pre-specified) ritual per day without spending any money on components. Wizards and clerics do not have this feature. This is a tiny, tiny thing (putting the 'creep' in 'power creep') but it is a definite and quantitative increase in power.

Charity
2009-03-19, 04:15 AM
I vaguely recall the Warden preview awhile back; why exactly are they the "clearly superior" Defender choice now? :smallconfused:

Folk are making a lot of the fact that Wardens get to mark everyone around them (close burst 1) as a free action, and a choice of two different responses. However it is not as big a deal as is made out (big suprise huh).

The armour thing, all that does is make up for the lost AC from heavy armour, with the by-product of leaving Wardens with sucky reflex defence.

Wardens are more controllery in feel than other defenders, lots of slowing attacks and the like.

The feats as fixes thing- I must confess I'd have prefered errata to give accross the board /tier bonuses to hit instead of a variable feat tax depending on how many impliments/weapons you use... also the melee training fix feat should have been similarly handled... but a not perfect fix is better than no fix at all.

I don't see any power creep, in fact I'd say the 5 races are if anything slightly weaker mechanically than the PHB1 classes.
The classes are more complex mechanically (except the sorcerer) and thus would be not nessisarily be a good choice for beginners but they really are no moer potent as far as I can see.

I predict the half elf bard is going to be the new character op golden boy with almost limitless power choice (for the price of a couple of feats you can have any power you wish) and with the paragon feat for the at will dillitante power (+ paragon multiclass goodness) it is possible to only have one at will power from your own class and chose the rest from other classes... you would suck though but it would be amusing.

Leon
2009-03-19, 04:20 AM
I sense a bit of power creep.


It was going to happen sooner or later sadly

Nightson
2009-03-19, 04:43 AM
On the subject of power creep, forget Weapon Whateveritis. Bards and druids both have a clause built into their 'bonus Ritual Caster' class feature that allows them to cast one (pre-specified) ritual per day without spending any money on components. Wizards and clerics do not have this feature. This is a tiny, tiny thing (putting the 'creep' in 'power creep') but it is a definite and quantitative increase in power.

They're class features.

I mean really, waiving the whole ten gold component cost once per day?

Jokes
2009-03-19, 05:19 AM
Some people seem to think that as a Swordmage or Sorcerer if you have Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise you should gain both bonuses when using powers, I was stating that unless the power has the Weapon or Implement Keyword you add the designated bonus.



Exactly. If you take Implement Focus: Sword for Swordmage, powers that have "Weapon" keyword won't give the attack bonus, because you aren't using your sword as an implement, so there is no way for them to stack. It even says this in the feats -


Benefit: Choose a weapon group. You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with any weapon power you use with a weapon from that group.

So paladins, clerics, swordmages etc need to take both if they want to mix implement powers with weapon powers.

Edit: Still iffy about double weapons though. One thing I hate about D&D is when logic keeps banging on your head while you have RAW sitting in front of you...


On the subject of power creep, forget Weapon Whateveritis. Bards and druids both have a clause built into their 'bonus Ritual Caster' class feature that allows them to cast one (pre-specified) ritual per day without spending any money on components. Wizards and clerics do not have this feature. This is a tiny, tiny thing (putting the 'creep' in 'power creep') but it is a definite and quantitative increase in power.

What about Invokers? I know I'm going to be spamming Hand of Fate 1/day once my invoker gets to level 4.

"Oh Great Diety, shall I get out of bed on the left or the right today?"

Tengu_temp
2009-03-19, 06:10 AM
Play a gnome if you want . . .
- to be curious, funny, and tricky.


In other words, if you want to be the party's Scrappy!

Also, Invoker + Rogue (on much lower level) + vehicles from Adventurer's Vault = this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

Thane of Fife
2009-03-19, 07:02 AM
In other words, if you want to be the party's Scrappy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheScrappy)!

Also, Invoker + Rogue (on much lower level) + vehicles from Adventurer's Vault = this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).

Whew. Tvtropes link inserted successfully. You should be more careful. :smallwink:


And no, until I see the proof that shows otherwise I will keep by my stance that this is mostly the problem with DND players - most other RPGs don't type out truisms in their rulebooks, instead assuming that the GM and players will use common sense instead of abusing rules and using "the rules don't say I can't do that!" as an excuse.
This is not the case with all DND players, and not even with most DND players. But there's way too many of them than I'd like.

Somewhere along the way, Wizards encouraged RAW - this is what they get. GW gets the same thing for encouraging RAW with Warhammer, if not worse, in some ways.

mrmaxmrmax
2009-03-19, 07:51 AM
Here's a simple fix:

Weapon Expertise: blah blah +1 Expertise Bonus per weapon group.

Now it is a typed bonus. Hooray! Weapon Expertise and Implement Expertise can never stack unless someone knows a power with the keywords "weapon" and "implement."

That said, I thought untyped bonuses only stacked if they came from different sources. My mistake, that's penalties: those stack as long as they come from a different power.

I think we are all arguing two parts of the same side here:

1) Wizard needs to errata this (because people will try to RAW)

2) Wizard needs to errata this (because we think RAI is clear)

Maxwell.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-19, 09:58 AM
Whew. Tvtropes link inserted successfully. You should be more careful. :smallwink:


I assumed that people who read this thread have owned a TV at some point (and therefore know who Scrappy is) and are human beings (and therefore know why being him is very, very bad).

Or I was just too lazy to give a link to TV Tropes.

Hzurr
2009-03-19, 10:24 AM
I assumed that people who read this thread have owned a TV at some point (and therefore know who Scrappy is) and are human beings (and therefore know why being him is very, very bad).
Or I was just too lazy to give a link to TV Tropes.

Or, you're trying to break the trend of people linking to and referencing tvtropes for any reason? I hope that this is the case

At any rate, I just got a borrowed copy of the PHB2 that I'll be using til I get around to ordering the French version.

(On a side note, if you get your books in languages no one else in your group can read, it means you never have to share or worry about someone taking yours)

Kurald Galain
2009-03-19, 11:47 AM
imho,

Good stuff: Bards and barbarians are very nice. It's good to have gnomes and half-orcs back as the "missing iconics". Sorcerer seems to make a better (more fitting) arcane striker than the warlock, although I find the randomness annoying. Nice feats overall, except see below.

Meh stuff: Invoker feels like a copy/paste job of the wizard. The other three classes just feel gimmicky and unimpressive. Goliaths and shifters are likewise unimpressive, and I fail to see why we need so many "hey I'm strong" races. They're certainly not as iconic as even the MM races. Rituals are somewhat better than in the PHB, but still mostly worthless.

Bad stuff: Druid, since no matter what shape you take they all do the same thing anyway; that is not what wild shape means. Deva looks like the 3E proliferation of elf races; it even has an ability similar to the elf. And the two Expertise feats are both a poor way to fix an (apparent) design flaw, and much more powerful than other heroic feats, even if your DM doesn't let them stack.

Awesomologist
2009-03-19, 12:29 PM
Bad stuff: ... And the two Expertise feats are both a poor way to fix an (apparent) design flaw, and much more powerful than other heroic feats, even if your DM doesn't let them stack.
They shouldn't stack. Any DM with half a brain wouldn't allow it. The feats individually aren't game breaking. If its a big concern around your table you can always house rule them out.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-19, 12:30 PM
On the subject of power creep, forget Weapon Whateveritis. Bards and druids both have a clause built into their 'bonus Ritual Caster' class feature that allows them to cast one (pre-specified) ritual per day without spending any money on components. Wizards and clerics do not have this feature. This is a tiny, tiny thing (putting the 'creep' in 'power creep') but it is a definite and quantitative increase in power.

This is an interesting point. Personally, I think this is WotC doing the "revise via splatbook" thing; 1st level characters don't really have the money to use the Rituals they know effectively, making Rituals pretty pointless until LV 4-ish. I like it, and I may decide to give Clerics "Gentle Repose" and Wizards... I guess "Magic Mouth." I mean, Magic Mouth is pretty useless as it is, but man, I can totally imagine a Halfling Trickster Wizard having a lot of fun with it if it were free :smallbiggrin:

Burley
2009-03-19, 12:42 PM
My initial reactions were somewhat... Meh.
I was really hoping for a lot of really cool stuff, but there was a lot of stuff that I (unknowingly) glanced over, because nothing was really flashy, I guess.

I did, however, read the Sorceror and Warden classes pretty well.
The Dragon Magic source is pretty decent, but the flavor isn't as flavorful as I like. It's just damage for the sake of damage, in a lot of cases. Meh. Adding numbers isn't as fun as rolling dice.
Speaking of rolling dice, I really like the Wild Magic source. I like having that bit of randomness. The opportunity to mess with your allies just makes the opportunity to really mess with your enemies that much sweeter. The at-will Chaos Bolt (is that right?) is just sick. I can't wait to stab something with a dagger, and shoot mind bullets out the other side of that something, send them zipping around the battle field, eventually hitting the yak from two-hundred yards away.

The Warden is cool. It's really got a lot more wild-shape type things that the druid does. Druid with multiclass warden for daily powers would be great. "Form of a Pterodactyl! Form of a... rain cloud..."

Arbitrarity
2009-03-19, 12:47 PM
I'm banning Implement and Weapon Expertise. +4 weapons/implements are "masterwork" and grant +1 to hit. +6's grant +2 to hit.
Actually, I was tempted to make +2 weapons give an additional +1 to hit, and increasing from there, but I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-19, 01:20 PM
I'm banning Implement and Weapon Expertise. +4 weapons/implements are "masterwork" and grant +1 to hit. +6's grant +2 to hit.
Actually, I was tempted to make +2 weapons give an additional +1 to hit, and increasing from there, but I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Honestly, I think an easier fix is to place Implement/Weapon Expertise into the Paragon Feat List. IIRC, it is in the Paragon section that the AC/to-hit problem really comes up.

LoopyZebra
2009-03-19, 01:26 PM
I really like this book. Perhaps I shouldn't have started my campaign this weekend, as I have a feeling everyone will be playing something out of this book, but whatever.

Goliaths are really cool, I never read their entry back in 3.5, so I never latched onto them. But here, they are definitely really cool. Gnomes and Half-Orcs, are, well gnomes and half-orcs. Nothing new. (Although the Half-Orc flavor text implies that half-orcs are their own race, not the children of a human and orc, which is just silly.)

On the other hand, I'm really not feeling shifters. They just feel bland to me. Deva, on the other hand, are a big disappointment. I really like the idea of vague memories of a past lives and the reincarnation, but the otherworldliness, angelic heritage, and overly Good-ness are really blah. I did not want a purple, Lawful Good Dr. Manhattan. I'm going to keep the race but re-write large portions of the fluff.

The classes are cool. There seems to be an overabundance of people getting wings these days, but whatever. Wings are cool. My favorite is definitely avenger.

While the classes don't seem to mechanically overshadow the PHB 1 classes, they seem to overshadow them in terms of cool effect. PHB 2 provides a lot of different ways to get wings, for example, for a number of classes. Hell, the Invoker level 1 dailies seem cooler than anything the cleric gets in their entire career. This overshadowing of cool seems especially true for the cleric and paladin - the avenger and invoker just read so much more awesome. Perhaps it's just the newness of PHB 2, but it still feels flashier.

The backgrounds sections seems really weak, both in terms of the bonuses it gives, and in the advice it could provide. At the same time, since its official, it may do more than any well written unofficial background guide.

I'm going to do what someone on this board or another suggested and allow players to have 1 weapon or implement expertise feat for free. Hmm. Wait. Not free. For a background. :) I'll add that to the normal bonuses from the book. Definitely won't let them stack, either. (The expertise feats, that is.)

The art is very nice, if sometimes silly or misplaced. I'm looking at you, bard. The tiefling iconic bard, while cool, should not be iconic for bards. The paragon paths for bard also look silly. The handful of paragon paths without art are kind of disappointing too.

The Mormegil
2009-03-19, 02:22 PM
Weapon/Implement Expertise has a point. It fixes a mistake in the original core that scales monster AC a little too fast. The fact that it stacks with itself as an accident taken in to account, the original idea stands.
With that said however, I despise the idea of "fixing a problem with a feat". As, well, it simply deletes a feat spot and might not be obvious to players.


You know, this is my first houseruling on 4E.
Masterwork Weapons*
Mithral Weapon - required +2 enhancement - +1 proficiency
Adamantine Weapon - required +4 enhancement - +2 proficiency
Orichalcum Weapon - required +6 enhancement - +3 proficiency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Implement - required +2 enhancement bonus - +1 attack rolls
Ruby Implement - required +4 enhancement bonus - +2 attack rolls
Diamond Implement - required +6 enhancement bonus - +3 attack rolls

*not exactly my idea, but...

EDIT: Ninja'd. See, I told you it wasn't entirely MY idea...

Izmir Stinger
2009-03-19, 02:40 PM
Charisma based Barbarians...odd, but I see what they were going for.

Conan, I think, was the template for Thaneborn

Townopolis
2009-03-19, 02:43 PM
I was disappointed that none of the bard PPs give a bonus language. I mean, I know at least 2 swordsage PPs give a bonus language... why the hell none for the bards?

Maybe in Arcane Power...

[Edit]: Also, what's with the bard armors being leather/chain. That's perfectly fine for valorous bards, but cunning bards will want to use hide. Is this some way to strong-arm cunning bards into dropping their AC by 1 or something?

I like the homebrew above for replacing the expertise feats, although I do believe mithral and adamantine weapons are already magical item types. Still, just a matter of renaming them. Fine weapon, masterwork weapon, coldforged-by-dwarf-forgepriests-of-Moradin-weapon... something like that. I'm considering yoinking it for the campaign I'm running.

Or I might just give my players a free +1 to all attacks at levels 11 and 21.

LoopyZebra
2009-03-19, 02:44 PM
Here's my rewrite of devas. Still very similar, but I cut out the parts I didn't like.

Deva are the survivors of the ancient Daderran Empire. Thousands of years ago, the rulers of the Daderran Empire attempted dark magic to bind the immortality of an angel with their forms. They failed. Most became rakshasas or other monsters, as demons and other dark entities answered the summons. As the empire crumbled around them, a rare few became Devas, who, while not blessed with true immortality, could never truly die. When a Deva dies, its soul (bound to an angel's) reforms a new body in a holy site. Reborn deva have only vague, limited memories of their past. Some get lucid dreams of the past, causing them to wake with fright or excitement at their past lives. These thoughts and emotions gnaw at the back of a Deva's mind, always just a little out of reach. Deva's are likely to get a sense of deja vu when going through places they have visited in their past lives, with fleeting memories, images, and names running through their head. As such, many Deva are haunted by their past lives, searching for the truth. A rare few find it.

Devas look like normal humans, but always with statuesque and beautiful bodies. Devas are always reborn into different bodies. While it may be similar to the previous body, it usually is not. While devas can have children as a normal human, their children are never devas. Devas today are scattered all around the world. Devas live as long as a normal human and age gracefully.

The Mormegil
2009-03-19, 02:52 PM
Or I might just give my players a free +1 to all attacks at levels 11 and 21.

If you run the numbers (as I did) you'll find out that the attack bonuses fall behind by 3 to 4 points in epic. They are ok in the first levels (assuming magic weapons of character level from level 2) then fall behind at 7, fall even more in Paragon, collapse in late Paragon, are bad in young Epic then reach the worse situation at level 29-30.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-19, 02:53 PM
I was disappointed that none of the bard PPs give a bonus language. I mean, I know at least 2 swordsage PPs give a bonus language... why the hell none for the bards?


Because one extra language is less than a feat?

ColdSepp
2009-03-19, 04:59 PM
If you run the numbers (as I did) you'll find out that the attack bonuses fall behind by 3 to 4 points in epic. They are ok in the first levels (assuming magic weapons of character level from level 2) then fall behind at 7, fall even more in Paragon, collapse in late Paragon, are bad in young Epic then reach the worse situation at level 29-30.

Could you post the math?

Doug Lampert
2009-03-19, 05:22 PM
@ Gralamin: On the Weapon Expertise thing - I would already house-rule away it stacking even if they don't swing the errata nerf-bat at it with a quickness. It's pretty obvious that it's not intended to work that way.

Edit: Never mind: I posted prior to finishing the thread, and the Master Work weapons and implements will solve the Expertise problem.

Regarding Epic NAD feats:
You need +29 from level 1 to 30 (not +30, you only advance 29 levels). You get +15 from levels, +6 from items, +1 from tier related ability increases, and on two NADs you get +4 more from ability increases. Total of +22 or +26 of the +29 you want. So +7 to one NAD and +3 to the other two is about right for feats.

You may well get some of that from a power bonus or paragon path something. But assume it all needs to come from feats. Then the +6 you get from the Epic feats is STILL way too high on average (one point low for a bad defense, but 3 points high for the more common good defense). Given the likelihood that something else adds I don't like it and will be downgrading the Epic feats to +2 unnamed bonus.

Hzurr
2009-03-19, 05:24 PM
When a Deva dies, its soul (bound to an angel's) reforms a new body in a holy site. [...]

Devas look like normal humans, but always with statuesque and beautiful bodies. Devas are always reborn into different bodies. While it may be similar to the previous body, it usually is not. While devas can have children as a normal human, their children are never devas. Devas today are scattered all around the world. Devas live as long as a normal human and age gracefully.

Hmm...so how long til someone makes a deva called "The Doctor?"

LoopyZebra
2009-03-19, 06:16 PM
Hmm...so how long til someone makes a deva called "The Doctor?"

I don't get it. :smallfrown:

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-03-19, 06:19 PM
Dr. Who talk. :smalltongue:

Lost Demiurge
2009-03-19, 06:30 PM
Here's my rewrite of devas....

I LIKE it. Might steal parts of that.

Gralamin
2009-03-19, 06:49 PM
People seem really attached to this idea that a lot of the feats are fixes. I'm honestly not seeing it. The math and target numbers that are suggested (About 50% chance) still lines up, and an easier / more elegant solution to most of them is masterwork items. I've yet to see any mathematical evidence or logical reasoning for this assertion, and it seems like popular opinion.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-19, 06:55 PM
They shouldn't stack. Any DM with half a brain wouldn't allow it. The feats individually aren't game breaking. If its a big concern around your table you can always house rule them out.

Of course they shouldn't. And no, I'm not saying they're game breaking either. I am saying they're significantly better than pretty much every other feat, and an ugly way to fix an apparent problem.

Yeah, they had the same problem with defenses, and they came up with the kludge of masterwork armor, and this is a lot worse.


(edit) seriously, though... is WOTC that bad at first-grade math that they can have monsters increase by one point per level, and players increase by one point every two levels, and not realize that this will cause a discrepancy?!

LoopyZebra
2009-03-19, 06:56 PM
Dr. Who talk. :smalltongue:

I thought Dr. Who was just a guy who traveled through time in a phone booth? Where'd the resurrection come in?


I LIKE it. Might steal parts of that.

Thanks.

nightwyrm
2009-03-19, 07:04 PM
I thought Dr. Who was just a guy who traveled through time in a phone booth? Where'd the resurrection come in?


He regenerates himself when killed so there is a bunch of actors who played the doctor one after another.

Incidentally, here: Nth Doctor (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheNthDoctor)

Artanis
2009-03-19, 07:09 PM
*flips through PHB2*

*Sees Dazzling Ray*

Please tell me I'm missing something, because...seriously, wtf?




(edit) seriously, though... is WOTC that bad at first-grade math that they can have monsters increase by one point per level, and players increase by one point every two levels, and not realize that this will cause a discrepancy?!
In their defense, it took us a while to spot it as well. And don't forget that the +1/2 level thing isn't the only way that PCs' attacks increase. There's also stat increases and magic weapons, among other things. So I can easily see how they would legitimately miss a calculation error while they're trying to make sure that everything else worked right.

nightwyrm
2009-03-19, 07:28 PM
*flips through PHB2*

*Sees Dazzling Ray*

Please tell me I'm missing something, because...seriously, wtf?




In their defense, it took us a while to spot it as well. And don't forget that the +1/2 level thing isn't the only way that PCs' attacks increase. There's also stat increases and magic weapons, among other things. So I can easily see how they would legitimately miss a calculation error while they're trying to make sure that everything else worked right.

Where's dazzling ray?

I think in the beginning they thought that the attack bonuses provided by leader classes at higher levels would make up the difference in late paragon and epic, but since most leader bonuses are dependent on the leader hitting....it didn't work out as they thought it would.

Artanis
2009-03-19, 07:32 PM
Dazzling Ray is on page 139. It's a level ONE sorcerer daily that does 6d6 damage.

nightwyrm
2009-03-19, 07:43 PM
Dazzling Ray is on page 139. It's a level ONE sorcerer daily that does 6d6 damage.

Average damage is 21. It's about on par with a level 1 ranger daily which can do about 4[w] if everything hits. A barbarian using a maul can do 6d6 with his lv 1 daily as well. Sure, it's more damaging compared with a warlock lv 1 daily, but not higher than the other upper end strikers.

Reinboom
2009-03-19, 08:56 PM
If you run the numbers (as I did) you'll find out that the attack bonuses fall behind by 3 to 4 points in epic. They are ok in the first levels (assuming magic weapons of character level from level 2) then fall behind at 7, fall even more in Paragon, collapse in late Paragon, are bad in young Epic then reach the worse situation at level 29-30.


Could you post the math?


People seem really attached to this idea that a lot of the feats are fixes. I'm honestly not seeing it. The math and target numbers that are suggested (About 50% chance) still lines up, and an easier / more elegant solution to most of them is masterwork items. I've yet to see any mathematical evidence or logical reasoning for this assertion, and it seems like popular opinion.


The actual math that builds these figures? The +7 is easy to get, but...
Letsee..
18 start stat. 20 focused (race). +8 from levels. (28).
+9 from stat.
It's usually a safe assumption here, however, that in most groups this is not true, but is spread out a little bit. I would say a more common average by this point is +8 (or +7, but it's always safer to assume higher).
+6 weapon enhancement
+3 proficiency.
So, +18.
+15 from levels.
+33.

Listing the ACs of monsters (monster manual only):

Level 30:(+33) [12.5]
43, 48
Level 29:(+32) [12]
43, 45
Level 28:(+32) (stat bonus level) [10.2]
42, 42, 42, 44, 42
Level 27:(+30) [11.7, skewed. Remove skew (39): 12.16¯]
42, 43, 43, 41, 43, 41, 39
Level 26:(+30) [11.75, skewed. Remove skew (44): 11.42]
40, 41, 44, 43, 42, 42, 42, 40
Level 25:(+29) [10.625]
41, 40, 39, 38, 41, 39, 42, 37


Nevermind, got bored, did math. You're right.

(Agreeing with Gralamin now)

The numbers in the [ ] brackets is the average to hit. With the exception of two dragons (the 44 at level 26, and 48 at level 30)... a +1 really solves all the issues that would crop up.

At least, for a character who starts with a 16 in a primary attacking stat.

Tiki Snakes
2009-03-19, 09:29 PM
So, at level 30, you need to roll as high as 15 to hit some creatures, basically? And adding flanking/combat advantage to this, as well as leadership bonuses and the general fact that unless you rolled at level 28, you've been playing for a while at that point, it's still assumed that that's too challenging? With things like being able to re-roll up to three or four times a day, instantly come back from the dead in insubstantial form, regenerate, etc etc... well.

If you still feel that having to roll 2 or 3 higher to hit the toughest mortal creatures in the multiverse is out of order, then I'm missing something frankly.

LoopyZebra
2009-03-19, 11:40 PM
Is it just me or is the restriction that the Glorious Spirit epic destiny (page 171) be only for primal characters a bit arbitrary and lame? With some minor reflavoring, I could see it working for many different types of characters. It's a cool idea at the core.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-19, 11:45 PM
If you still feel that having to roll 2 or 3 higher to hit the toughest mortal creatures in the multiverse is out of order, then I'm missing something frankly.

Well, to be fair, at Epic you are one of the toughest mortal creatures in the multiverse too and the monsters have a far easier time of whacking you.

It is a small hiccup in the system - that's one reason why WotC didn't just give everyone +1 to hit. A feat lets people who really want to hit a little bit better get to; my problem is that an untyped +1 to hit seems out of line with other Heroic Feats. When I add in PHB II, I'll just make that one a Paragon Feat instead.

Asbestos
2009-03-19, 11:57 PM
Average damage is 21. It's about on par with a level 1 ranger daily which can do about 4[w] if everything hits. A barbarian using a maul can do 6d6 with his lv 1 daily as well. Sure, it's more damaging compared with a warlock lv 1 daily, but not higher than the other upper end strikers.

Also, when compared to the 'other' level 1 Wildsoul Daily it isn't that impressive IMO.
On a hit Dazzling Ray does 6d6+cha+secondary damage and if that hitting roll was also even (and you're a wildsoul sorc) it puts a penalty to attack on the target. On a miss it only does (6d6+cha+secondary)/2.
Now, Chromatic Orb is both Wildsoul in flavor and mechanics in that the relevant secondary stat for the power is dexterity. On a hit it does 3d10+cha+secondary damage and depending on a post-hit die roll has some rather useful secondary effects. On a miss it only does 1d10+cha+secondary damage but still has its secondary effects.

If I'm not mistaken, Chromatic Orb is the only level 1 power that reliably does damage AND applies secondary status effects 100% of the time.

Artanis
2009-03-20, 12:19 AM
And all of that would indeed be what I was missing.

I guess I just saw the first 6 and my brain shut off :smallredface:

Myatar_Panwar
2009-03-20, 12:54 AM
Well, Flames of Phlegethos gives 5 ongoing damage (save ends), which is definitely a status effect, no? (also just to add: after one application of the ongoing damage Flames out damages Dazzling Ray).

If you guys want overpowered, check out the level 13 Barbarian Encounter power, Storm of Blades. As far as I can tell, its not always going to be completely overpowered, as you can't hope to hit all the time every time, but if your willing to get a leader to buff you up and have all of the appropriate stuff happening, it can mess stuff up. By level 30 thats like 9 attacks. :smalleek:

TheOOB
2009-03-20, 01:52 AM
I personally think the fact that almost everyone is pointing out different classes they enjoy is a sign the book is written well, it has a little something for everyone. Personally the invoker, bard, druid, and shaman all leaped out at me as awesome classes I want to play, and the half-orc and deva are races I'm really into.

I would agree there is a little power creep, though I feel it should be noted that it is almost a requirement. In order to keep things interesting, new material has to be at least as powerful as the old, and having more options always makes you more powerful. WotC also seems to be follow the strategy of increasing power for balance rather then reducing. They had mentioned that wizards where a little underpowered, so they made the invoker which is similar to a wizard(though with it's own distinct flavor) but a little more powerful and less likely to kill a team-mate. Presumably they will use Arcane Power to buff the wizard and give them a little more unique personality.

I am a fan of most of the new feats, I like more options, and I don't mind more powerful feat choices. That said, I'm not a huge fan of the expertise feats. It does help even out the attack vs defense curve which is good, but considering how powerful the feat is you pretty much have to have it, which basically means you get one less feat, not to mention it pigeon holes you into one type of weapon/implement. Now yes there are feats that are weapon specific, but none of them are essential feats. I shouldn't have to make a specialist. You could just give characters a +1 bonus to attacks rolls at level 5, 15, and 25 and call it good(which is how I would do it in my game). It helps even out the curve and I think it works pretty well.

EDIT: For those who care, I've made a chart comparing player attack progression to monster defense to show how the gap grows over time. It also includes an additional line to represent using the weapon/implement expertise feat or the house rule I use above.

Players vs. Monsters (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/2581/playersvsmonsters.jpg)

EDIT 2: RETURN OF THE EDIT: And a similar chart for player defense

Player Defense vs Monster Offense (http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1163/playerdefensevsmonstera.jpg)

I think these charts show that the curve needed some work, and that the weapon expertise feat made the curve look like it should, there is still a gap, but one a player can deal with. I personally prefer the level 5/15/25 houserule, but you should deal with it some way. You should also do a similar thing to defenses. This leave a bigger gap for defenses(esp nads which don't get masterwork usually), but they are easier to raise and tend to vary more(I assumed you only invested half as many attribute points in any one defense on the chart.), so i think it works out.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-20, 04:33 AM
It is a small hiccup in the system - that's one reason why WotC didn't just give everyone +1 to hit. A feat lets people who really want to hit a little bit better get to; my problem is that an untyped +1 to hit seems out of line with other Heroic Feats.

I have two problems with these feats.

(1) PHB1 has numerous feats that give you +1 to hit in certain circumstances. For instance, +1 with opportunity attacks, or +1 while standing next to a wall, etc. I like these feats, because they encourage you to think tactically in combat. I also find, since I play mostly level 4-12 so far, that my characters only have "room" for one or perhaps two of these feats. So now they can all simply replace the feat by a +1 bonus to all attacks and stop thinking tactically. I do not consider this an improvement.

(2) This royally screws over characters who use both weapons and implements, or characters who like two switch weapons or implements. And neither was a particularly strong build to begin with. So it would seem that WOTC doesn't want you to play the game differently than they do.

Also, I'm not convinced the problem existed to begin with. I suppose that with PHB1, if you create a level-25 character out of the box and start whacking, you're in trouble; whereas if you play from low(er) level for awhile, you and your party will have accumulated teamwork, strategy, good item combos, and so forth, and can more than likely handle level-25 monsters. So now you can create a high-level character without a second thought to teamwork, strategy and so forth, and win anyway; and it'll be a cakewalk if you have the experience. And as Oberoni says, of course the DM can fix it but that isn't the point.

NPCMook
2009-03-20, 06:20 AM
So did it ever occur to anyone the reason Weapon/Implement Expertise isn't a Feat bonus is because they may release some bonus to attack that is a feat bonus THUS THEY WOULD NEGATE ONE ANOTHER?

What if all the Bonus to attack feats were all Feat bonus?? They'd all be a lot less worth taking.

Artanis
2009-03-20, 10:12 AM
Well, now that my initial brain fart over that 6d6 thing has been corrected thanks to the denizens of this forum...


All in all, the book looks pretty good. They did some pretty clever stuff, especially with how they made the Shaman capable of acting in its secondary roles. Secondary defender can be kinda hard to do with no marking ability, but making the spirit such an inviting target was pretty clever, IMO. Being a secondary striker, it reminds me of the Warlord: its personal damage isn't quite striker-level, but it makes allies deal more damage, meaning the bad guy's HP drops as though the Shaman and Warlord really were more traditional secondary strikers.

The barbarian is really cool, and looks like it has the potential to be a serious PitA for DMs :smallamused:. Wild Magic looks not just powerful, but amusing, too ("OK, sorcerer, we're near a cliff. You are not allowed to attack." *BOOM* "*sigh*").

All in all, most of it looks really good. So take the rest of this part of the post in that context: overall pretty good, just a couple of annoying things off the top of my head.



I have to say that I'm kinda disappointed to see only one class* out of the eight that is neither a primary nor secondary controller. I mean, I know that controller-y stuff is really useful in 4e, but seriously, come on.

Speaking of secondary controllers, I can't figure out how the HELL the Barbarian is supposed to be a secondary leader. I can see being a secondary defender (and some of the Rageblood stuff is pretty blatant on that front), but there's so damned much controller-y stuff. Area-effect damage, debuffs (often really powerful ones), area-effect debuffs, a lot of forced movement...there's a couple things that do stuff like give buddies combat advantage, but all in all it looks a lot closer to a controller than to a leader.

[hr]

Regarding power creep:

Some parts of the book there is, some parts of the book there isn't. I'm not very good at judging outright power level of classes, but others say that the classes themselves have no (or very little) power creep vs. the PHB1 classes. I think that's the most important thing: better feats are one thing, but making entire old classes obsolete? Not so much.

And you have to admit that a lot of the PHB1 feats really did kinda suck. Honest question: other than the Expertise feats (which I expect will be nerfed at least to fix the double weapon thing), how much feat power creep is there?


So did it ever occur to anyone the reason Weapon/Implement Expertise isn't a Feat bonus is because they may release some bonus to attack that is a feat bonus THUS THEY WOULD NEGATE ONE ANOTHER?

What if all the Bonus to attack feats were all Feat bonus?? They'd all be a lot less worth taking.

I think that's the point.

late for dinner
2009-03-20, 11:34 AM
Back on topic, it seems I am alone in my dislike for Avengers. I guess they're just not my style.


You are not alone...I was reading and I was getting a little bored with it myself.

I happen to be a fan of the Warden and Barbarian classes myself. The Sorc is pretty powerful too.

When I read a little on the Shaman, I looked at what it took to kill his Companion...I was like, "at max level, it can only take 25 points of damage?? Weak. But I read in detail the entire class, and afterwards, I really like it...plus, in all reality, if I were a bad guy I would be more worried about the rogue, barbarian, and fighter that are surrounding me before a ghost bear.

Shadow_Elf
2009-03-20, 12:41 PM
If I were a bad guy I would be more worried about the rogue, barbarian, and fighter that are surrounding me before a ghost bear.

So you're saying that as a a bunch of humanoids run at you, not much larger then yourself, on first glance, you're more afraid of them that a ghost bear? Its the best parts of a ghost and a bear, in one terrifying package. Remember, BBEGs don't have metagame knowledge about what's actually the biggest threat :smallwink:.

All in all, I like all the classes. My only big issue with the book is that I won't get to try out all the PHB1 and PHB2 Classes before we get a PHB3 :smallbiggrin:.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-20, 01:07 PM
I have two problems with these feats.

(1) PHB1 has numerous feats that give you +1 to hit in certain circumstances. For instance, +1 with opportunity attacks, or +1 while standing next to a wall, etc. I like these feats, because they encourage you to think tactically in combat. I also find, since I play mostly level 4-12 so far, that my characters only have "room" for one or perhaps two of these feats. So now they can all simply replace the feat by a +1 bonus to all attacks and stop thinking tactically. I do not consider this an improvement.

(2) This royally screws over characters who use both weapons and implements, or characters who like two switch weapons or implements. And neither was a particularly strong build to begin with. So it would seem that WOTC doesn't want you to play the game differently than they do.

For (1) I agree. That's why I pump it up into Paragon level or possibly Epic. It should be noted that the +1 still does stack - your Rogue with Nimble Blade can take Weapon Expertise and get a +4 to hit (CA+Nimble+Expertise) when he has CA.

For (2) I can't really sympathize. Those sorts of characters have always been "screwed over" and Weapon/Implement Expertise hardly screws them over more. Heck, it can be helpful as a way to keep your secondary attack OK while focusing your resources on your primary attack. I know my Elven Bow Cleric would like to have Weapon Expertise (Bow) to make his Disruptive Strike useful again.

@NPCMook
Note that most of the damage feats give Feat bonuses; WotC is trying to avoid the runaway stacking you saw in 3E by having fewer untyped bonuses. IMHO, the Expertise Feats are untyped to reduce the chance that people will only take Expertise and ditch other +hit feats that give typed bonuses.

Even so, I don't care for it in Heroic. It crowds out most of the other feats by being strictly better than pretty much anything else. In Paragon or Epic this is less clear-cut; do you take Heavy Blade Opportunist or Weapon Expertise, for instance.

Awesomologist
2009-03-20, 01:28 PM
Part of the reason I like the Expertise Feats is because it helps "sub-optimized" races options for you class.
Take for instance:
I'm planning on making a Retribution Avenger, but I'm not a big fan of their paragon paths so I'm going to multi-class Cleric and maybe pick up Radiant Servant as a path. My first racial choice was to just play a Deva, but then I started to look things over and found that a Tiefling would also work. By starting with a 16 in Wisdom my first feat is going to be Weapon Expertise which will put the Tiefling on par with where he's supposed to be for the lower levels where it really helps. No to mention the added bonuses versus bloodied targets.
It's not optimized or broken, but now a perfectly viable character choice without feeling gypped later on.
I'm sure all those Half-elves are going to love it for their dilettante power and multi-classing abilities.

Artanis
2009-03-20, 01:46 PM
So you're saying that as a a bunch of humanoids run at you, not much larger then yourself, on first glance, you're more afraid of them that a ghost bear? Its the best parts of a ghost and a bear, in one terrifying package. Remember, BBEGs don't have metagame knowledge about what's actually the biggest threat :smallwink:.
It's also a lot easier to kill than a player (though it still might take more than one attempted attack) and gives a lot of bonuses. Bad guys will see it and say, "OK, I can kill this thing by swatting it and it makes the guys around it hurt a LOT...gee, I wonder what I should attack".

Incidentally, that's one of the "really clever" things I mentioned in my post, and one reason why the Shaman reminded me so much of a Warlord. Both the Shaman and the Warlord both do quite well in their secondary roles, but they do so indirectly.

Saintjebus
2009-03-20, 02:04 PM
It's also a lot easier to kill than a player (though not necessarily a one-shot) and gives a lot of bonuses.

Hmm... that's not the way the spirit companion works. From PHBII, page 120: The spirit can be targeted by melee or ranged attacks, although it lacks hit points. If a single melee attack deals damage equal to 10 + 1/2 your level, the spirit disappears, and you take damage equal to 5 + 1/2 your level. Otherwise, the spirit is unaffected by the attack.

In other words, the spirit companion has to be one shotted. Otherwise, nothing happens.

Artanis
2009-03-20, 02:27 PM
Hmm... that's not the way the spirit companion works. From PHBII, page 120: The spirit can be targeted by melee or ranged attacks, although it lacks hit points. If a single melee attack deals damage equal to 10 + 1/2 your level, the spirit disappears, and you take damage equal to 5 + 1/2 your level. Otherwise, the spirit is unaffected by the attack.

In other words, the spirit companion has to be one shotted. Otherwise, nothing happens.
I'm going to try to find a way to reword that, because I meant that it might take more than one attack to kill it. Like if it gets hit, but the attacker rolls too low on the damage, it'll still be there.

Hzurr
2009-03-20, 02:29 PM
The barbarian is really cool, and looks like it has the potential to be a serious PitA for DMs :smallamused:.

The Barbarian is...interesting to deal with. They deal out so much damage it's scary, but their AC (at least the one in my group), is crap, and they're on the front lines. Really, any time a monster attacks his AC (or will...or reflex), it's pretty much a given that I'm going to hit.

The inside joke in our party is whether or not the cleric (who focuses on healing), can heal the barbarian faster than the barbarian can take damage. The barb receives as much healing as the entire rest of the party combined (and this is a 7 person party).

But yes, the barbarian slaughters things. He slaughters things very well...

Saintjebus
2009-03-20, 02:32 PM
I'm going to try to find a way to reword that, because I meant that it might take more than one attack to kill it. Like if it gets hit, but the attacker rolls too low on the damage, it'll still be there.

oh, ok..... *facepalm to myself*.... I guess I misunderstood.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-20, 07:31 PM
It's not optimized or broken, but now a perfectly viable character choice without feeling gypped later on.
Heh. Until you realize that everybody else is going to take that feat as well, and you'll end up exactly as gypped as you were before the feat existed.

Except for hybrid weapon/implement classes, or half-elves or multiclassers from weapon to implement or vice versa, since they end up having to take the Expertise feat twice, and thus become more gypped than they already were.

Artanis
2009-03-20, 08:49 PM
*shrug* I figure that once you reach a certain level of being screwed, getting even more so doesn't make much difference.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-20, 09:14 PM
Heh. Until you realize that everybody else is going to take that feat as well, and you'll end up exactly as gypped as you were before the feat existed.

Except for hybrid weapon/implement classes, or half-elves or multiclassers from weapon to implement or vice versa, since they end up having to take the Expertise feat twice, and thus become more gypped than they already were.

Wait, what?

Just because your allies are stronger than you doesn't mean you are "gypped;" the only problem is if you cannot affect your enemies. Fortunately, Expertise allows people are the very low-end of the To-Hit curve (say, 16 STR Glaive Warlords) to have a decent chance of keeping up with the monsters they face.

Hmm... the more I think about these Feat, the more I'm liking them.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-03-20, 09:35 PM
Having to take one more feat than normal is the price you pay for wanting to be more versatile. And really its not a huge price anyway.

Nu
2009-03-20, 09:46 PM
The main thing I was excited about was to finally have another controller to play besides a wizard, and the invoker immediately caught my eye. Seems to do a bit less damage than a wizard under normal circumstances, but has more/better status conditions, particularly at low levels. The only downside I could find is the dailies in some spots are a bit weak (I'm a bit hesitant about the Angel summoning dailies, as it seems bad to rely on something that can be killed, and it often doesn't make very good use of the Covenant of Wrath feature).

TheEmerged
2009-03-20, 10:52 PM
Well, in my case the party warlord was already planning to switch to a bard when they became available anyway. Having two more controllers to glean info from will mean I can finally start work on my telepath project in earnest.

Some of this material will fit into my campaign world quickly (gnomes, sorceror, and bard will work as-is), most will require a bit of refluffing but nothing mechanical (shifters, half-orcs, goliaths). The primal classes fit in easily, although I want to run a primal party through some paces before I say too much.

The only thing that is strictly out-of-place from PHB2 in my campaign world is the Deva's -- they go beyond a mere refluff to pretty much requiring that I create a new race with similar mechanics for them.

There's a feat I'm not sure I'm understanding and a warden power that appears to need errata, but I'm pursuing them on other fronts :D

TheOOB
2009-03-20, 10:53 PM
Maybe I missed it, but what is the attack roll required to hit a spirit companion?

Anyways, I do like the idea of increasing players attack bonus, monster defenses go up a little to fast for anyone other then an accuracy whore to hit often enough at higher levels, but I don't like it as a feat. If it's a feat that everyone will take, just give it to them.

Artanis
2009-03-20, 11:23 PM
Maybe I missed it, but what is the attack roll required to hit a spirit companion?
IIRC, the spirit has the same defenses as the Shaman.

TheOOB
2009-03-21, 12:52 AM
IIRC, the spirit has the same defenses as the Shaman.

That's what I would assume, but I couldn't find any reference to that in the ability. They say how much damage it takes to kill it, but not it's defenses.

nightwyrm
2009-03-21, 01:33 AM
That's what I would assume, but I couldn't find any reference to that in the ability. They say how much damage it takes to kill it, but not it's defenses.

The spirit has the conjuration keyword. The back of PHB2 has a bunch of new rules regarding them.

Nightson
2009-03-21, 01:35 AM
That's what I would assume, but I couldn't find any reference to that in the ability. They say how much damage it takes to kill it, but not it's defenses.

It's a conjuration and conjurations have the casters defenses by default.

TheOOB
2009-03-21, 03:33 AM
It's a conjuration and conjurations have the casters defenses by default.

Ahh, makes sense.

Still, you think they could have spared the line to repeat that for the classes key feature.

Somebloke
2009-03-21, 05:47 AM
Well, in my case the party warlord was already planning to switch to a bard when they became available anyway. Having two more controllers to glean info from will mean I can finally start work on my telepath project in earnest.

Some of this material will fit into my campaign world quickly (gnomes, sorceror, and bard will work as-is), most will require a bit of refluffing but nothing mechanical (shifters, half-orcs, goliaths). The primal classes fit in easily, although I want to run a primal party through some paces before I say too much.

The only thing that is strictly out-of-place from PHB2 in my campaign world is the Deva's -- they go beyond a mere refluff to pretty much requiring that I create a new race with similar mechanics for them.

There's a feat I'm not sure I'm understanding and a warden power that appears to need errata, but I'm pursuing them on other fronts :DThe beautiful thing about the Devas is that their background means that they can be really, really rare or even a one-a-generation thing, the result of a once-off occurrance. So maybe it wouldn't be that bad.

As for me, I see a lot of opportunity...unfortunately my campaign is low magic and strictly magical classes other than the wizard are off-bounds unless very convincing explanations are provided.

Can someone point out the flaw of the barbarian? As written it seems to be very, very overpowered, even when compared to other strikers.

Dhavaer
2009-03-21, 07:31 AM
Can someone point out the flaw of the barbarian? As written it seems to be very, very overpowered, even when compared to other strikers.

I haven't read the book yet, but I understand barbarians have very low defences aport from Fort.

Somebloke
2009-03-21, 07:49 AM
I haven't read the book yet, but I understand barbarians have very low defences aport from Fort.I suppose...I guess these things are always meant to be observed through playing.

Fluff wise, I love the Avenger, even though they seem to scream 'jedi' (maybe that's why I like them). The Invoker is suitably impressive, Old-Testament in their crushing fury. The Shaman...makes me cringe a little. Perhaps I just don't see the whole 'conjure ally, somehow bolster other ally' as a natural flow of concepts. The Druid looks to be rather complex and full of obscure choices, which as a DM makes me cringe at the game-time spent wasted contemplating options. The Warden again makes me wonder as to whether the fluff and crunch work particularly well together- it just looks like a druid forced into the Defender role.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-21, 11:29 AM
Can someone point out the flaw of the barbarian? As written it seems to be very, very overpowered, even when compared to other strikers.

All strikers have a feature that boosts their damage - sneak attack, curse et cetera. Barbarians don't have that - they only have their very strong powers. Also, bear in mind that you can't use powers other than basic melee attack when charging, apart from those that specifically allow it.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-21, 11:44 AM
All strikers have a feature that boosts their damage - sneak attack, curse et cetera. Barbarians don't have that - they only have their very strong powers. Also, bear in mind that you can't use powers other than basic melee attack when charging, apart from those that specifically allow it.

In other words, Howling Strike is a chargers best friend. :smallbiggrin:

I too like Avengers, and the CO boards have provided some interesting reading on them. It's a shame most of their powers are so weak.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-21, 12:06 PM
Avengers aren't weak, they just require very specific tactics, many of which are counter-intuitive (it's better to go for high damage weapons than accurate ones, one of the variants should try triggering as many opportunity attacks as possible, et cetera), and they have trouble meeting the prerequesites for weapon-specific feats, because they're the first weapon users in the book who have absolutely no use for strength (alongside with bards, but they're leaders and therefore don't need these feats that much). I think their specialty is killing enemy casters/artillery.

Artanis
2009-03-21, 12:37 PM
I agree that they're counter-intuitive, not just in specifics, but in overall usage as well. At first, it looks like a secondary defender, but if you look at it, it looks to me that it would actually be really, really bad at trying to be one. So the "obvious" overall strategy would be really counter-productive.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-21, 12:37 PM
Avengers aren't weak, they just require very specific tactics, many of which are counter-intuitive (it's better to go for high damage weapons than accurate ones, one of the variants should try triggering as many opportunity attacks as possible, et cetera), and they have trouble meeting the prerequesites for weapon-specific feats, because they're the first weapon users in the book who have absolutely no use for strength (alongside with bards, but they're leaders and therefore don't need these feats that much). I think their specialty is killing enemy casters/artillery.

I'm not saying Avengers as a class are weak, but their powers simply aren't on par with other strikers. There has been a lot of number crunching on the CO boards, and Avengers just aren't stacking up in terms of DPR (which, as Strikers, is what they should be competitive in), even with the 25% accuracy increase Oath of Enmity gives them. They can produce some very impressive damage, but that is primarily when they are using other classes powers, not their own.

Truth is, the Avenger's most impressive stats are their defenses, with the AC being easily pumped into the 50s, and above 60 in some cases.

And yes, I agree that their main function is to run around and take out the Artillery/controller/leads in an encounter. They are brutal soloists. They just perform even better at this roll with other classes powers. Arguably the single best races for Avengers is Half-Elf, because you can get Twin Strike or Dual Strike At-Will.

Regardless, I don't want to derail the thread with a bunch of Avenger chatter. :smallsmile:

Artanis
2009-03-21, 01:07 PM
Derail hell, it's a PHB2 thread, and the Avenger is in the PHB2 :smallbiggrin:


On that note, how "not on par" are we talking? Because when I look at the Avenger, I see a lot of ways to "herd" enemies to where allies can deal with them better. So that's more damage that's being done indirectly. Kinda like a Warlord, only even more so.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-21, 01:26 PM
Derail hell, it's a PHB2 thread, and the Avenger is in the PHB2 :smallbiggrin:


On that note, how "not on par" are we talking? Because when I look at the Avenger, I see a lot of ways to "herd" enemies to where allies can deal with them better. So that's more damage that's being done indirectly. Kinda like a Warlord, only even more so.

Many of their powers, especially in the late Heroic to mid Paragon levels seem like they should have at least 1[W] more damage. Compare the damage their Dailies do to the Barbarian's Rage Strike, in terms of pure damage. The Avenger's powers do have extra effects, but not strong enough effects to justify the huge different in [W]. These guys are supposed to be strikers, dishing out the damage themselves, not moving them around so others can damage them (which is a Leader/Controller job).

The other problem is they have virtually no multi-attack powers, which is one of the best ways to increase damage, reusing static modifiers.

I think that the class is perfectly functional, and is intended to be a soloist, but many of their powers a lacking just a bit of omph, and they don't have great ways to encourage triggering their Censures without multiclassing, which is annoying since that is their Striker damage increasing ability.

Artanis
2009-03-21, 01:54 PM
Many of their powers, especially in the late Heroic to mid Paragon levels seem like they should have at least 1[W] more damage. Compare the damage their Dailies do to the Barbarian's Rage Strike, in terms of pure damage. The Avenger's powers do have extra effects, but not strong enough effects to justify the huge different in [W]. These guys are supposed to be strikers, dishing out the damage themselves, not moving them around so others can damage them (which is a Leader/Controller job).

The other problem is they have virtually no multi-attack powers, which is one of the best ways to increase damage, reusing static modifiers.

I think that the class is perfectly functional, and is intended to be a soloist, but many of their powers a lacking just a bit of omph, and they don't have great ways to encourage triggering their Censures without multiclassing, which is annoying since that is their Striker damage increasing ability.
I hadn't thought of just looking at Rage Strike. I'd been trying to compare dailies directly :smallredface:

I agree that there's a lot of controller in them, and you're right about the other stuff. And now that I look at them, yeah, the Avenger doesn't do much directly. I have an honest question though: is it safe to assume that the "need another [w]" assessment includes the delayed (but still extant) damage from powers like Temple of Light (L1) and Oath of Divine Lightning (L15)? I would think it does, but I like to be thorough :smallwink:

daa18
2009-03-21, 02:34 PM
The druid and warden classes are pretty awesome. I'm thinking of making a an elf druid who can run at incredible speeds and wildshapes into a human sized roadrunner when escaping.

Either that or a blue hedgehog.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-21, 04:23 PM
I hadn't thought of just looking at Rage Strike. I'd been trying to compare dailies directly :smallredface:

I agree that there's a lot of controller in them, and you're right about the other stuff. And now that I look at them, yeah, the Avenger doesn't do much directly. I have an honest question though: is it safe to assume that the "need another [w]" assessment includes the delayed (but still extant) damage from powers like Temple of Light (L1) and Oath of Divine Lightning (L15)? I would think it does, but I like to be thorough :smallwink:

In general, yeah, I'd say so. The extra damage is nice at first level with Temple of Light, but it really lags behind and becomes trivial at later levels. There are some powers that are well damaged, so it does need to be a case-by-case basis, and some other changes might work for a given power better.

For an extreme example, take Temple of Resolution, a lv 29 Daily. It deals decent damage, but nothing remarkable. Its zone, though, does a paltry 25 damage, and can be completely avoided by your opponent since it requires voluntary movement to take the damage. Either the voluntary clause needs to go, or the damage needs to go way up. 25 damage is nothing to the things you will be regularly fighting at that level, especially from what is supposed to be your strongest daily.

I recommend checking out the CO threads on the Avenger, as they've been crunching the math, and will likely wind up with the best approximations of what powers need increasing.

Artanis
2009-03-21, 05:47 PM
I'll take your word for it on this one :smallsmile:


The druid and warden classes are pretty awesome. I'm thinking of making a an elf druid who can run at incredible speeds and wildshapes into a human sized roadrunner when escaping.

Either that or a blue hedgehog.
Bonus points if the BBEG is an Artificer :smallbiggrin:

NPCMook
2009-03-21, 06:39 PM
@NPCMook
Note that most of the damage feats give Feat bonuses; WotC is trying to avoid the runaway stacking you saw in 3E by having fewer untyped bonuses. IMHO, the Expertise Feats are untyped to reduce the chance that people will only take Expertise and ditch other +hit feats that give typed bonuses.

Even so, I don't care for it in Heroic. It crowds out most of the other feats by being strictly better than pretty much anything else. In Paragon or Epic this is less clear-cut; do you take Heavy Blade Opportunist or Weapon Expertise, for instance.

I retrain Blade Opportunist or Combat Reflexes for Weapon Expertise, and take Heavy Blade Opportunist at level 11

See it doesn't stop me from replacing a former Heroic feat with it, just leave it be and people are still going to take those other feats, they are just going to take them after weapon expertise

Sturmjaeger
2009-03-21, 10:48 PM
I'll take your word for it on this one :smallsmile:


Bonus points if the BBEG is an Artificer :smallbiggrin:

A Gnoll Artificier that has "ACME" written on all his magic items.

Myatar_Panwar
2009-03-21, 11:43 PM
I don't really want to make a thread for this, but as it kind of relates (basically served as an intro into the PHB2, as far as I could tell), did anyone else participate in World Wide Game day today?

For those curious, the party composition:
Drow Avenger
Warforged Barbarian
Tiefling Invoker
Gnome Bard
Dragonborn Paladin (had some sneak peak complete divine stuff)

I was playing the Warforged Barbarian, and in general had a blast.

I missed quite a bit more than average, but I did end up having alot of fun when the Invoker used the daily which dazed all enemies within 10 squares, and then I using Thunder Hawk Rage and knocking them down. Prone and dazed enemies are awesome.

chiasaur11
2009-03-22, 12:52 AM
A Gnoll Artificier that has "ACME" written on all his magic items.

Hey!

That Coyote is a hero. Died to save his world.

shadowmage
2009-03-22, 08:46 AM
A Gnoll Artificier that has "ACME" written on all his magic items.

That should be a Shifter Artificer with "Acme" on his gear.

Lostintransit
2009-03-22, 09:07 AM
Having played in the pre writen adventure on saturday, I can say that I like the phb II alot. It has quite a few things that our group are looking forward to trying!

As an aside, On the avenger damage front, at low levels a single level 3 encounter power deals at least 2[W] + 5d10 damage, without stat or magic, just the power on its own. I was playing the avenger in the pre written and found the damage output faily solid. Rolling twice also bumps up your critical chance, i got like 6-7 criticals in 3 fights.

regards

Shadow_Elf
2009-03-22, 08:35 PM
I played in Worldwide D&D Game Day: PH2 also, as the Gnome Bard. Our party really had a blast, and we had some creative encounters.

In the first encounter, I soloed the skill challenge (Solphie), dropping some heals and minor buffs, while my party took on a quickling runner, a Dire Bear and two Troglodyte something-or-others. That finished both of the first two "encounters" simultaneous.

The next encounter, in the grain mill, featured the Barbarian and Avenger killing the Minotaur in two rounds, before it landed a single hit, followed by the Runespirals blowing up the grain dust with a natural 1 on their fire attack. We escaped the burning building, trapped the Trogs inside, and waited about a half hour before going in to finish the rescue mission.

At the end of the final encounter, everything was dead but the Bearded Devil, who tried to run away. Our Paladin dragged him back with Paladin's Call, dropping him on the necrotic trap, which damaged him slightly. We were going to ask him to explain things, and then we were going to let him go. On his next turn, the trap crit him mid-monologue and died :smallbiggrin:.

The Bard was a lot of fun, she had good to-hit and very creative buffing and debuffing methods. One huge thing though - it took way longer than the "2-3 hours" WotC estimated.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-22, 09:39 PM
I just bought the Player's Handbook 2, and I...LOVE...IT!!!

Everything about it is awesome! Half-orcs are actually hot now! Gnomes are even more awesome than they were in 3.5e! The new classes, paths and destinies roxxors my boxxors!

$37 well spent! :smallsmile:

RTGoodman
2009-03-22, 09:42 PM
I just bought the Player's Handbook 2, and I...LOVE...IT!!!

I know... I got it a few days ago, but I've been reading through it too much to actually post anything.


One question I did have involves one of the Divine PPs. (I don't have the book on me, so I can't check the name.) IIRC, someone said there was a combo out there that could be ridiculously broken if you could use more than one Channel Divinity power per encounter. (I think it dealt with the one that gives you an automatic critical.) Well, I do believe one of the PHB2 PPs actually gives you the ability to use each Channel Divinity power you have once per encounter, so you could actually make it work.

Or maybe I'm crazy and there's no such combo. (Yet, at least.)

zorba1994
2009-03-22, 09:50 PM
I have the PHBII, and I overall like it. The new races are good, though I personally can never see myself as a goliath or shifter (deva, maybe) my adventurers (my main job is DMing) will love them. I also like gnomes.


The classes I'm a bit mixed about. The warden is cool, I like the new Barbarian, and the new shaman druids are okay, and one of my players almost screamed for joy when I told him that bards were back. The things I don't like are that invokers just feel like clerics with controller aspects, and I never liked sorcerers. It's not that I don't like invoker/sorcerer, I just feel that they are infringing on the wizard and clerics territories. There instead should be a specialization path for the wizards or clerics.


Still, overall I love it.

Asbestos
2009-03-22, 10:15 PM
One question I did have involves one of the Divine PPs. (I don't have the book on me, so I can't check the name.) IIRC, someone said there was a combo out there that could be ridiculously broken if you could use more than one Channel Divinity power per encounter. (I think it dealt with the one that gives you an automatic critical.) Well, I do believe one of the PHB2 PPs actually gives you the ability to use each Channel Divinity power you have once per encounter, so you could actually make it work.

Or maybe I'm crazy and there's no such combo. (Yet, at least.)

The Unveiled Visage, an Avenger Paragon Path, allows you to gain an extra use of one your Channel Divinity powers during this encounter. I'm not sure what overpowered combo there could be, beyond using that critical power twice in the same encounter. Is there a CD power that keys off a crit?

Colmarr
2009-03-22, 10:33 PM
Is there a CD power that keys off a crit?

Lots of them, if I remember correctly.

The one that I'm certain of is the Kord feat from the PHB, which allows the spending of a healing surge when you or an ally crit.

But I doubt that's the combo people were calling overpowered. It's far from it.

My personal concern was combining Divine Favour (cleric) and Righteous Rage of Tempus, for a +1 to attack on an attack that will automatically crit if it hits. And even that isn't so OMGWTF as to be called "overpowered" (although it certainly becomes very nice if the cleric has Action Surge and combat advantage, uses an action point, and has a warlord in the party.)

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-22, 10:40 PM
Would it be possible to reflavor Righteous Rage of Tempus to something non FR-related? Not everyone plays in FR after all. RRoT is so popular, one would expect that EVERYONE worships Tempus!

Asbestos
2009-03-22, 10:48 PM
Lots of them, if I remember correctly.

The one that I'm certain of is the Kord feat from the PHB, which allows the spending of a healing surge when you or an ally crit.


Yeah, but then you're worshiping a FR deity and a non-FR deity. I think the only way for it to work would be using RRoT with a non-god specific CD power.

Colmarr
2009-03-22, 10:55 PM
Yeah, but then you're worshiping a FR deity and a non-FR deity. I think the only way for it to work would be using RRoT with a non-god specific CD power.

You mean such as the Divine Favour/RRoT combo I mentioned? :smallamused:

Asbestos
2009-03-22, 10:58 PM
You mean such as the Divine Favour/RRoT combo I mentioned? :smallamused:

Yes that, but BEYOND that, I don't see much. Also, I can think of more useful PPs for a cleric to take...

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-22, 10:59 PM
Would it be possible to reflavor Righteous Rage of Tempus to something non FR-related? Not everyone plays in FR after all. RRoT is so popular, one would expect that EVERYONE worships Tempus!

Yeah, Tempus is the new Raven Queen :smallsigh:

That's one reason why I liked CDs to be weak - they really shouldn't be the determining factor as to which divinity you worship; instead they should be a neat flavorful (and occasionally useful) power that distinguishes you from other Clerics.

I'm actually thinking about allowing players to swap out one of their base Channel Divinities for the Feat one for free. Of course, I don't have Tempus around to worry about.

Colmarr
2009-03-22, 11:03 PM
I'm actually thinking about allowing players to swap out one of their base Channel Divinities for the Feat one for free. Of course, I don't have Tempus around to worry about.

I strongly endorse that way of thinking, and Turn Undead seems to be the obvious fluff candidate to me.

It's never quite made sense to me why clerics of (for example:) Kord (strength), Erathis (civilisation), and Ioun (knowledge) all have special powers against undead.

It's thematically appropriate for some gods (eg. Pelor and the Raven Queen), but for others it's nothing more than a sacred cow.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-22, 11:08 PM
I strongly endorse that way of thinking, and Turn Undead seems to be the obvious fluff candidate to me.

It's never quite made sense to me why clerics of (for example:) Kord (strength), Erathis (civilisation), and Ioun (knowledge) all have special powers against undead.

It's thematically appropriate for some gods (eg. Pelor and the Raven Queen), but for others it's nothing more than a sacred cow.

I see what you did there :smalltongue:

Hmm... I like it. Keep "Turn Undead" or swap it out for a CD; you can always take a CD as a Feat, of course.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-22, 11:14 PM
You'd have to do the same thing for the other divine classes too, to keep it fair. Aside from the paladin, all the divine classes have something to do with undead. Avengers have Abjure Undead, and Invokers have Rebuke Undead.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-22, 11:43 PM
You'd have to do the same thing for the other divine classes too, to keep it fair. Aside from the paladin, all the divine classes have something to do with undead. Avengers have Abjure Undead, and Invokers have Rebuke Undead.

*shrug* if they could take the Channel Divinity Feat normally, I don't see why not.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-23, 07:02 AM
Would it be possible to reflavor Righteous Rage of Tempus to something non FR-related? Not everyone plays in FR after all. RRoT is so popular, one would expect that EVERYONE worships Tempus!

Easily.

But RRoT is mainly popular because it is significantly stronger than every other CD feat in the books. It's one of the closest things to cheese that 4E has. Imho it should be errata'ed not because it's a game breaker (which it it isn't) but because it simply doesn't compare to the other CDs.

Tyrmatt
2009-03-23, 10:50 AM
I'm very pleased with what I've read of it. While I'm not very good at mechanistic analysis, the fluff seems solid and fun to revel in as well as the introduction of a couple of favourite classes of mine. I'm already dreaming of wonderful bardic fun I can have, including a St. Patrick's Day inspired undead controller based on an Irish wake's keener, a chance to revive an ANCIENT roleplay character I had of a druid with a severe problem with his shifting to animal forms where he was unable to overcome the will of the beast he was becoming.

Not to mention I've got some tricksy gnomes to pit my players against, an evil sorcerer to build and an interesting new dungeon to build for my BBEG as he turns from trying to steal from divine sources and dips into the primal life force of the world itself. Expect undead plants. Lots of them.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-23, 10:52 AM
As an aside, On the avenger damage front, at low levels a single level 3 encounter power deals at least 2[W] + 5d10 damage, without stat or magic, just the power on its own.

:smalleek: :smallconfused:

How? There are two 3rd level Encounter powers that deal 2[W] + Wisdom mod. One adds 5+ fire damage to adjacent enemies, the other teleports. Where did you get that 5d10?

As for the Channel Divinity, RRoT is really the only dangerous one, and then only really broken if you combine it with the Unveiled Visage PP (PHB2) and the Punisher of the Gods ED (DR 372). Granted, RRoT is too powerful a CD feat in the first place, but certainly not broken.

Lostintransit
2009-03-24, 09:14 AM
:smalleek: :smallconfused:

How? There are two 3rd level Encounter powers that deal 2[W] + Wisdom mod. One adds 5+ fire damage to adjacent enemies, the other teleports. Where did you get that 5d10?

As for the Channel Divinity, RRoT is really the only dangerous one, and then only really broken if you combine it with the Unveiled Visage PP (PHB2) and the Punisher of the Gods ED (DR 372). Granted, RRoT is too powerful a CD feat in the first place, but certainly not broken.

Sorry, got the damage slightly wrong, its 2[W]+ 3d10 base, but you can add it up if your in the right areas. Think teleport, think enemies, think falling damage. I did it in every encounter during the game day and got a total of 2[W] + 5d10 by dropping a demon into the air and off the side of a building.

Using teleport to drop your enemies is a sound way to get more [D] but if they are flying its limited. I've already sat down and built a teleport avenger, its a shame they don't have more, but with all the magic items you can get to increase teleports you can comfortably add +3d10 bonus damage. The high level teleport all foes in 5 but not the target is insane as it basically becomes an area efffect attack.

The one problem with the build is it requires high vantage points/rooms or be outdoors to be truely effective! However as our campaigns tend to take place mainly outdoors and fight only occassionally in 'proper' dungeons I'm not to worried.

Oh and i also built a two weapon ranger/avenger, the sheer amount of DPS is horrific, but you take damage like nobodies business!

Regards

MammonAzrael
2009-03-24, 10:03 AM
<snip>

Ahh, I got it. I don't really think you can call that a build though, if you're relying on falling damage. While that will work in some areas, and with some DMs, it is extremely reliant on things outside its control. If you have a DM, or a setting, that has very few to no areas to drop or be dropped from, you lose that extra damage. The way you have it written now assumes you always had at least a 30' drop to teleport your enemy off of, and I feel that is a dangerous assumption to make.

That style of play is perfectly fine, and quite smart, when you have lots of ledges to drop monster off of, but if you're going to focus on the teleportation angle of the Avenger, I think you should focus on your ability to single an enemy out, and just take the extra teleport damage when it is available.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-24, 10:20 AM
I think he means that he teleports the enemies up, and let them fall to the ground. Which is questionable by the rules at best, and few DMs would allow.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-24, 10:36 AM
I think he means that he teleports the enemies up, and let them fall to the ground. Which is questionable by the rules at best, and few DMs would allow.

Hmmm...I can't find anything that says otherwise. It looks like you can teleport enemies straight up with abandon. But any DM I know, myself included, will either simply say "no," or if you abuse it they will begin teleporting you in the air.

ColdSepp
2009-03-24, 10:39 AM
Hmmm...I can't find anything that says otherwise. It looks like you can teleport enemies straight up with abandon. But any DM I know, myself included, will either simply say "no," or if you abuse it they will begin teleporting you in the air.

Correct. Teleport is not forced movement, so you can teleport things straight up, over cliffs, into lava, and so on. However, as Mammon says, if the PCs do it, so will monsters.

Douglas
2009-03-24, 10:44 AM
The teleportation rules do indeed not include any stipulation about having to arrive on a surface capable of supporting you, and I am not aware of any teleportation power that specifies horizontal displacement only. I think many DMs will house rule that requirement in, however (it's in 3.5), and it might get added by errata at some point.

MammonAzrael
2009-03-24, 10:54 AM
If it hasn't gotten an errata by this point, I'd be very surprised if it ever receives one. Maybe if all their events become saturated by players teleporting enemies 10, 15, 20 squares up over and over again. And as a bonus to the falling damage, it knocks you prone too. :smallsigh:

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 11:51 AM
I think he means that he teleports the enemies up, and let them fall to the ground. Which is questionable by the rules at best, and few DMs would allow.
The thing is that 4E really isn't designed to be played in three dimensions. Half of the time the rules don't even refer to vertical squares, but to the same square but a couple of feet up.

It seems clear to me that the rules didn't intend teleportation powers to automatically deal substantial amounts of falling damage, and therefore as a DM I would disallow upwards teleportation just as I would disallow upwards push effects. I consider this a clear case of attempting to push ambiguous rules in the direction that makes characters the most powerful.

ColdSepp
2009-03-24, 12:01 PM
The thing is that 4E really isn't designed to be played in three dimensions. Half of the time the rules don't even refer to vertical squares, but to the same square but a couple of feet up.

It seems clear to me that the rules didn't intend teleportation powers to automatically deal substantial amounts of falling damage, and therefore as a DM I would disallow upwards teleportation just as I would disallow upwards push effects. I consider this a clear case of attempting to push ambiguous rules in the direction that makes characters the most powerful.

But, it's very clear that Forced Movement cannot be used to push upwards, and they very clearly exempted Teleportation from the limits of Forced Movement.

It's not ambiguous at all, especially since it has been stated by CS on several occasions that Teleportation does in fact allow for the 'move them into the air and drop them'.

Theodoric
2009-03-24, 12:12 PM
But, it's very clear that Forced Movement cannot be used to push upwards, and they very clearly exempted Teleportation from the limits of Forced Movement.

It's not ambiguous at all, especially since it has been stated by CS on several occasions that Teleportation does in fact allow for the 'move them into the air and drop them'.
Ofcourse, for any significant amount of damage, you'd have to transport them directly above where they just stood, which only does damage, and not the fancy effect that was intended. There's more to battles than damage (although just killing them with falling damage if can be good enough. :smallbiggrin:)

Lostintransit
2009-03-24, 12:28 PM
Well i've looked over the rules and there is nothing to stop you from doing it!
It's not abusing it either. :smalltongue: The calculation is 1+dex mod squares, so that can be 6 squares at level 3 which gives you +3d10 damage.

Also very few PC's can teleport opponents, most tend to be slides or push or pull!

As for 4th ed being 2d, whuh?:smalleek: Every encounter we have involves 3 dimensional movement in some degree, even if its a simple as standing on a table! the last fight we had became a flying battle mid encounter as the ground crumbled beneath our feet! just simply putting a d10 with the number representing how many square up/down you are next to your mini makes it easy to follow. 4th ed is all about dynamic, 3d battles!

As for the DM side of things, i played it like that in the game day, with very knowledgable players and a DM who has alot of experience. None of them even blinked an eye at the thought of it, but most thought it was a very cool cinematic power "Die evil doer! the wrath of my god shall teach you the pain of the fallen!" *Target reapears in the sky and falls to a painful landing*

As for how the damage stacks, you just need to move them up, it doesn't require a cliff, that just gets fun! but seeing how diagonals are 1 square, you can get them to the big drops as well as the height!

As i said in the other post though, it doesn't work in small 10' tall rooms.:smallamused:

Hope that helps! obviously its not as damaging as the ranger/avenger, but it is very funny and good for RP!

Regards

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 12:45 PM
It's not ambiguous at all, especially since it has been stated by CS on several occasions that Teleportation does in fact allow for the 'move them into the air and drop them'.
It is ambiguous, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Please provide a link for your CS claim, thanks.


Well i've looked over the rules and there is nothing to stop you from doing it!
Rules Don't Work That Way. Good night.

The way 4E rules are written, it's obviously false that they allow everything that isn't expressly disallowed. You've got that precisely backwards; I can think of all manner of weird things that aren't mentioned in the rules, and it does not follow that they are therefore possible.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-03-24, 01:03 PM
I think he means that he teleports the enemies up, and let them fall to the ground. Which is questionable by the rules at best, and few DMs would allow.

Now, I don't have all the Avenger powers memorised, but don't quite a few of the Avenger 'Teleport thy foe' tricks also cause the Avenger in question to teleport next to his target?
Sure, go for 'Straight upwards' teleports. Be prepared to find some way to mitigate damage to yourself first. I can think of a few off the top of my head (Teleport yourself onto a tree branch, but your opponent not. Safewing Cloaks/Catstep Boots. Unveiled visage's wings. Scion of Arkashoa's Wings, et cetera.)

I see them as nice tricks for a Pursuing Avenger to do things like, get close, and his allies be damned, teleport them far away, so that you, in all your squishyness, are no longer surrounded by your foes and just have your one little target to focus your Divine Rage upon.

Falling Damage is a neat trick, though, and should be taken at every feasable oppertunity. Your NPCs with class levels will be doing the same. Its not an exploit, the rules are written that way. Its how things are done.

/my2cp

Lostintransit
2009-03-24, 01:51 PM
It is ambiguous, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Please provide a link for your CS claim, thanks.


Rules Don't Work That Way. Good night.

The way 4E rules are written, it's obviously false that they allow everything that isn't expressly disallowed. You've got that precisely backwards; I can think of all manner of weird things that aren't mentioned in the rules, and it does not follow that they are therefore possible.

Well I'm looking at my PHB2 and PHB right now, and specifically looking at the teleportation sections, lets just do a check list shall we?
lets say we are in an open plain no trees etc.

Line of sight: to the sky? Check, well unless i'm blinded...
No line of effect needed: Check, easy as we don't need it!
Destination space: Check, can the medium creature I'm attacking fit in the sky? without squeezing? hmmm tricky one that....:smallwink:
Instantaneous: Check
No opportunity actions: Check, I was attacking it normally anyway!
Immobilised/ Restrained: Check, as you can still teleport under these conditions.

Teleportation isn't a push, pull or slide so is not subject to the Clear path rule or the Catching yourself rule, those only apply to push, pull or slide. Also you don't have to go straight up you can go in squiggly circles or at diagonals followed by straights, as long as you can draw line of sight to the destination.

Here is diagonal movement: Works the same as normal movement except you can't cross corners of walls or other obstacle that fills a corner.

So here is an example: Say I can teleport the target 5 squares.

Key X: blank square, T: Target, A: Attacker

Side view:
XXXXXXXXXXX - sky
XXXXXXXXXXX - sky
XXXXXXXXXXX - sky
XXXXXXXXXXX - sky
XXXXXXXXXXX - sky
XXXXATXXXXX - Ground Floor

There is nowhere in the sky squares that I cannot teleport the target to. For every 2 sky squares the target falls he takes an additional +1d10 damage, but if trained in athletics he is allowed a check to reduce the damage as per the rules for Falling.

Pages for reference:
Teleportation: PHB pge 286, PHB2 pge 221
Diagonals: PHB pge 283
Falling: PHB pge 284

Pages for those who want to check the other rules:
Size and squeezing: PHB pge 282
Forcing movement (push, pull, slide): PHB pge 278, which then references pge 285 under push, pull, slide.
Line of sight: PHB pge 273
Reading a power (for checking which order to do things in): PHB2 pge 218
[As an aside to the person who thought you would teleport to them in the sky, there is a full stop in the line text. Which means you teleport next to them after they have fallen!]

Wow that felt like writing an essay, references and everything! Hope that clears up the few problems.

Regards

Thanatos 51-50
2009-03-24, 01:59 PM
[As an aside to the person who thought you would teleport to them in the sky, there is a full stop in the line text. Which means you teleport next to them after they have fallen!]

As a counterpoint: Teleportation is instantaneous, meaning the resolution of your foe-port happens instantaneously, while it take time for them to start falling.
you 'port after the foeport is resolved, that is - instantly.
Meaning before falling begins.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 02:03 PM
Well I'm looking at my PHB2 and PHB right now, and specifically looking at the teleportation sections, lets just do a check list shall we?

A simple counterpoint:

If there actually were squares in the sky, they would be called "cubes".

Thanatos 51-50
2009-03-24, 02:10 PM
There are squares upward. It is implied when reading the rules for WALL areas of affect (Page 272, PHB)

Lostintransit
2009-03-24, 02:13 PM
A simple counterpoint:

If there actually were squares in the sky, they would be called "cubes".

Counterpoint Fu: If there were squares on the ground, they would be called cubes. Also explain houses then in the world of no sky level squares?

Regards

Edit: spelling

Awesomologist
2009-03-24, 02:14 PM
Now, I don't have all the Avenger powers memorised, but don't quite a few of the Avenger 'Teleport thy foe' tricks also cause the Avenger in question to teleport next to his target?
Sure, go for 'Straight upwards' teleports. Be prepared to find some way to mitigate damage to yourself first. I can think of a few off the top of my head (Teleport yourself onto a tree branch, but your opponent not. Safewing Cloaks/Catstep Boots. Unveiled visage's wings. Scion of Arkashoa's Wings, et cetera.)

I see them as nice tricks for a Pursuing Avenger to do things like, get close, and his allies be damned, teleport them far away, so that you, in all your squishyness, are no longer surrounded by your foes and just have your one little target to focus your Divine Rage upon.

Falling Damage is a neat trick, though, and should be taken at every feasable oppertunity. Your NPCs with class levels will be doing the same. Its not an exploit, the rules are written that way. Its how things are done.

/my2cp

I came here to say the same about using flying powers and items to reduce your falling damage. Some teleportation powers have certain specific riders that would limit whether or not you can simply teleport the target up in the air and drop them.
Some powers though like Splinter the Formation (Level 7 Encounter) let you teleport each enemy within 2 squares of the target 2 squares (1+Int if you're Retribution) with no other conditions. So that would be a minimum of dropping them at least 10 feet for 1d10 (Retribution would be looking at 2d10 or 3d10 for each target!).

TheOOB
2009-03-24, 02:18 PM
A simple counterpoint:

If there actually were squares in the sky, they would be called "cubes".

Exactally, squares are 2D. The ones on a battle map don't have a vertical component.

Anyways, this came up in my game, and I came up with a DM ruling that worked well for the group.

You can use teleport to move the target to any square on the same horizontal plane within range(which could be over a pit if you like), even if it is empty space. If there is a vertical component to your teleport, you may not teleport the target into empty space, though you can teleport into dangerous terrain.

For self teleport powers you can do whatever you wish.

What this means is you can use teleport to take advantage of battlefield features(spikes, pits, lava streams, whatever), but teleport cannot do damage in and of itself, which is what I think the intent of the rules where.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 02:22 PM
You can use teleport to move the target to any square on the same horizontal plane within range(which could be over a pit if you like), even if it is empty space. If there is a vertical component to your teleport, you may not teleport the target into empty space, though you can teleport into dangerous terrain.

I like this solution. It means you get to be creative with teleportation, rather than simply sticking on a few extra d10 of damage.

Lostintransit
2009-03-24, 02:35 PM
Exactally, squares are 2D. The ones on a battle map don't have a vertical component.

Anyways, this came up in my game, and I came up with a DM ruling that worked well for the group.

You can use teleport to move the target to any square on the same horizontal plane within range(which could be over a pit if you like), even if it is empty space. If there is a vertical component to your teleport, you may not teleport the target into empty space, though you can teleport into dangerous terrain.

For self teleport powers you can do whatever you wish.

What this means is you can use teleport to take advantage of battlefield features(spikes, pits, lava streams, whatever), but teleport cannot do damage in and of itself, which is what I think the intent of the rules where.

I like this ruling, however this is a house rule not what the rules say. To be honest you wouldn't do it for the damage anyway as it is lame compared to a ranger/avenger, you would do it for RP or funny reasons, that's the only reason I did it!

As for cubes 'n' squares: How do you do flying combat in your games? How does falling factor in? If everything exist on a single square plain how tall are those squares? or not? How do houses work? What about combat inside a 2 floored house? Are the people upstairs in another magical dimension of flat squares or can they smash a hole in the floor and continue the fight downward? What about waterfalls? How do you deal with fighting on a log going down a waterfall while a nearby dragon that's above you, fights you?

By saying the world isn't cubed the world is a very twisted non logical place, for example if square only count on the ground you just have infinite height or everyone is the same depth. Very confusing.....

Regards

EDIT: What if a bird flies overhead, that's not even possible in the flat plain square land! :smalleek::smalleek:

Arbitrarity
2009-03-24, 02:39 PM
Blood Pulse + Bolstering Blood + Elemental Maw.

That is all I have to say about vertical teleportation.Lol 360+ damage to each in an area.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 02:41 PM
I like this ruling, however this is a house rule not what the rules say.

Player A: "You're houseruling!!"
Player B: "No, you are houseruling!!!"
Player C: "You're both houseruling!!!!"

Chocolate.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-03-24, 03:01 PM
Which reminds me: I have yet to see Rule Zero in the 4e books.
Am I not looking hard enough?

Tengu_temp
2009-03-24, 03:06 PM
Which reminds me: I have yet to see Rule Zero in the 4e books.
Am I not looking hard enough?

I thought it's the unwritten rule?

ColdSepp
2009-03-24, 03:20 PM
It is ambiguous, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Please provide a link for your CS claim, thanks.


Q: For the teleportation effect of Elemental Maw (in addition, you teleport that creature to a square within 20 squares of you), can you teleport the target vertically? For instance, can you in that case teleport the target 20 squares into the air, causing them to fall and take another 10d10 falling damage?

A: Yes, you may teleport that creature vertically.

From the Compiled CS answers at Enworld

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/231261-official-unofficial-d-d-4th-edition-rules-faq.html

hamishspence
2009-03-24, 03:29 PM
well, there's Page 42 DMG: "Actions the rules don't cover"

TheOOB
2009-03-24, 03:47 PM
My ruling above is DM fiat (and this a house-rule, I guess I should have been more clear). I personally like it. I don't think the powers with teleportation where balanced with falling damage in mind, and honestly that gets a little silly in my mind.

I do, however, encourage people using the battlefield to their advantage. If there is a pit, a fire, or a patch of ice or something, you should use that to your advantage, because the monsters will.

Reinboom
2009-03-24, 04:48 PM
During game day, the teleport and fall trick was a common one. For example, the spiraldemons on the ledge in the windmill were a common target. "Slide you off... and up".
Personally, I would rule to on the same horizontal plane in my own games.

As for "most DMs won't allow this", I dare you to try to change something like this during a WotC hosted game day, without a VERY push over party.
It was in the rules, unrestricted, unquestionable. One other running party had a character who was performing the same trick, got away with it, and the idea was proposed openly and played with in most of the games that occurred that day from then on.
So most DMs allowed this. :smalltongue:

Really, the teleport thing is something DMs should /expect/ their players to come up with mid game. Without reading in to it, optimizing, or anything. A sudden "Hey, wait a minute!" idea. And I personally believe it should be rewarded with... well, success.

TheOOB
2009-03-24, 06:43 PM
It's up to the GM. In an official WotC event, you pretty much have to allow the trick because you are not supposed to create house rules.

On the other hand, I personally don't think the teleport powers need such a bonus, and if I allow that then non teleport powers get worthless in comparison.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-24, 06:56 PM
Dammit. Ever since I got the PHB II I've been getting character idea after character idea! But I can't implement them because I'm still playing my first character.

Arbitrarity
2009-03-24, 07:11 PM
Dammit. Ever since I got the PHB II I've been getting character idea after character idea! But I can't implement them because I'm still playing my first character.

I know the feeling. I get that with just the PHB, and compulsively mechanically assemble a character of two per day. (Oooh, polearm momentum with footwork lure... qualify with elves! Or longtooth shifters! Oh, but Battlerager vigor is nice... Straladin or Chaladin?)

Gah.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-24, 08:00 PM
It's up to the GM. In an official WotC event, you pretty much have to allow the trick because you are not supposed to create house rules.

That's not actually true. Since the rules are ambiguous on this point, as a DM you are entirely within your rights to forbid it in any LFR or other WOTC event.

"The rules don't say that I can't" is not an argument since the rules don't say that you can, either.

For instance, one of the global LFR admins disallows intimidation to make a bloodied enemy surrender during his games. By his reasoning, the rules are ambiguous as to what the DC is during combat, so he sets it to 100. And, well, he is a global admin.

Asbestos
2009-03-24, 08:51 PM
That's not actually true. Since the rules are ambiguous on this point, as a DM you are entirely within your rights to forbid it in any LFR or other WOTC event.

"The rules don't say that I can't" is not an argument since the rules don't say that you can, either.

For instance, one of the global LFR admins disallows intimidation to make a bloodied enemy surrender during his games. By his reasoning, the rules are ambiguous as to what the DC is during combat, so he sets it to 100. And, well, he is a global admin.

Intimidate seems must less ambiguous than this teleporting business. It says you can do it as a standard action in combat. It also gives the DC increase if the creature is hostile or unfriendly. There is nothing in the description to suggest that the DC would be increased further than 'hostile' if the skill is used in combat. My suspicion is that the DM in your example is basically saying that intimidate checks can't be used to make bloodied enemies surrender because they believe it is a broken ability and not because of any supposed ambiguity.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-24, 09:32 PM
Dammit. Ever since I got the PHB II I've been getting character idea after character idea! But I can't implement them because I'm still playing my first character.

You could always join another game.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-24, 10:10 PM
Well, the forum where I'm part of a PbP game is leery of new roleplays diverting attention from the long-running ones, and the only people in my area who play D&D only play 4e once a month for Living Forgotten Realms.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-24, 10:16 PM
...What kind of weird forum is that? And by weird, I mean crappy and unreasonable. "Diverting attention"? Hah, that's rich. Nobody on real roleplaying forums, like Plothook or GitP's PbP subforum minds if his players play only in his game, or in 10 others. Why don't you join a game on one of those more reasonable places?

My advice? Stop surrounding yourself with buffoons. It's not healthy for you.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-03-24, 10:50 PM
I'm curious (and a serial thread lurker), Zousha, where is it you play this PbP game?

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-24, 11:20 PM
See the link in my sig? The Respite? That's where we have our 4e PbP game, The Vale of Thorns.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-24, 11:25 PM
...What kind of weird forum is that? And by weird, I mean crappy and unreasonable. "Diverting attention"? Hah, that's rich. Nobody on real roleplaying forums, like Plothook or GitP's PbP subforum minds if his players play only in his game, or in 10 others. Why don't you join a game on one of those more reasonable places?

My advice? Stop surrounding yourself with buffoons. It's not healthy for you.

The kind of forum we've had since after the time of The Great Banning on the Mature Boards of the WOTC forums. When mature roleplays were banned from that subforum, and we were forced to find a new home for our current Eberron roleplay, The Traveller's Respite. Our community has been together for years now, and to be honest, we've never had enough members to have the kind of variety other forums have had. To be honest, sometimes it feels like some backwoods town full of inbred hicks, but I know these people. Plus, we are branching out a bit now. There are plans for a Green Lantern roleplay, a Warhammer 40K roleplay, a sci-fi gold-rush roleplay, a classical pirate roleplay and a Spelljammer roleplay.

I suppose I misspoke when I said diverting attention. What I meant to say was, we don't want to start half-hearted roleplay threads that peter out after a few pages and clutter up the forum.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-03-24, 11:30 PM
Hm. I would consider joining a game on a more mainstream site like plothook or myth-weavers, if you want to try out another character. Games are about having fun, after all, so you should do what you think will be fun.

I'd recommend here, but frankly, it's hard to post here on a regular basis.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-24, 11:36 PM
None of the places I've been to seem to have 4e roleplays though, and that's what I want to play. And besides, I wouldn't know anyone there, which'd make me all uncomfortable.:smalleek:

Nerd-o-rama
2009-03-24, 11:41 PM
Well, the places I've been to do, although I will say 3.5 is far more popular on at least Plothook. And really, how hard is it to get to know new people on the internet?

This is significantly drifting off topic, and I apologize for coming into this thread when I don't even have a PHB2.

Inyssius Tor
2009-03-25, 12:10 AM
This is significantly drifting off topic, and I apologize for coming into this thread when I don't even have a PHB2.

It's a damn sight better than the falling-damage argument. Continue, by all means.

Second thought: do you think it would be overpowered if I made Shamans' Spirit keyword interchangeable with Rangers' Beast keyword? If so, do you think I could mitigate it with a feat?

toasty
2009-03-25, 12:22 AM
None of the places I've been to seem to have 4e roleplays though, and that's what I want to play. And besides, I wouldn't know anyone there, which'd make me all uncomfortable.:smalleek:

I posted an add on Myth-weavers for a 4E game and in 3 days got 16 different players request to join, when I only wanted 5 or 6 really...

Though there did not seem to be a whole lot of DnD 4E games, so maybe its a GM thing?

If you're uncomfortable playing with strangers... that's another issue. I'll be running this game with 5 people I've never gamed with before, but that doesn't bother me.

Asbestos
2009-03-25, 12:26 AM
Second thought: do you think it would be overpowered if I made Shamans' Spirit keyword interchangeable with Rangers' Beast keyword? If so, do you think I could mitigate it with a feat?

I don't think so since the Shaman attacks go off of Wisdom and the Ranger attacks use that as a secondary stat. It is a little bit odd though since one is a trained animal and the other is a ghostly apparition.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-25, 12:45 AM
I've taken the advice I've gotten here and elsewhere and going to Plothook. I do know a few people there.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-03-25, 01:17 AM
Huzzah! Just beware of DM PsychoJester. He's a nice guy, but he's abandoned more games than most people have started.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-25, 08:40 AM
mature roleplays

I'm curious, what do you mean by that phrase? Because if it's games like the one you describe here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106915) then no offense but I'd rather stay with my immature, happy-go-lucky games.

Artanis
2009-03-25, 09:07 AM
Second thought: do you think it would be overpowered if I made Shamans' Spirit keyword interchangeable with Rangers' Beast keyword? If so, do you think I could mitigate it with a feat?
I'm with Asbestos on this one: it should be fine.

This goes double for if you're playing a shooty Ranger. I'm playing a shooty Ranger in a campaign, and they get the short end of the stick in terms of options. Seriously, MP is downright insulting. (Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.

So I see nothing wrong with giving the Ranger a bit of leeway when it comes to multiclassing.

RTGoodman
2009-03-25, 11:57 AM
I'm curious, what do you mean by that phrase?

I could be wrong, but there used to be a pretty big subforum on the WotC boards called "Mature Topics." It started out, I guess, about BoVD and BoED, but somewhere along the way it became about sex, alignment, adult-oriented roleplaying, and other "mature" topics, before finally just becoming a repository for elf pr0n. Last time I checked it before WotC got rid of it, there were threads for Humanoid Women, Humanoid Men, and Monstrous Women, all full of exactly what you might expect.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-25, 12:35 PM
RTG speaks true. We just roleplayed, and happened to have sex in them.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-25, 09:05 PM
Roleplayed sex, or behind the curtains character sex? Because reasonable RPG forums have nothing against the latter, while the former... does not belong in RPG, if you ask me.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-25, 09:25 PM
Roleplayed sex, or behind the curtains character sex? Because reasonable RPG forums have nothing against the latter, while the former... does not belong in RPG, if you ask me.

That depended on the particular player. Usually it was just fade to black. When we made our own forum, we added an NSFW section for those of us who preffered acting out that sort of thing, especially one of our more prominent members, Skydin, who has what I think is an unhealthy appreciation of sex, since very few of her characters have NOT had a sexual aspect to them, or at least too many tentacles. Honestly though those sections have not gotten a lot of use in recent years, and fade to blacks are considered more appropriate. I myself have complained against some of the NSFW threads being too graphic.

We weren't banned because of the content of our roleplays. We were banned because they were roleplays. According to the rules of the forum, there were certain places you could roleplay, and the Mature Board wasn't one of those places. The people who complained didn't do so because they were offended. They did so because they felt that the Mature Board had been crumbling into anarchy with all the roleplaying that was going on there, instead of serious discussion of mature issues in roleplaying.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-25, 09:36 PM
I assume that "serious discussion of mature issues in roleplaying" means "fantasy-themed porn".

Colmarr
2009-03-25, 10:09 PM
I assume that "serious discussion of mature issues in roleplaying" means "fantasy-themed porn".

Actually, no.

Alongside the "fantasy-themed porn", there was (at one stage) a surprisingly large amount of "serious discussion of mature issues in roleplaying" (such as alignment and torture, alignment and sex, etc).

Of course, there was a LOT of elf pron too :smallbiggrin:

Dhavaer
2009-03-25, 10:54 PM
Of course, there was a LOT of elf pron too :smallbiggrin:

Didn't stop with elves, either. I know about rule 34 and all but... kobolds?

Colmarr
2009-03-25, 11:31 PM
I know about rule 34 and all

I don't. Do tell.

RTGoodman
2009-03-25, 11:33 PM
I don't. Do tell.

Rule 34 of the Internet - If it exists, there's porn of it.


EDIT: And yeah, the Mature Boards weren't all bad or anything. I mean, I never posted there (not that I post/posted on the WotC boards much anyway), but a lot of the actual discussion threads were rather interesting.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-25, 11:41 PM
Actually, no.

Alongside the "fantasy-themed porn", there was (at one stage) a surprisingly large amount of "serious discussion of mature issues in roleplaying" (such as alignment and torture, alignment and sex, etc).

Of course, there was a LOT of elf pron too :smallbiggrin:

Colmarr speaks the truth. The Mature Boards were meant for discussion of things like alignment in terms of things not meant for children, sex and torture often being at the crux of the debate. It's just that it drew just as many people who wished to explore the sexual potentials of D&D characters as well.

Furthermore, there was also a string of "roleplaying" threads shortly before the first roleplay (Pippa's Slavemarket) emerged where a poster would take on a role, such as a red dragon who'd been clapped on the head with a Helm of Opposite Alignment shortly after he hatched, and had been dedicated to the cause of good since, or an evil overlord or an archmage or somthing like that. The other posters would then ask questions of this other poster, who'd respond in-character. Some of these were mature questions with mature answers, such as how to handle interparty romance or how far an interrogation can go before it's considered torture. Others, however, asked silly questions or even worse, the OP wasn't seriousness. The proliferation of these "Ask A..." threads was likened to spam, and contributed to the complaints that eventually spurred the WizO's into action.

Colmarr
2009-03-25, 11:46 PM
Furthermore, there was also a string of "roleplaying" threads... where a poster would take on a role, such as a red dragon who'd been clapped on the head with a Helm of Opposite Alignment shortly after he hatched, and had been dedicated to the cause of good since, or an evil overlord or an archmage or somthing like that.

That actually sounds like an extremely good way of getting into the head of a PC. Post an "Ask Pieter Grimm" thread, and then answer in-universe questions from the PC's point of view. Or better yet, have people propose open situations to you and respond how the character would deal with them.

Interesting idea.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-25, 11:49 PM
Then, Pippa's Slavemarket came along. It started out relatively harmlessly. Pippa was a gnome slaver played by the poster of the same name, and the setting was a slave market in Cimbar. The idea was for a roleplay involving the buying and selling of slaves, which was why it was in the Mature Boards. I joined as a wizard character with my username (the same one I have here) and before long, Pippa asked for an assistant, and I volunteered. Roleplay started to get reeeeal interesting when characters started godmodding. But instead of snapping at the people who godmodded, we encouraged it, basically decreeing that everyone in the Slavemarket was an epic character. One of the characters, played by one Lady_Dragon, was a gold dragon, looking to buy a tutor for her son. Her character fell in love with mine. Pippa (the character) herself fell in love with one of her own slaves, a paladin. As things became more and more epic, it became less about the slaves and more about the epic stuff going on. It had villains, it had heroes, it had people falling in love. It was awesome. Despite the fact that everyone could technically annihilate all of Cimbar in an instant, we all had a good time. The sexual aspect actually didn't come into play too often, and it was always fade to black when it was. Eventually we had a massive final battle, and the characters went their seperate ways to heal, to find peace and quiet, to get married, etc. Everyone who'd played in it thought Pippa's Slavemarket was the best thing to come to the Mature Board, and we were all a bit sad when we ended it.

Pippa and Zaydus, two people who hated each other from the start, now preparing to have a kid.

Zousha Omenohu, my wizard, giving up his palace on the Elemental Plane of Chocolate to be with the dragon he loved, Lady Talya.

Skydin, the betentacled nymph and her favorite slave, the constantly fainting hermaphroditic halfling, Yaeri.

These characters and many more fought, bought, lived and loved in Pippa's Slavemarket. May its memory never fade. :smallsmile:

Nu
2009-03-26, 12:19 AM
So, about that PHB2...

I'm about to start playing in a party that consists almost entirely of classes from the PHB2, so it should be interesting to see how they all work out.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-26, 12:25 AM
That is interesting. I personally want to take the Invoker for a spin sometime. The Flame of Hope pp makes the Invoker look more like Gandalf than the Wizard does. I've always wanted to play a Deva like Gandalf. :smallbiggrin:

Dhavaer
2009-03-26, 12:26 AM
I'm looking forward to playing a sorcerer. She shall bleed butterflies.

Rockphed
2009-03-26, 12:32 AM
I'm looking forward to playing a sorcerer. She shall bleed butterflies.

Are there actually crunchy goodness to this sort of thing, or are you just running with the randomness of the Sorcerer?

Dhavaer
2009-03-26, 12:36 AM
Are there actually crunchy goodness to this sort of thing, or are you just running with the randomness of the Sorcerer?

Randomness. Pure, beautiful randomness.

TheOOB
2009-03-26, 12:45 AM
I'm really into trying an invoker. A few times I've played a religious wizard, kind of a divine blaster type, but the invoker really makes that mechanically possible now.

I really do like the idea of the "Ask a..." threads, doesn't have to be mature. We could have a few as a way of having an interesting in character view on things. I would do one of the ask a's if we started those.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-26, 12:47 AM
To be honest, some of them weren't all that mature. Ask an Archmage, for example. The question I asked there was about good spell-selection for a diviner, which I could've gotten on the Optimization board. Most of them were on the Mature Board because of Ask a Red Dragon, which did have some mature questions, and that was where they had the example to go off when it became popular.

Nu
2009-03-26, 01:02 AM
In the game I spoke of, I'll be playing a Wrathful Dwarf Invoker, which I plan to have fun with. But I would also like to try the Barbarian sometime, or maybe a Sorcerer.

We'll also have a Warden, a Sorcerer, and a Shaman (the one non PHB2 class is a Swordmage). So at the very least, I'll be getting to see a lot of the new stuff in action.

Artanis
2009-03-26, 08:24 AM
Geez, that sounds even worse than when I got banned from the Blizzard boards for participating in Operation CWALA.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-03-26, 10:38 AM
Operation CWALA?

Artanis
2009-03-26, 11:08 AM
Operation Can't Wait Any Longer Again.

Operation CWAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft#Development) was a pretty big thing before the original StarCraft came out. It was so big, in fact, that Blizzard named a cheat code after it and put it the "special thanks" part of the SC credits! Operation CWALA was a bunch of guys who decided to create a similar thing for WC3. I joined about halfway through its run.

We wound up getting banned from the b.net boards because the admins (namely G. Frazier, aka Nebu) demanded we take our activities to a fiction board...which didn't exist and which they adamantly refused to create. After WC3 came out, CWALA disbanded, but most of us wound up finding our way into Operation CWAL which, while not active on the Blizzard boards, is still around after all this time.