PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Player's Handbook 3 - Whadaya think?



Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-20, 10:11 PM
I had the opportunity today to look at the Players Handbook 3. Not in-depth, since I didn't buy it or anything, but enough to formulate some opinions on it.

Psionics:

I had a thread a month or two ago pondering Psionics and their place in D&D, and in that thread my basic belief was that psionics was more sci-fi than fantasy. Keeping what was told to me in that thread in mind, I decided to give psionics the benefit of the doubt and was pleasantly surprised. If there's one thing 4 does right it's give an in-universe justification for why something new is there. I'm starting to think now that the main reason psionics seemed so jarring to me back in 3.5 was because the Psionics Handbook was mostly crunch and didn't have enough fluff explaining psionics and its place in the scheme of things. PHB 3 gets that out of the way right at the beginning and in a very intriguing way.

I think the mechanic they use with Psychic Augmentation and Power Points is very interesting. The Monk looks okay, but as I expected it felt a little shoe-horned in. Not so much because of the fluff, but because it doesn't mesh well with the other psionic classes, since it's the only one that doesn't have Psychic Augmentation, using the traditional model of encounter powers instead. Despite these little hiccups, Psionics looks pretty cool. I don't know how the classes hold up mechanically, since numbers aren't my specialty.

What do you folks think? Are the new classes good? Bad? Ugly? Ungodly weak or ungodly powerful?

Runepriests and Seekers:

My opinion on these is kind of waffling. While the new psionic classes impressed me, these really didn't stand out so much. The PHB 3 really seems like a psionic-centric book, and they probably could have just dropped these two other classes and done some editing to make it a 4e Psionic Handbook or something.

Both classes seem a bit redundant to their respective power sources. I know that that may not be true considering different mechanics but it feels hard for me to look at them as something besides a reskinned cleric and druid.

I get the feeling the Seeker is supposed to be a replacement for the magic powers of 3.5's Ranger. While the actual Ranger class dropped the magic and became just being a badass rather than being in tune with nature, this is for people who miss being able to play a ranger who can call upon nature itself to help them. As I've never really played a ranger, in both 3.5 and 4e, I don't really see the appeal.

The Runepriest was very different than what I expected. I thought that the idea was basically a divine version of an Artificer, someone who makes weapons and armor imbued with holy power. Instead, the runepriest magically conjures symbols that do stuff, like everything they do is based off 3.5's Symbol spells. I'm not certain what to think of it, being a big fan of the divine power source in general. As I said, it feels kind of redundant, since the Cleric already provides for the leader role. Also, this class kind of feels tailor made for dwarves, since it caters to their ability scores better than the cleric did, depending on both their key abilities (Constitution and Wisdom) as opposed to one (Wisdom). And they rely on the weapons that are traditionally associated with dwarves, as well as the fact that runes seem to be typically associated with dwarves, at least since The Hobbit. As much as they try to cater to non-dwarves as well, this really feels like a dwarf-only thing.

Am I missing something here? What justifies these classes' place in the book?

The "New" Races:

I was really dissapointed by this part. Most of what they did was copy from stuff they already had.

If what I remember is correct, then most of the stuff for the Minotaurs was taken word-for-word from the Dragon article from a year or two ago. In my opinion, that's cheating. Sure, it's now a possibility for players who don't have a DDI subscription, but honestly isn't it cheaper to just buy a short subscription and print the minotaur articles out instead of buying an entire book that just rehashes what's in the articles?

Githzerai, I'm a bit more lenient to, since they haven't had articles with their stats like the minotaurs have, but I still don't think they really needed to be a PC race. The whole conflict between githyanki and githzerai seems a lot better to appreciate when you're an outside observer of the conflict. Neither race is completely good, so you can't make a black and white judgment, since neither side is completely right or wrong. By making the githzerai a PC race, they remove that level of moral complexity from the game by essentially siding with the githzerai. Unless the githyanki become a PC race themselves somewhere down the line, which I doubt, despite the events of Scales of War, this has simplified the conflict to a "Githyanki=Bad, Githzerai=Good" outlook. And in addition, I really feel like I can't see the githzerai as any other class besides a monk. Maybe it's because the githzerai are written to always be contemplative by nature, but when you start throwing words like enlightenment, concentration and meditation around, I start thinking "Monk." Even though I know that there are non-monk githzerai out there, Dak'kon of Planescape: Torment being a multiclass fighter/wizard and Zhaeve of Neverwinter Nights 2 being a cleric, whenever I look at the githzerai, I feel like it's basically an entire race of monks.

The Wilden are, if my hypothesis is correct, a renamed version of the Killoren from 3.5's Races of the Wild. And like their predecessors, I have little interest in basically playing a race of eco-terrorists. I know the planet's in danger from pollution and stuff, but I've honestly never felt compelled to do much besides recycle and stuff, so I don't know if I could get into the right mindset to play a wilden. And like how I have the tendency to typecast the githzerai as monks, this race feels like it's only for playing primal classes, especially druids and wardens, who seem to radiate the "Mother Nature's Revenge" feeling the most, at least from my perspective.

As for the Shardminds...hoo boy. I understand how they can fit in, what with the story about the origin of psionics and the like, but I just really don't like them. It feels like they were trying too hard to be innovative. The shardminds really feel alien. They suffer the same typecasting problem (I should probably make a thread about racial typecasting in D&D in general), in that I feel like they'd only really make sense playing psionics, and probably only as the three classes that use Power Points, since the monk feels like the odd-one-out in that source and it's more of a githzerai thing.

And finally, am I the only one who finds all the "new" races in the book ugly? I know the shardminds are supposed to basically be genderless constructs, the wilden are supposed to be plant people, but I just can't find anything to appreciate aesthetically about even the minotaurs or githzerai.

Also, I'm noticing what looks like the start of a trend with 4e races. They make one stat bonus universal but let you pick between two other stats for the second bonus. I'm not sure where I stand on that either. Are they going to update the other races to make up for this? It seems to kind of steal the thunder from humans, for whom choosing stat bonuses is a big part of their schtick.

Those are my thoughts on the PHB 3. I know they're probably not 100% accurate and may even be insensitive (as much as one can be insensitive to fictional characters) but the book really feels hit and miss for me. What do you people think? Is there something I've overlooked? How do they hold up mechanically? Am I completely out of my gourd? I thank you for your patience and look forward to your candor. :smallsmile:

Kaiser Omnik
2010-03-20, 10:44 PM
I'm not sure it needed a different class, but I much prefer the Runepriest to the Str Cleric for the role of the melee divine leader; the rune state mechanic alone is interesting, as are the class-specific rune feats (a shame they are so weak). I'm playing a warden/runepriest hybrid right now, and I find the runepriest prayers very effective. But hey, I've always loved the concept of rune powered magic, so I may be biased.

As for races:

I don't see Wilden as eco-terrorists. Savage protectors of nature, maybe, but there's a difference; they don't want to obliterate civilization, but defend against the Far Realm invasion.

I felt the same when I first learned of the Shardmind. I don't think I would ever play one as a PC... Yet, I played a Warforged before. I still think the Shardminds have crossed a fine line; they are just too strange and tied to a specific backstory.

However, and this is important, I think it has its place in my fantasy world. I've already introduced a Shardmind NPC in my game and it fits perfectly in my psionic-themed scenario. In fact I'm quite pleased with the fluff relating to psionics and the Far Realm in this edition.

Sir_Elderberry
2010-03-20, 10:51 PM
I played a round of LFR with a Battlemind the other day and had a blast.

"Ok, so, you're starting your turn in both of these auras, so you take 1d6 from each..."
"Hrm? No, resilience is still up. But roll them anyway, I want to see what I missed."

Blackdrop
2010-03-20, 11:04 PM
Races:
I'm kind of indifferent towards the Githzerai and Wilden. I'm very pleased with the Shardmind and Minotaur.

Classes:

Ardent- My new favorite Leader. Very flavorful and well done.

Battle-never-mind- Blech. Just, Blech. :smallyuk:

Monk- And my new favorite Striker.

Psion- I'm very confused as to how people say that once they nerf Dishearten and Mindthrust, that the Psion will have nothing going for it or that the Wisdom build is woefully unsupported. While it's now placing third on my "Favorite Controller List" (it'll take hell and high water to usurp control of the #1 spot from the Wizard, or even the #2 spot from the Druid) its slowing growing on me.

Runepriest- Very cool class. Haven't studied it as much as the Psionic classes, but I'm hopeful.

Seeker- It's funny. The class I was most excited about, is the one I'm the most indifferent towards (with the exception The-Class-That-Does-Not-Exist). I've gotten wrapped up in the rush of the Psionic classes, so it might be a while before I get back around to.

rokar4life
2010-03-20, 11:10 PM
Battle-never-mind- Blech. Just, Blech. :smallyuk:


I see what you did there.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 08:10 AM
Battle-never-mind- Blech. Just, Blech. :smallyuk:
Could you please elaborate? :smallconfused:

Yakk
2010-03-21, 09:11 AM
The seeker fills a few design holes.

It is a pure-ranged primal controller.

It is another controller, which 4e is short of.

It is another bow user, which 4e is short of (with MP2, we now have Warlords, Rangers, Seekers, and sometimes Artificers and Bards (many are better suited to crossbows, but...)

This, all by itself, gives a Greatbow ranger something to hybrid/multiclass with.

rayne_dragon
2010-03-21, 09:32 AM
I've also always felt that psionics were more sci-fi than fantasy, but they've also always been a weird part of D&D - it's nice to have an interesting origin for them now.

I think the races are okay. I've less objection to wilden than I do for warforged. As for the shardminds, I think they're kind of neat, with the minor issue of why WotC seem to think all sentient creatures are mammals. It was bad enough with Dragonborn, but living crystals?

I haven't looked at the classes too much, but I've got to say I'm liking the new feats. Unarmoured agility and superior implements should be nice for my wizard.

Kylarra
2010-03-21, 09:41 AM
The seeker fills a few design holes.

It is a pure-ranged primal controller.

It is another controller, which 4e is short of.

It is another bow user, which 4e is short of (with MP2, we now have Warlords, Rangers, Seekers, and sometimes Artificers and Bards (many are better suited to crossbows, but...)

This, all by itself, gives a Greatbow ranger something to hybrid/multiclass with.We also have rogues (if you're an elf, but still).

oxybe
2010-03-21, 09:46 AM
I've also always felt that psionics were more sci-fi than fantasy, but they've also always been a weird part of D&D - it's nice to have an interesting origin for them now.

I think the races are okay. I've less objection to wilden than I do for warforged. As for the shardminds, I think they're kind of neat, with the minor issue of why WotC seem to think all sentient creatures are mammals. It was bad enough with Dragonborn, but living crystals?

I haven't looked at the classes too much, but I've got to say I'm liking the new feats. Unarmoured agility and superior implements should be nice for my wizard.

from what i understand the shardminds are genderless, they just take on the generic humanoid male/female form to try to fit in better with society. warforged are genderless but it's very possible to meet one with a "female" identity and that might want to see to have it's body modified to represent this.

DSCrankshaw
2010-03-21, 10:21 AM
I like the battlemind conceptually, but there's some mechanical problems. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the WotC board, but a quick run-down:

1. Their blurred step ability is an opportunity action. This means, one, that it takes place before their target takes their action, so they can't move into the spot he just vacated. So if he moves diagonally, the battlemind can't move to a spot where he's in range of him. And second, it eats up their OA, so that if the opponent then charges, they can't do anything to stop him. This is a significant flaw.

2. Their punishment requires them to be adjacent to their enemy. This can be difficult, considering 1.

3. He has no Constitution-based OA unless he spends power points or a daily power. This isn't as big a deal as some people make it, but it does mean he'll have to pay the melee-training feat tax.

There are others, but those are the main ones.

As for the Runepriest, it's not really as good for dwarves as you seem to think. Dwarves don't get a bonus to the primary stat, and the two builds are separate enough that it doesn't do them a lot of good to have bonuses both to Wis and Con. Dwarves make better clerics than Runepriests. Even Strength clerics get a lot out of Wis, and Con's a good stat for both builds.

Sir_Elderberry
2010-03-21, 10:25 AM
Ah, see, we were playing Blurred Step wrong. I was taking the step after they took their shift.

DSCrankshaw
2010-03-21, 10:26 AM
Ah, see, we were playing Blurred Step wrong. I was taking the step after they took their shift.

That's really the only way for it to be playable, and most any good DM will allow it. But that's not how it's written. See if you can get him to let you use it as a free action too. Of course, if he hasn't come up with the shift-and-charge strategy yet, you may be okay. If he has, the only viable tactic is to act as a bodyguard. Stay close to the person you're defending, when an enemy targets him, mark that enemy and flank him with the person you're guarding. This limits his shifting so you can keep up and make sure you get your mind spike damage. Move each turn so you can continue to flank him.

By level 7, you get lightning rush, so you'll have a viable tactic for punishing anyone who runs off, level 13 gives you brutal barrage, and level 17 offers a bunch of at wills that overcome shifts (Dazzling Assault, Entangling Weapon, Step of the Pursuer). Might of the Ogre is your go-to for level 23, and Mind of Mirrors is pretty effective at level 27. So the battlemind becomes more effective at higher levels.

Sir_Elderberry
2010-03-21, 10:28 AM
Well, that dampens my enthusiasm somewhat. I mostly play Living Forgotten Realms, so often I'm not playing with friends and there's a decent chance I'll run into someone who insists on the RAW version. Hopefully nobody notices.

MoriHikari
2010-03-21, 11:57 AM
I think the Shardminds are an intresting concept...won't really have an opinion until I play one in a game. I've also come to love the Psionics, cant wait to play one of the new classes.

Optimystik
2010-03-21, 12:27 PM
I love, love, love the Shardmind. I have a feeling they'll be replacing Psiforged in 4e Eberron completely, and I am not upset at all. Amazing flavor, great mechanics, badass appearance. And we needed more living constructs anyway.

Tough_Tonka
2010-03-21, 12:34 PM
I was a bit disappointed with the psionic classes only having three at-wills at first. Then my roommate suggested I just play a human so I could have four. Now it seems that humans are just the best race to play for any psionic class beside the monk.

I'm not sure what to think about that. :confused:

Kurald Galain
2010-03-21, 12:43 PM
Hm, imho...

If there's one thing that 4 does wrong, it's it's giving an in-universe justification for why something new is there. Honestly now. Any number of weird races are there for no reason. All the existing worlds work differently for no reason, too. Forgotten Realms races in Eberron, Eberron races in Dark Sun, et cetera, all "just because".

Psionics was always indistinguishable from magic by fluff, it just used a different mechanic because people like it to. And that's still the case.

That said, the psion class looks rather nice, as does the ardent. The seeker looks like a good alternative to the (effective but boring) archer ranger.

On the other hand, the monk and the runepriest are gimmicky; they appear to be classes that have a weird extra mechanic for no reason, and have no reason to exist other than to showcase that new mechanic. The battlemind looks haphazardly thrown together, there seems to be no rhyme or reason to the class.

Minotaurs are a nice race, even if we've already known them from Dragon mag. Githzerai are okay, they belong there by D&D standards. Shardmind are just silly. And wilden are extremely redundant, because we already have several other races that are "wilderness humans" with a slightly different look (e.g. shifters, and goliaths, and even elves).

Overall, the book scores a firm "meh" on my scale. It doesn't really add to the game experience.

Blackdrop
2010-03-21, 12:43 PM
@Tough Tonka-Except, that you can't augment your Bonus At-will. Page 216 under the rules for augmentation says, I'm paraphrasing, that At-wills granted by racial features or powers can't be augmented.

Gralamin
2010-03-21, 12:44 PM
I was a bit disappointed with the psionic classes only having three at-wills at first. Then my roommate suggested I just play a human so I could have four. Now it seems that humans are just the best race to play for any psionic class beside the monk.

I'm not sure what to think about that. :confused:

Hardly. Humans do not get the augmentations (See page 216), make it only mildly useful.

Siegel
2010-03-21, 01:16 PM
I was a bit disappointed with the psionic classes only having three at-wills at first. Then my roommate suggested I just play a human so I could have four. Now it seems that humans are just the best race to play for any psionic class beside the monk.

I'm not sure what to think about that. :confused:

As a human you don't swap out your Level 1 Bonus At-Will (and i think you can't augment it, not quite sure...)

Evard
2010-03-21, 01:49 PM
I'm waiting for next month to get the updated character generator and so far I'm wanting to look at RunePriest the most :D

Any more information on them?

AramilNailo
2010-03-21, 05:04 PM
I found the psionic classes a bit confusing for a bit. They take more effort to keep track of then other classes, but they're pretty cool, especially from a roleplaying point of view.

Oh, and does anyone else think the Godmind is a carbon copy Ori prior? Dresses in blue, pale face with strange symbols, carries a gnarly staff with a glowing gem, crazy awesome mental powers, working towards ascension? Hmmm...

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 05:04 PM
I just bought the book today. Still not quite sue how I feel about it though. I've taken to calling the Shardminds "Geodudes" for some reason.

Gralamin
2010-03-21, 05:22 PM
I'm waiting for next month to get the updated character generator and so far I'm wanting to look at RunePriest the most :D

Any more information on them?

Sure.

Runepriests are Melee Leaders with Defender/Controller secondaries. They use Strength, Constitution, and Wisdom.

They gain a Rune of Mending Power (Their X word), a choice between two abilities (Defiant word, which gives bonus non-stacking damage when an enemy misses you; And Wrathful hammer which gives you extra proficiency and gives you extra non-stacking damage when an enemy hits you). In addition, they gain two "Runestates", which they can essentially switch between whenever they use an at-will or encounter power (Specifically, any power with one of the two listed). Rune of Destruction gives allies bonus to attacks against enemies adjacent to you. Rune of Protection gives adjacent allies damage resistance.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-21, 05:45 PM
Oh, and does anyone else think the Godmind is a carbon copy Ori prior? Dresses in blue, pale face with strange symbols, carries a gnarly staff with a glowing gem, crazy awesome mental powers, working towards ascension? Hmmm...

Well darn. You've just gone and made me have to take a look at PHB3. Off to Barnes & Noble!

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 05:46 PM
Oh, and does anyone else think the Godmind is a carbon copy Ori prior? Dresses in blue, pale face with strange symbols, carries a gnarly staff with a glowing gem, crazy awesome mental powers, working towards ascension? Hmmm...
Uh...what's an Ori prior? :smallconfused:

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-21, 06:11 PM
Uh...what's an Ori prior? :smallconfused:

Take a look (http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Prior).

Optimystik
2010-03-21, 06:26 PM
My favorite part of the Godmind is that you live forever as a meme :smalltongue:

Evard
2010-03-21, 06:46 PM
Ooo sounds nice although I'm sure like some of the other things (monk) it will be a let down :(

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 06:48 PM
Now that I'm reading the book, I think the Runepriest is quickly becoming my new favorite class...though I don't think it's displaced the paladin in my mind, at least not yet.

Evard
2010-03-21, 07:25 PM
I like the symbol/glyph spells from 3.5 so i hope they turn over pretty well

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 07:27 PM
Given that the pinnacle of Runepriest powers are pretty darn impressive (Seriously one of them, if it connects, removes the enemies resistances and immunities for the entire encounter. And it's not even the level 29 daily!) I'd say they turn over more than well! :smallcool:

Evard
2010-03-21, 07:29 PM
O_O what level is that? .... It will probably be hit by errata though...

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 07:32 PM
Level 25 Daily Prayer: Sylarian Sign

Crap, now that I look at it again I find out it's a close blast 5 affecting each enemy in the blast! :smalleek:

Evard
2010-03-21, 07:34 PM
For a level 25 power that's not to bad, a little crazy like the Word of Peace (is that it?) that the cleric gets that makes each enemy in the blast/burst do no damage till they save on the effect

Asbestos
2010-03-21, 07:41 PM
I played the Minotaur Runepriest on Game Day and, while I've played a Warlord before, I don't think I've ever had to keep track of so many conditional bonuses before.

Anyone else find this to be a bookkeeping heavy class?

Oh, and for the record, pretty fun to play.

Evard
2010-03-21, 07:42 PM
If I can keep track of a 3.5/4e wizard then runepriest shouldn't be that hard but even if it is I like a challenge :D

DabblerWizard
2010-03-21, 08:03 PM
Bah! Must obtain PHB 3 (and every other 4e book I don't have access to).

I love psions!

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 08:04 PM
For a level 25 power that's not to bad, a little crazy like the Word of Peace (is that it?) that the cleric gets that makes each enemy in the blast/burst do no damage till they save on the effect

The level 29 power, Rune of Awakening, is even more unbelievable. It does the least damage of the three 29th level powers, only 3[W] + Strength modifier. But it also restores three of your allies back to full health! :smalleek:

DSCrankshaw
2010-03-21, 08:11 PM
As I pointed out earlier, Runepriests are better from Str/Wis and Str/Con builds than for Con/Wis. The problem is that I don't care for the flavor of any of those races: shifter, minotaur, and goliath all feel more primal than divine, and warforged always seemed more martial to me. I'm not a big fan of any of those races. So if I do make a runepriest, it'll probably end up being either human or dwarf, who tend to be my favored races anyway unless another one really stands out for the concept.

Evard
2010-03-21, 08:13 PM
My friend told me about how a player in his campy decided to storm out of the room when his lvl 30 sorcerer went to 0 hp... A lvl 30 cleric happened to be 10 feet away from him and was next in initiative -_-;;; (who had not used any of his dailies yet lol)

The peaceful cleric is one of my favorite builds in the game, yes damaging your enemy is fun but screwing the enemy over royally is funner :D I hope this rune priest can be fun like that also :D

Tengu_temp
2010-03-21, 08:16 PM
My favorite part are the psionic classes - the augmentation system is really fun, and I've always been a fan of psionics. Glad to see a non-sucky monk, too. Runepriests are okay. I couldn't care less about Seekers, they seem extremely redundant and there's nothing about this class that could grab my interest.

From races, I like the Githzerai, and Minotaurs are okay. The Wilden and Shardminds are too exotic and too specific in an environment without an established setting for me to like them - but then, I was never a fan of playing weird races just for weirdness value.

Evard
2010-03-21, 08:18 PM
I've never been one to use settings and always liked the different races, but every time i see a minotaur i think FF 8 XD, I don't think I'll ever play one though.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-21, 08:51 PM
I'm personally thinking about making a human with Runepriest, maybe throwing in some Paladin for good measure. But how to do it? Just vanilla Runepriest with Paladin-like roleplaying characteristics? Runepriest multiclassing into Paladin? Hybrid Runepriest|Paladin? All I know for sure is I wanna use the Light Bringer paragon path and Exalted Angel epic destiny. :smallconfused:

DSCrankshaw
2010-03-22, 01:23 AM
I'm personally thinking about making a human with Runepriest, maybe throwing in some Paladin for good measure. But how to do it? Just vanilla Runepriest with Paladin-like roleplaying characteristics? Runepriest multiclassing into Paladin? Hybrid Runepriest|Paladin? All I know for sure is I wanna use the Light Bringer paragon path and Exalted Angel epic destiny. :smallconfused:

There's no reason a multiclass or hybrid Str-Wis Paladin and Runepriest couldn't work. Just make sure you read the hybrid description carefully.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-22, 07:16 AM
There's no reason a multiclass or hybrid Str-Wis Paladin and Runepriest couldn't work. Just make sure you read the hybrid description carefully.

I thought that went without saying. :smallconfused:

Optimystik
2010-03-22, 07:48 AM
Glad to see a non-sucky monk, too.

This needs to be repeated

Kurald Galain
2010-03-22, 08:37 AM
This needs to be repeated

Is he proficient with unarmed attacks now?

Blackfang108
2010-03-22, 08:41 AM
Is he proficient with unarmed attacks now?

Technically, no. He's prificient with his OWN unarmed attacks, but they're not the unarmed attacks in the PHB 1.

And he still need to spend a feat to be proficient in anyone else's unarmed attacks. :smallbiggrin:

Hzurr
2010-03-22, 10:52 AM
Technically, no. He's prificient with his OWN unarmed attacks, but they're not the unarmed attacks in the PHB 1.

And he still need to spend a feat to be proficient in anyone else's unarmed attacks. :smallbiggrin:

Drat. So this means that if I want to do the ol' grab some one's hand and make them slap their own face while yelling "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!" trick, I need to burn a feat.

Lame.

Blackfang108
2010-03-22, 11:44 AM
Drat. So this means that if I want to do the ol' grab some one's hand and make them slap their own face while yelling "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!" trick, I need to burn a feat.

Lame.

Yup. Unarmed proficency(other people's limbs).

Thankfully, this allows you to be proficient at throwing people.

...

...

And parts of people. :smallbiggrin:

RebelRogue
2010-03-22, 06:07 PM
Today our group (just levelled to 4 after the session) playtested a Monk character for the first time; the only PHB3 char so far. I must say that his level 1 Daily Power - Leopard Manoeuver or something like that - seemed vastly overpowered: shift your move, make an attack against all enemies your adjacent to during the move and deal 3d8+Dex to each (or was it Wis?) That just seems way out of hand compared to some other Daily 1 powers or is it just me?

Asbestos
2010-03-22, 06:42 PM
Is he proficient with unarmed attacks now?
I'm pretty sure its been proficient in 'Monk Unarmed Attack' since they debuted in Dragon. Its like wanting a dude who is 'Proficient in Karate' to also be 'Proficient in Slap Fights'. I don't really see a point to stating the second one.

CarpeGuitarrem
2010-03-22, 06:48 PM
Now that I'm reading the book, I think the Runepriest is quickly becoming my new favorite class...though I don't think it's displaced the paladin in my mind, at least not yet.
Hear, hear! Love it. My favorite class in the PHB3, followed by the Ardent. The Runepriest is just cool, though. In concept and in play.

Asbestos
2010-03-22, 06:49 PM
Today our group (just levelled to 4 after the session) playtested a Monk character for the first time; the only PHB3 char so far. I must say that his level 1 Daily Power - Leopard Manoeuver or something like that - seemed vastly overpowered: shift your move, make an attack against all enemies your adjacent to during the move and deal 3d8+Dex to each (or was it Wis?) That just seems way out of hand compared to some other Daily 1 powers or is it just me?

Compare it to Swarm of Bats (Level 1 Seeker Daily, controller role) or Rune of Undeniable Dawn (Level 1 Runepreist Daily, leader role). They both do damage to a wide area AND have a rider effect whereas the Monk's power (Striker role) does more damage... but that's all it does.

It seems inline for a striker to me, you also need to consider that the condition for it to work maximally (being surrounded by a veritable corridor of enemies) is likely to be pretty rare whereas say, the Runepriest is likely to have quite a few enemies within a Close Burst 3 and the Seeker can probably find a good number of guys with a Ranged 10 Area Burst 2 attack.


Btw, I can not wrap my brain around how Flames of Purity or Rune of the Undeniable Dawn or Rune of the First Fortress target AC (these are all Runepriest powers btw).

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-22, 06:52 PM
I'm trying to explain something with 4e to a friend and I'm not sure how to respond:






Riddle me this. In 4e, when someone says "Oh, this paragon/epic thing makes you the best ever at blah blah blah", and I go read the rules about it, the bonuses it gives are minimal. Why is that?

Could you give me an example?

All of them. Oh, an ability score increases by 2? That increases the effect of everything it influences by 1! It's not that impressive! You can re-roll some piddly little thing nobody cares about? Combat advantage? Marking a target? Making the bad guys move around their little squares? SO ****ING WHAT!? YOU'RE SLIGHTLY BETTER AT POINTLESS CRAP! CONGRADULATIONS!

Yeah, but all those things add up. Ability score increases are viewed as a good thing because you only get a few of those as you progress. Despite the increase only being by one, if that changes the 30 you have to a 32, that can be the difference between landing a hit and missing. What kind of bonuses are you expecting?

Something impressive. 4e gives PCs massive ammounts of hit points, "defenses" that don't work, and absolutely pathetic damage output. Not to mention a dozen little mechanics that everyone seems to think matter soooo much, but I don't see the point of. I'm trying really hard not to hate it, but it's not easy.

Asbestos
2010-03-22, 06:58 PM
Hey, don't you go turning this into some edition war.

What does your friend mean by "defenses that don't work"?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-22, 07:04 PM
I'm trying to explain something with 4e to a friend and I'm not sure how to respond:

The monster hit points : PC damage ratio has been decreasing since 2e, so the high hit points/low damage point isn't a complaint unique to 4e; he might as well complain that 3e monsters get Con to HP.

Regarding the bonuses, he doesn't seem to realize that the numerical "space" of the mechanics has contracted; in 3e it's expected that a primary warrior type will have around double his level in attack bonus and a fairly high AC, making bonuses around +5 the minimum noticeable ones, whereas in 4e everything is balanced around the 1/2 level paradigm, so +1 to +3 is just as important to a character in 4e as +5 to +10 would be in 3e.

I do agree with Asbestos that this could be a touchy point to bring up in this thread, though; you might want to move this to an existing "defend 4e" thread if there's one around or make a new one for the purpose.

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-22, 07:06 PM
Best way to respond: Drop the issue. Move on. From the looks of it, he's not looking to be convinced, he's just looking to argue.

Asbestos
2010-03-22, 07:22 PM
Back to the PHB3... does anyone care for the Shardmind? I mean, Wilden had a place in my old campaign world (I loved their manifestation thing back in 3.x and I love it still) and they can be easily dropped into my current one so I don't mind them but Shardminds.... Telepathic Rockmen from Outer Space is all they seem like to me. Mechanically they seem a lot like living construct Eladrin so perhaps, with some serious refluffing (ie, completely tossing their fluff) I could turn them into the ancient Eladrin version of the Warforged since if anyone could make teleporting, telepathic, made from many small fragments of living crystal entities it would be elves. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter)

Is the 'Living Crystal' thing how they get away with saying that they can get poisoned and sick?

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-22, 07:23 PM
Best way to respond: Drop the issue. Move on. From the looks of it, he's not looking to be convinced, he's just looking to argue.

But he's playing 4e in a game I'm DMing. :smallconfused:

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-22, 07:25 PM
Back to the PHB3... does anyone care for the Shardmind? I mean, Wilden had a place in my old campaign world (I loved their manifestation thing back in 3.x and I love it still) and they can be easily dropped into my current one so I don't mind them but Shardminds.... Telepathic Rockmen from Outer Space is all they seem like to me. Mechanically they seem a lot like living construct Eladrin so perhaps, with some serious refluffing (ie, completely tossing their fluff) I could turn them into the ancient Eladrin version of the Warforged since if anyone could make teleporting, telepathic, made from many small fragments of living crystal entities it would be elves. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter)

Is the 'Living Crystal' thing how they get away with saying that they can get poisoned and sick?

I'd assume so. That's another bone my friend had to pick with 4e, since he liked playing warforged.

I agree that the Shardmind is obviously the most alien of the new races. I can understand trying to be innovative but there is such a thing as being TOO innovative.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-22, 07:57 PM
Hey, don't you go turning this into some edition war.

What does your friend mean by "defenses that don't work"?

He means that making saving throws static numbers doesn't work.

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-22, 08:38 PM
But he's playing 4e in a game I'm DMing. :smallconfused:

Being in a 4e game and arguing for the sake of arguing aren't mutually exclusive. I do it all the time.


Back to the PHB3... does anyone care for the Shardmind?
I like the Shardmind very much, from a flavor and mechanical perspective.

Is the 'Living Crystal' thing how they get away with saying that they can get poisoned and sick?

As they are a psionic race and comprised of crystal with no actual circulatory system formed from the psionic crystalline shards of a gate that live amongst humanity and take humanoid forms to relate to the creatures they live with, it's not implausible for them to be affected by the concept of being poisoned/diseased/sickened as opposed to the physical effects, they truly believe they are afflicted and thus their nature causes them to be afflicted with it as if they were.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-22, 09:44 PM
But he's playing 4e in a game I'm DMing. :smallconfused:

That just means it's a genuine problem. Doesn't change the fact that he doesn't want to be convinced otherwise.

Basically, as someone above said, the range of the numbers involved at any one point has changed, not their importance.

That and the concept of building things up to the point of auto-hitting/missing/etc has been largely done away with.

If he's so blaze about those little 1's and 2's, then perhaps the Team's Leader-type should stop worrying about providing them. Spend his buffs on someone who will apreciate it.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-22, 09:55 PM
Well, he hasn't responded to these arguments, so I assume I won...:smallconfused:

RebelRogue
2010-03-22, 10:59 PM
He means that making saving throws static numbers doesn't work.
Then he should check up on his math: it's 100% equivalent to making saving throws in 3.5, except that the attacker makes the roll and that the DCs are more carefully thought out.

Edit: Oh, he's talking about actual saves... DOH! :smallredface:

Yakk
2010-03-22, 11:08 PM
Getting +1 to a d20 roll, when you have an expected 50% success rate, makes you 10% better at beating the roll (ie, if before you did 100 DPR, afterwards you'll be doing 110 Damage Per Round). Getting +1 to a defence makes you 10% tougher by the same logic.

The +2 to two stats that demigod grants? That s +1 to two to three defences, +1 to damage per hit, and +1 to hit. It isn't a ridiculously good ability, but it isn't a horrible one either.

The main difference between 4e and 3e is that in 4e you don't expect to be vetoed. In 3e, it was expected that opponents that are hard to hit would either have nigh-infinite AC: and most opponents will have AC so low that you'll be auto-hitting anyhow. So to-hit boosts didn't matter that much: a +1 to hit wouldn't change your usual auto-hit to anything except an auto-hit, and it wouldn't help you reach the nigh-infinite AC target that well, nor would it let you bypass miss chance.

In 4e, meanwhile, a nearly impossible to hit target would have an AC a mere 10 points above what a non-tweaked player could hit on an 11+. Pick up +3 from a feat, +1 from a paragon feature, +1 from an epic destiny, +2 from auto-combat-advantage, and you go from hitting (and not getting a crit) on a 20 only, to hitting on a 14+ and critting on a 19-20.

That is a 6-10 fold increase in your ability to damage the target.

Next, note that 4e characters are getting benefits from a myriad of places.

Their gear is getting better, with better properties and enhancement bonuses. Their powers are getting upgraded -- a level 27 encounter power is gross compared to a level 1 encounter power, and level 29 dailies should just win a fight for you (against a god). They accumulate feats -- 18 by level 30 -- each of which stacks on yet another static bonus (if you have 18 feats, each of which makes you 10% stronger, how important are the 18 feats?) or situational advantage. And you have your class features, your racial features, your paragon path features and your epic destiny features.

The end result is that 4e characters grow in power by a good 20% - 30% per level. A level 30 character is at least 200x, and maybe as much as 2700x, as strong as a level 1 character.

Another thing to keep track of in 4e is the fact that your powers are what you can do against roughly even opposition. Powers that, for example, "kill every opponent 10 or more levels under you" are not worth mentioning -- opponents that weak are modeled by minions or swarms in 4e, and you have a built-in ability to take them out in swaths.

Remember that comment about "you aren't expected to be vetoed in 4e?" The same is true of your opposition. Beings on the same power level as your PC are not supposed to be trivial to veto: if they where trivial to veto, they wouldn't be on the same power level as your PC, and instead they'd be gimps. Gimps are modeled by minions and swarms, not by monsters roughly equal in level to PCs.

So your powers mark, daze, stun, prone, slide, push and pull opponents.

At level 30, the creatures you are knocking around are gods or other beings of similar power. That god doesn't have the Divine "I win" button that was presumed in 3e: instead, when you stun a god, you just took the personification of the concept of war, and made them lose an entire turn.

And when you hit that god for a 100+ damage, you aren't just damaging some fake incarnation: you are actually hitting the god of war for enough damage that his blood is spilling on the ground. If he doesn't manage to discoporate (most gods do require at least one artifact to prevent them from running away like a little girl when the fight goes against them), when you beat them down to 0 HP, they die. By default, no cheese -- you just killed the god of war (or whatever god). He's dead. Gone. Kaput.

Optimystik
2010-03-22, 11:30 PM
Back to the PHB3... does anyone care for the Shardmind?

I love them. I'm hoping they become the next Psiforged in 4e Eberron.

NeoVid
2010-03-23, 02:56 AM
Today our group (just levelled to 4 after the session) playtested a Monk character for the first time; the only PHB3 char so far. I must say that his level 1 Daily Power - Leopard Manoeuver or something like that - seemed vastly overpowered: shift your move, make an attack against all enemies your adjacent to during the move and deal 3d8+Dex to each (or was it Wis?) That just seems way out of hand compared to some other Daily 1 powers or is it just me?

That's not the overpowered one. The overpowered one is Harmonious Thunder. By RAW, if you hit both targets, it auto-kills the one with less HP, and does an equal amount of damage to the other.




Is the 'Living Crystal' thing how they get away with saying that they can get poisoned and sick?

Well, poison and disease have metaphysical aspects in D&D worlds. Heck, there's a divine domain of Poison.

This doesn't matter with Warforged, as they're Natural Humanoids, which means they do need their bodies to work unimpaired, like every other normal living thing.

Ozreth
2010-03-23, 03:28 AM
I think Minotaur is cool. Im neither here nor there on the classes or the rest of the races.

Happy about the hybrid rules and especially about skill powers. I think 4e needed both of these things.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-23, 10:42 AM
My complaint with the Minotaur isn't that they're uncool. I think Minotaurs are some of the coolest monsters to come out of Greek Mythology, right after Gorgons (I REFUSE TO CALL THEM MEDUSAS!!!). It's that Wizards just copied the Dragon article, "Playing Minotaurs" and slapped it in there, likely to fill space. That's just lazy in my opinion. Sure I may find the Shardmind alien but at least it's original.

Also, having taken a closer look at the psionic classes, I find them even more awesome than before (despite the worrying things I've heard about the battlemind, hope a fix comes out for that soon).

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-23, 10:55 AM
My complaint with the Minotaur isn't that they're uncool. I think Minotaurs are some of the coolest monsters to come out of Greek Mythology, right after Gorgons (I REFUSE TO CALL THEM MEDUSAS!!!). It's that Wizards just copied the Dragon article, "Playing Minotaurs" and slapped it in there, likely to fill space. That's just lazy in my opinion. Sure I may find the Shardmind alien but at least it's original.

Also, having taken a closer look at the psionic classes, I find them even more awesome than before (despite the worrying things I've heard about the battlemind, hope a fix comes out for that soon).

I understand that, amongst other things, they may have tinkered with the math for the minotaur's racial power so that it scales better, or something, now. So, it at least includes fixes?

Mordokai
2010-03-23, 10:57 AM
I love them. I'm hoping they become the next Psiforged in 4e Eberron.

That's funny. I would rip their pages out of PHB for that exact same reason.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-23, 10:58 AM
I understand that, amongst other things, they may have tinkered with the math for the minotaur's racial power so that it scales better, or something, now. So, it at least includes fixes?

I figured they did something like that, but that's still no excuse for just reheating the stuff from the article. It's like leftovers. I'll eat them, but all the magic is gone from them. :smallannoyed:

Choco
2010-03-23, 11:01 AM
Stuff.

Agreed 100%. In 4e every little +1 counts and makes a difference, unlike 3.x where if you already had a +30 to x at level 4 it was completely useless. I like how they made it damn hard to make a vastly overpowered character in 4e. Though as much as I like it, there seem to be more than just a few people quite upset that they can no longer completely break the game (and the DM) at level 3.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-23, 11:04 AM
I kind of agree, to some degree. I'm molified slightly by the amount of lulzy Minotaur art in the book, though. Something about fearsome warrior minotaur girls just cracks me up forever.

I'd much rather have seen goblins, kobolds, Kenku, mindflayers (Yeah, yeah), yuan-ti or any of a number of unlikely things in their place, because that would mean more options. And let's face it, Goblins and Kobolds deserve full race-write-ups at some point.

I'm pretty much indifferent to the existence of the Githzerai, because they largely leave me cold as a creature. (Yanki or Zerai. Just not something that interests me much). Ugly Elf-Goblin hybrid people. Meh. Suprisingly, I found that the Shardmind's did go quite some way to winning me over, if for no other reason than the awesomely flavourful racial power.

Mordokai
2010-03-23, 11:13 AM
I'd much rather have seen goblins, kobolds, Kenku, mindflayers (Yeah, yeah), yuan-ti or any of a number of unlikely things in their place, because that would mean more options. And let's face it, Goblins and Kobolds deserve full race-write-ups at some point.

Biased much? :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

As for kobolds... if you want, you can always play this (http://www.koboldsatemybaby.com/). Hilarity ensured :smallbiggrin:

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-23, 11:16 AM
Biased much? :smalltongue: :smallbiggrin:

As for kobolds... if you want, you can always play this (http://www.koboldsatemybaby.com/). Hilarity ensured :smallbiggrin:

Well, I can already play Kobolds et all, thanks to the monster-manual entries. I'd just rather have a full write-up eventually, because such write-ups have usually been full of awesome stuff and better support.

I'm sure I'll get chance to try out good old KAMB one day, though. Could be good.

Somebloke
2010-03-23, 12:21 PM
No discussion about hybrids yet? The actual multiclass option for 4e, rather than, say, the multiclasses? One of my players has made various grunting noises indicating that he wants to go down this path so I am interested in any 'playtests', so to speak.

As for the classes/races, I have to say I seem to be suffering from class option fatigue...only a few years in, too. Certainly none of the classes really grab me like the PHBII classes did. It will come in handy for when one of the group runs a Dark Sun campaign but really that's about it. But then again as a DM I really haven't had the chance to actually play 4e, so maybe that has something to do with it.

As for the new races- again, they seem...okay...but there's no real attention-grabber like the Gnome or Deva. For some reason they seem to be turning into a bunch of numbers to me, numbers that could have been come from anywhere.

Somebloke
2010-03-23, 12:22 PM
Oh, and kobolds beat minotaurs any day of the week (mostly through clever use of traps).

Yakk
2010-03-23, 12:50 PM
No discussion about hybrids yet? The actual multiclass option for 4e, rather than, say, the multiclasses? One of my players has made various grunting noises indicating that he wants to go down this path so I am interested in any 'playtests', so to speak.
The only problem with Hybrids, balance-wise, is:
A> It is easy to gimp them.
B> CharOp can find cheese for 4 classes instead of 3, and shove it into the same character. (Windrose ports = 2 MCs)
C> Did I mention it was easy to gimp them?

Is he likely to use CharOp cheese?

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-23, 12:53 PM
Hybrid is very good for busting out and going mad with combining stuff. It gives you a LOT of options, and you can really get some interesting results. If not approached carefully, you could very considerably gimp your character, however, so extra care should be taken.

Personally, I'm one session in to a campaign using my 'two wolves' build (hybrid Druid Ranger, so far seems an interesting if not remotely overpowering skirmisher type) and have rescued a pretty terrible pre-made warlord (due to completely innapropriate stats) by talking the DM into allowing me to graft half of a Swordmage onto him.

I like Hybrid Rules.

One day, I'll play my (Barbarian-Rogue) Swashbuckling Kobold Pirate.
He dual weilds rapiers. It'll be great.

Asbestos
2010-03-23, 02:00 PM
Sure, they're easy to gimp, but that's avoidable if you approach them with any sensibility. Wizard|Fighter is going to be a bad idea but Warlock|Swordmage isn't a bad melee/ranged magical gish.

Lost Demiurge
2010-03-23, 02:24 PM
It's a good book! Not quite as impressive as PHB2, I think, but I can live with that.

I like minotaurs, and don't care that they basically got copied out of a DDI article. I figure that the DDI subscription is basically a free sneak-peek anyway.

Wilden and shardminds... Meh. Don't really care for them, but that's fine. Githzerai are githzerai, always been neutral about them, figure it's only appropriate.

The 3 non-monk psionic classes are interesting. Have to see them in play before I figure out whether playing one is worth handling the slightly fiddly mechanics. I can think of easy concepts for all of them. The monk is actually cool! I didn't think they could do it, but they actually made a version of the class that I would play... And the full set powers look stupidly fun. A mobile melee striker that isn't a rogue, sure, sign me up.

Seeker looks to be great. Runepriest looks like a paladin/cleric hybrid... Not sure really how much it's needed, but I suppose the fact it's got more "aura" type effects gives it an angle that hasn't been hit too much before.

I'm glad to see hybrid classes, and yeah, they can make a character abuseable or gimpable. That's why they're advanced options... It's best to have a few games under your belt before you try to put together a Barbarian/Avenger crit rage machine. ("I HIT YOU FOR KOOOOOOORRRRRRDDDDD!!!!!!!!! DIE OR GET STRONGGGGERRRRRR!!!!!")

All in all, worth the cover price to me. Looking forward to PHB4!

Yakk
2010-03-23, 02:32 PM
Sure, they're easy to gimp, but that's avoidable if you approach them with any sensibility. Wizard|Fighter is going to be a bad idea but Warlock|Swordmage isn't a bad melee/ranged magical gish.
Despite the above, I've made quite functional Wizard|Fighters.

Str/Int. Either go light armor (which is feat-expensive, but ends up being better AC wise!), or grab Fighter's Armored Expertise.

The double-weapon Quarterstaff of Ruin is pretty optimal. You can get +1 AC as a Wizard class feature (light armor route) for a feat, +1 AC from TWD, +1 AC from Hafted Defence, and +1 AC from defensive weapon (double weapon Q-staff).

This can bring you up to, or exceed, standard fighter AC.

A mixture of Fighter marks and Wizard arcane riposte can give you control over if bad guys attack you or not.

But... making a non-playable Fighter|Wizard is trivial, while making a playable one takes lot of work.

TheEmerged
2010-03-23, 02:38 PM
Well, our group is planning to switch its character mix after our current module. It looks like the only class staying put is the rogue :smallbiggrin:

This relates to the PHB3 because it looks like one of the players wants to play a Seeker and the cleric is probably going to switch to Ardent.

RE: Saves. I'll admit this is one of three parts of 4th Ed I don't care for. The new alignment rules I just ignore. The language change I've learned to live with.

But saves? When I find a better system, I'll use it. And I've started looking for a better system.

shadowmage
2010-03-23, 03:15 PM
I figured they did something like that, but that's still no excuse for just reheating the stuff from the article. It's like leftovers. I'll eat them, but all the magic is gone from them. :smallannoyed:

Did they not say when they showed them that they were a PB3 preview. As far as I remember only the Assassin and the Shadow race are the only DDI only race/class content they have released.

Somebloke
2010-03-23, 03:22 PM
The only problem with Hybrids, balance-wise, is:
A> It is easy to gimp them.
B> CharOp can find cheese for 4 classes instead of 3, and shove it into the same character. (Windrose ports = 2 MCs)
C> Did I mention it was easy to gimp them?

Is he likely to use CharOp cheese?

No- he's a dedicated roleplayer who is dissatisfied with the level of holiness his joan-of-arc-style fighter currently has.

Asbestos
2010-03-23, 03:30 PM
No- he's a dedicated roleplayer who is dissatisfied with the level of holiness his joan-of-arc-style fighter currently has.


Hrm. Well, putting aside that it seems he could have just been a Paladin (Divine Power style) let's imagine that he only has PHB1 and 3 available...

Fighter|Runepriest could be a decent Defender/Leader mix.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-23, 05:58 PM
Despite the above, I've made quite functional Wizard|Fighters.
I agree that most combinations can be made quite functional.



The double-weapon Quarterstaff of Ruin is pretty optimal. You can get +1 AC as a Wizard class feature (light armor route) for a feat, +1 AC from TWD, +1 AC from Hafted Defence, and +1 AC from defensive weapon (double weapon Q-staff).
However, that's a far cry from "pretty optimal". Given the plethora of good feats available, spending a feat for +2 AC is only an average pick, not a great one; spending a feat for +1 AC is mediocre at best. Doing it four times means there's a lot of good feats you can't pick any more.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-03-23, 06:40 PM
One thing that troubles me about hybrids, I always worry they'll ultimately be too weak. While I can see where versatality may come in handy, I get concerned that I'd miss out on uber powers in either class, since you can only have a certain number of powers from each class, and so if you have to replace a power, it has to maintain the balance. And Runepriest looks like it's got so many cool powers, it seems like a bad idea to pass all those powers up for paladin ones.

Or am I crazy and don't know what I'm talking about?

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 03:37 AM
One thing that troubles me about hybrids, I always worry they'll ultimately be too weak.

It strikes me that it's easy to end up as the proverbial Jack Of All Trades, Master Of None. Or jack of two trades, as the case may be.

This is because e.g. a wizard can easily spend all his six heroic feats on becoming a better wizard, and likewise a fighter can spend all his six heroic feats on becoming a better fighter - whereas a fighter|wizard has only three heroic feats to spend on each, and probably has to pay one for Hybrid Talent.

Overall, it seems to me that except if you find some kind of heavily synergistic combo of cross-class powers, hybrids are automatically subpar compared to straight classes.

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-24, 06:32 AM
I can potentially get a Level 14 Revenant Half-Elf Stone Fist Monk/Mountain Devotee to deal 1d4+11+1d4+11+10+10+10+10 damage to one target using an at-will and a bunch of thrown daggers, if certain wordings are used.

Alternately, if I spread between two targets (A and B, both assumed to be in melee), I can deal 1d4+11+10 damage to A, and then two instances of 16 to B, and then 1d4+11+10 to B and two instances of 16 to A.

Or 1d4+11+10 on A, 16 on B, 16 on C (not in melee, within 5 squares), 1d4+11+10 on B, 16 on A, and 16 on C again.

Or 1d4+11+10 on A, 16 on B, 16 on C, 1d4+11+10 on B, 16 on A, and 16 on D (not in melee, within 5 squares).

Or a host of other things.

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 08:46 AM
I can potentially get a Level 14 Revenant Half-Elf Stone Fist Monk/Mountain Devotee to deal 1d4+11+1d4+11+10+10+10+10 damage to one target using an at-will and a bunch of thrown daggers, if certain wordings are used.
So what's your point, that some kind of heavily synergistic combo of cross-class powers can be used, as long as "certain wordings are used"?

Evard
2010-03-24, 09:15 AM
It strikes me that it's easy to end up as the proverbial Jack Of All Trades, Master Of None. Or jack of two trades, as the case may be.

This is because e.g. a wizard can easily spend all his six heroic feats on becoming a better wizard, and likewise a fighter can spend all his six heroic feats on becoming a better fighter - whereas a fighter|wizard has only three heroic feats to spend on each, and probably has to pay one for Hybrid Talent.

Overall, it seems to me that except if you find some kind of heavily synergistic combo of cross-class powers, hybrids are automatically subpar compared to straight classes.

Has PHB3 changed the rules of the hybrids? I made a warlord/sorcerer who was barely optimized who could beat a (very) optimized sorcerer into the ground :D The player got sad/mad when a hybrid was destroying monsters left and right. His damage output was slightly higher because of magic items and duel implement spell caster, but their attack bonuses where the same (+13 or +14). In the end the hybrid killed more of the enemies due to being able to focus on more than one defense, some of the enemies had high will and that's the only defense the sorcerer spells attacked or at least most of them. Also being able to heal easily is helpful :p

Although the class abilities they get are a little odd and I would like to see them change that process along with the armor proficiencies but oh well :p

Hmm wait till april 5th and pay 10 bucks or pay 30 ish bucks right now -_-;;;;

Kurald Galain
2010-03-24, 09:22 AM
Has PHB3 changed the rules of the hybrids? I made a warlord/sorcerer who was barely optimized who could beat a (very) optimized sorcerer into the ground :D
Was that during a single encounter, or over the course of a campaign? Note that the effectivity of a 4E character depends primarily on the luck of the dice, secondary on player skill, and only tertiary on the build you're using.

Basically I'm saying that most hybrid combos are pretty bad, although some are excellent. It may well be that you've found one of the excellent ones; I'm told wizard/swordmage is another, although I haven't seen it in practice yet.

Sir Homeslice
2010-03-24, 05:01 PM
So what's your point, that some kind of heavily synergistic combo of cross-class powers can be used, as long as "certain wordings are used"?

My point is: Hyper-Flurry is funny to me.

And the only cross-class power I'm using is Twin Strike. The rest come from class features, a Ki Focus, and feats. And for the wording issue, refer to Starblade Flurry.

And I don't need strictly need Twin Strike for this, I can make do with Five Storms. Just up the die to d6, drop 2 damage from the pair of +11s, and the attack is a +17 vs Reflex, +20 with CA, if Nimble Blade works that way in regards to Ki Focuses and attacking with a dagger.

Zaq
2010-03-28, 07:38 PM
I just have to say that I find Runepriests hilarious in that they went and made Truespeak strength-based, of all things.

Seriously, when you mix the "language of the gods or pre-gods" fluff, the "words of power" aspect, and most importantly the reversible nature of the utterances powers, the Runepriest is clearly a Truenamer who carves Truespeak into his enemies' faces. Probably with a hammer, for some inexplicable reason. Funny that it's the psionic classes who automatically get the Illumian sigil-halo in 4e, since Illumians were as close as you could get to being decent Truenamers in 3.5.

The other way to fluff it, of course, is as a Children's Card Game. "I use Word of Exchange... in Defense Mode Rune of Protection mode!" Defiant Word just causes your enemy to activate your trap card rune.

(Why yes, I DO have a tendency to dive headfirst into the silliest possible fluff interpretations I can find, why do you ask?)

They really can't figure out what they want the Expertise feats to be, can they? Versatile Expertise seems to be exactly the same as Focused Expertise, only better.

Superior Implements seem to be... sketchy. They seem to really favor certain classes over others, until we get the inevitable expansion in Adventurer's Vault X+1 and/or Dragon. That said, if I didn't already have about three backup characters just waiting for my swordmage to bite it, I could totally see playing a Githzerai Invoker with a Quickbeam Staff and that Covenant Shifting feat. "You go over here now."

Wilden make me giggle, but not for the reasons that they should. See, when I'm describing attributes to someone, I often say things like "ok, CON is how big and beefy your chest is, and CHA is how big your eyebrows are." I have a character build for 3.5 somewhere that uses a Killoren as a relatively standard but still fun Cha-to-EVERYTHING bard, so I think of all Killoren as basically him... and then they make the Killoren 2.0 and give them a head structure that looks like they have the biggest eyebrows known to man. Makes me laugh.

They weren't shy about including a few more of the old 3.5 pictures than usual in this one, were they? I remember flipping through the multiclass feat section and exclaiming "AH! THE DIVINE MIND! IT'S BACK!" At least with the 3.5 art, though, you can tell which way is up. (3.5 had some examples of seriously bad art, just a few examples among them being the infamous Broken Soveliss Action Figure in MoI, the Lurk in CPsi, and every single picture of Mialee, Mutant Frog Princess elven wizard, but almost every single 4e picture makes me laugh for all the wrong reasons. Yes, I treat this game as an enormous joke, don't you?)

I was really excited about the Seeker when I saw the preview. I thought that they had a good start, and with proper rounding-out in the real book, they'd be really cool. I don't think they've been expanded as much as they really need to be, and I don't get what's so good about the "you can use this as an RBA" fetish they have unless you have some very specific allies (well, aside from changing what kind of attack you use Inevitable Shot on, which is nice, but there must be something I'm missing). I still think they look fun and playable, but I'm a little let down. It's a real shame that they have almost precisely ZERO stat overlap with bards, because they would be fun to shove together in a hybrid build, but what can you do.

Like pretty much all 4e content, I think it'll probably be ok once they have a few issues of Dragon and an expansion book dedicated to it.

Anonomuss
2010-03-29, 03:21 AM
And for the wording issue, refer to Starblade Flurry.

What wording issue is there? It simply adds an additional target to your flurry of blows power within 5 squares, at the cost of a dagger or a shuriken.

Yakk
2010-03-29, 10:25 AM
Has PHB3 changed the rules of the hybrids? I made a warlord/sorcerer who was barely optimized who could beat a (very) optimized sorcerer into the ground :D The player got sad/mad when a hybrid was destroying monsters left and right. His damage output was slightly higher because of magic items and duel implement spell caster, but their attack bonuses where the same (+13 or +14). In the end the hybrid killed more of the enemies due to being able to focus on more than one defense, some of the enemies had high will and that's the only defense the sorcerer spells attacked or at least most of them. Also being able to heal easily is helpful :p
How is that a very optimized sorcerer?

Focusing on one defence is sub-optimal. Lacking dual implement spell caster at medium-to-high levels is sub-optimal damage-wise.

Doug Lampert
2010-03-29, 10:59 AM
Then he should check up on his math: it's 100% equivalent to making saving throws in 3.5, except that the attacker makes the roll and that the DCs are more carefully thought out.

Edit: Oh, he's talking about actual saves... DOH! :smallredface:

Which work VASTLY better than anything in 3.5. A "good save" in 3.5 could only keep up with DCs if you multiclassed frequently and stacked those +2 at level one bonuses, otherwise the DC went up far faster than the save as you leveled.

If you did multiclass frequently, normally into about 8 different prestige classes (we've all seen the builds on optimization threads), then the "good" saves end up at +40 at level 20, and the "bad" saves at +5, and the actual bonus and DC don't actually matter, only whether you roll a 1, 20, or anything else.

Broken system. The only think broken about 4th ed saves is that they should be DC 11 (so you succeed half the time unmodified).

Yakk
2010-03-29, 11:09 AM
Save ends powers have already "hit" you. You had your chance to resist them. And you failed.

Now, they last an average of about 2 turns -- sometimes 1, sometimes longer -- before fading.

The "DC is 10" is there because (A) 10 is "rounder" than 11, which matters when you have bonuses/penalties on the roll, (B) at 50%, the average surprise of the roll is maximised.

They could have carried around the attack roll and repeated the attack each round: but that requires a bunch of extra state, including rules about what situational modifiers stay on the attack roll and which do not! (If you always use the same attack roll modifiers, that makes "certain hit" abilities too-good).

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-29, 11:13 AM
Which work VASTLY better than anything in 3.5. A "good save" in 3.5 could only keep up with DCs if you multiclassed frequently and stacked those +2 at level one bonuses, otherwise the DC went up far faster than the save as you leveled.

To be fair, the DCs outpacing saves had to be at least partially intentional; in 2e and before saves were based on your own ability and by later levels you almost always made saves on a 5+. One of the reasons to switch to an external DC system (i.e. one where DC is based on monsters rather than being fixed) would be to have DCs remain higher than saves, as it's much easier to raise DCs than in a roll-X-or-higher-on-d20 system; even as math-impaired as WotC was, they'd have to realize 1/3 level saves scale slower than 10+1/2 level DCs, so I doubt it was unintentional.

So the 3e system most likely worked exactly as intended; whether the concept of switching to monster-based DCs was a good one is another issue entirely.

slyfox99
2010-03-29, 05:07 PM
I like PHB3. Not crazy about Wilden or the Shardminds, but that's probably my taste. Minotaurs seem kind of cool (and new to me since I dont have DDI) ajnd I've always been a Githzerai fan. Again, my taste...

I like all the new classes, especially the psionics, and I am thinking a Monk/Psion hybrid to turn into Darth Maul, lol.

hamishspence
2010-03-29, 05:11 PM
I like all the new classes, especially the psionics, and I am thinking a Monk/Psion hybrid to turn into Darth Maul, lol.

Wouldn't a swordmage/psion specializing in Intelligence fit more neatly? Especially with a two-bladed sword. Some of the swordmage powers seem fairly Sithy- one fairly low level one allows you to lift your enemy into the air and choke them.

Squark
2010-03-29, 07:34 PM
Hmm... I think I'm going to pick up a copy of this...

greenknight
2010-03-29, 08:09 PM
Save ends powers have already "hit" you. You had your chance to resist them. And you failed.

Although some "save ends" powers work regardless of whether the power actually hits. For example, the Psion's 1st level Daily "Ravening Thought".

rayne_dragon
2010-03-29, 09:43 PM
Now, they last an average of about 2 turns -- sometimes 1, sometimes longer -- before fading.


Unless you're like me, in which case you're happy if you save in less than 5 rounds. =p

Even with my luck on saves I think the save system is much better balanced than in previous editions.

I'm also looking forward to seeing how some of the new stuff in the PHB3 plays out. I'm liking the look of the orb that gives +INT initiative.

Evard
2010-03-29, 10:00 PM
As soon as I get DDI next month I want to make some hybrids using the monk... I'm wondering how monk/rogue will work out hmmm

Asbestos
2010-03-29, 10:04 PM
As soon as I get DDI next month I want to make some hybrids using the monk... I'm wondering how monk/rogue will work out hmmm
If only the Monk Unarmed Strike counted as a light blade...

Yakk
2010-03-30, 10:52 AM
Although some "save ends" powers work regardless of whether the power actually hits. For example, the Psion's 1st level Daily "Ravening Thought".... which is a PC power, not a monster power.

The PC gets to, X times/day, partially land an effect on something even if you miss.

And remember, the 4e combat engine is intended to describe combat between beings of a similar power level (~ +/- 5 levels).

Unless you're like me, in which case you're happy if you save in less than 5 rounds. =p

Even with my luck on saves I think the save system is much better balanced than in previous editions.
1+ rounds: 100%
2+ rounds: 45%
3+ rounds: 20%
4+ rounds: 9%
5+ rounds: 4%
6+ rounds: 2%
7+ rounds: 1%
etc

Note that there are plenty of ways to get earlier, or more reliable, saves. Often a leader at-will can grant such a save. Burning a standard action on a relatively easy heal check grants a save. Many feats and pieces of gear grant general (or specific to debuff type) save bonuses.

Evard
2010-03-30, 01:51 PM
If only the Monk Unarmed Strike counted as a light blade...

There is a feat that allows you to use a sap (or mace) for sneak attack so a homebrew feat for using fist for rogue attacks wouldn't be broken at all...

Plus the way i see it is that rogue powers only need 1 weapon and the flurry of blows can work with head, legs, hands... What I was thinking though was...

Wings of the Crane to move behind a flanked enemy then use the rogue at will to stab. The way the monk used to work in dragon magazine was that you didn't have to do both parts of a monk at-will (you could do one or the other the move action or the attack or both). If they have changed it that would be sad but it won't matter to much :p

Danin
2010-03-30, 02:17 PM
I will say, I like the PHB3 (With the exception of the runepriest) but find some... oddities. For example:

Monks - Gives you an unarmed strike worth something, but most abilities don't require you to have a hand free and do fixed damage, wither you use a club, spear, staff or hand. Essentially only useful for melee basic attacks. Compared with feats that use specific weapons, the advantage of using a fist is lost. On the topic of feats, technically using a club in 1 hand and a spear in the other will allow you to use the benefits of both fighting style, making one wonder how you just smote the fellow with a club from 2 squares away. Also, from my experience (At level 12), monks can do some truly obscene damage.

Battleminds - Have been discussed in detail earlier, though mind spike continues to be amazing when you can actually get it off...

Hybrid Classes - I find it odd that a class with +1 to fort, ref and will (Monk) when hybrid classed into a class that gives +1 to fort, ref and will (Avenger) can end with +2 to a single save, or +1 to two different saves. Also, by level 2 my Monk/Avenger was rocking 23 AC. In cloth armor.

Asbestos
2010-03-30, 02:48 PM
Also, by level 2 my Monk/Avenger was rocking 23 AC. In cloth armor.

How would that be different from any full-classed Monk or Avenger? Considering how both classes are only proficient in cloth armor both have a AC boosting stat and you only have the option of taking either Armor of Faith or Unarmored Defense... I fail to see how you could ever come up with AC superior to either one of those classes.

Indon
2010-03-30, 03:10 PM
Unless you're like me, in which case you're happy if you save in less than 5 rounds. =p

I recommend playing a Warden, sloughing off save effects are their big thing as a defender. They aren't actually very threatening, but crazy durable!

Evard
2010-03-30, 04:10 PM
Not threatening? O_O I've seen Wardens slaughter enemies, maybe not to the level of ranger but still was pretty great :D

I love how they have a druid feel to them also with the shape changing dailies

NeoVid
2010-04-02, 02:41 PM
Well, I've finally gotten to play a Monk, and I have to say the class is beyond insanely good if you build and play it well... which takes some thought. They've got a LOT of options for how exactly to play them, and you have to basically pick a methodology for how the character approaches combat, and stick with it.

...Gee, monks should concentrate on specializing in a fighting style. Who woulda guessed.

Also the Shardmind discussion made me kind of annoyed that I'm not likely to play one, since I'm not too interested in any classes they're good for. Though I did run across the creator of Eberron's (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/22629237/Shardminds_as_Psiforged,_anyone&post_num=20#399502129) ideas about Shardminds in that setting.

Though my favorite idea for them there is that they're walking dragonshards.