PDA

View Full Version : [D&D 4e] Player's Handbook III



Lateral
2010-12-29, 09:23 AM
So, I was thinking of getting the PHB3 (because I love psionics), but I've heard people imply that it was terrible. I've heard other people imply that it was awesome, so... help me?


I AM NOT CONFUSING THE 4e PHB3 WITH 3.5 COMPLETE PSIONICS. I HAVE HEARD THIS IN DISCUSSIONS OF 4e MATERIAL.

Psyren
2010-12-29, 09:26 AM
I love Shardminds, Psions and Ardents. Monks I hear are pretty average.

Fluffwise it's a knockout for me; I'm not an expert on the crunch though. :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2010-12-29, 09:47 AM
I'm not going to discuss fluff. Some people like it, some don't. In terms of crunch, however, the book is inconsistent. For a game that prides itself on being exquisitely balanced, this is probably the least balanced book printed.

The classes range from very powerful (the psion) to very weak (the much-maligned seeker). This is even more visible in the hybrid rules; the average hybrid is weaker than either of its component classes; but certain combos are very powerful, and yet certain others are complete duds. And finally, the skill powers have the same issue. It's a nice concept, but most skill powers are eclipsed by class utility powers - again, with a handful of exceptions that are so strong that everybody wants them.

Mostly the book exists to showcase new mechanics. The psionic casters have power points, which allow them to boost their at-will powers. The other classes, e.g. the runepriest, seem to have no reason to exist other than to showcase a new mechanic. In that, the book is similar to 3E's Tome of Magic.

Finally, there is one flaw in the rules: the psion (and to a lesser extent the bm and ardent) has low-level powers that are significantly stronger than their higher-level powers, especially since they cost less to augment. By level 16 or so, they can basically use a fully-augmented level 1 power every single round, and this turns out to be extremely powerful. WOTC expects you to trade out your lower-level powers for higher ones, but there's a strong incentive not to. On the flipside, playing this way tends to become boring.

dsmiles
2010-12-29, 09:56 AM
Truth.

I have to agree. As much as I love 4e, PHB III doesn't cut the mustard, balance-wise. I like the new Power Point mechanic, but they should have looked closer at the balance issues on the low-level Psion powers.
I can't speak on hybrid characters, not having had anyone play one in my campaigns yet.

gourdcaptain
2010-12-29, 12:04 PM
PHB III is a .... mixed book. I love the hybrids, monks, and runepriests, but the aformentioned problems with the Power Points are pretty big if you run with the right (wrong) kind of people. Mention the Psion LV 1 At-will Dishearten's Augment 2, and several DM's I know will retreat to the corner and start crying uncontrollably. Plus, with a lot of groups I know, the racial options tend to spark derision (Shardmind, Wilden) or are very unispiring ability wise (Minotaur). An eberron game I'm in is using Shardminds as Psiforged, so at least that's not going to loss.

And then there's Superior Implements, which I will forever curse as being another boring +1 to hit feat I have to take on my characters. (Yes, I am obsessive compulsive with accuracy boosters, why do you ask). At least it brought us Versatile Expertise, which makes Paladins and Swordmages very happy (and those are two of my favorite classes).

EDIT: I forgot the Seeker. Yeah, they're a complete joke. The one time I've seen one played, he managed to help the enemies more often than the party. (Stupid bat swarm attack). And the Battlemind, who while having an utterly ridiculous name, is a very cool approach to defending (post Blurred Step errata, prior to that a hole in the design made them almost completely worthless).

toastyghost
2010-12-29, 01:28 PM
So, I was thinking of getting the PHB3 (because I love psionics), but I've heard people imply that it was terrible. I've heard other people imply that it was awesome, so... help me?


I AM NOT CONFUSING THE 4e PHB3 WITH 3.5 COMPLETE PSIONICS. I HAVE HEARD THIS IN DISCUSSIONS OF 4e MATERIAL.

I'll be frank. For a "More balanced" game, it's about as balanced as a fat kid on a seesaw. Hybrid characters, however, are cool and I'll be damned if I don't wish my DM would let me have one.

Cealocanth
2010-12-29, 01:38 PM
I like the concepts that are introduced. It is a bit unbalanced though, with Wilden having a whole bunch of racial abilities that can easily overcome many other race's and the Seeker class adding what? Another type of Ranger? With a little bit more magic? Why?

The new Hybrid system is cool, though. I also find that Shardminds are insanely awesome in concept because they just seem natural to exist in my campaign world. I mean they're creatures of living crystal, and the source of magic on my world is a radioactive crystal known as Astralite. 2+2=4...

true_shinken
2010-12-29, 02:14 PM
I hate shardminds. Well, I hate them mostly because WotC tries to give them something resembling boobs in their pictures. :smallsigh: But I find them really pointless. We still don't have, say, goblinoids as actual races in 4e (just a stub in the MM) but we get, uh, shardminds?
I was greatly unimpressed with the Monk. Finally having a psionic monk felt like an improvement and I was looking forward to seeing one in action. One of my friends roled a Monk and... man... was it horrible. Our Warden routinely did more damage than him and even the Wizard was tougher than Mr. Monk.
Sadly, I have yet to find any DM who allows hybrids. I really wanted to play an AvengerlSwordmage but then WotC just had to nerf Avenger's AC (and now they suck).
People have mentioned that power points are borked, but I never say them in play, so I really don't know. Feels like a much needed mechanic to break 4e's constant 'everyone is the same' mantra.

Tengu_temp
2010-12-29, 02:26 PM
I really don't like the new races. I'd rather have a campaign where humans are the majority and non-humans are rare than one where every party member comes from a completely different, weird race. Shardminds take the cake - somehow they managed to be completely weird and completely uninspired at the same time, forming a race that has no salvagable qualities for me whatsoever. I like freakin' kender more.

Blackfang108
2010-12-29, 02:46 PM
Feels like a much needed mechanic to break 4e's constant 'everyone is the same' mantra.

It doesn't stop some people from continuing with that tired old Mantra. :smallsigh:

To be fair, Monk is even touchier than Avenger to play well. It relies too much on being surrounded by enemies, and has weaker defenses than the Avenger. A well done Monk can be a rather effective striker (middle of the pack, not excellent), but the fixed dice damage (3dx v 3[w]) is almost always weaker than weapon damage classes.

I have found the Monk Multiclass feat to be a useful one, as they have a solid skill list and the guaranteed damage once/combat is always nice, especially as it's stronger than the Sorcerer's Multiclass feat. (My Thundeborn Barb took Stone fist. 7 more damage has meant the difference between bloodied and not bloodied several times, saving my hide from minions more than once.)

I dislike Hybrids in general, after a bad experience DMing for an overpowered one (Pre WLR marks errata). Having made a few in CB, I'm still not sold on them, especially with most of the Striker Hybrid limitations.

I've yet to see a Seeker in action, and I haven't seen a Psionic character above 9th level so far, so I don't have much comment on high level play. My friend enjoys his Psion in combat quite a lot, and he's been a very effective controller in the three fights we've had so far. I enjoyed my Battlemind in the few LFR fights I had, but haven't played him since. (only have one current campaign.)

Overall, I, and my group, Like the PHB III, but it IS difficult to recommend it outright. I have to suggest you browse through it at your local bookstore/FLGS before deciding.

Reverent-One
2010-12-29, 02:54 PM
I dislike Hybrids in general, after a bad experience DMing for an overpowered one (Pre WLR marks errata).

WLR marks errata?

Blackfang108
2010-12-29, 02:56 PM
WLR marks errata?

White Lotus Riposte, Hybrid SSwordmage|Hellock. Do one damage to his party member, or take a ton of damage attacking him.

I believe (not 100%, haven't looked at the errata lately) that the feat was recently errated to not work on Creatures marked by you.

Reverent-One
2010-12-29, 03:58 PM
White Lotus Riposte, Hybrid SSwordmage|Hellock. Do one damage to his party member, or take a ton of damage attacking him.

I believe (not 100%, haven't looked at the errata lately) that the feat was recently errated to not work on Creatures marked by you.

Ah, White Lotus Master Riposte, yes, that's been errata'd. Honestly though, I think that issue was from one really good feat for a swordmage rather than the hybird. They shouldn't get the curse damage on the repeat attack granted by the feat since they had to hit the target the first time to activate the feat, and without curse damage the Warlock at-wills aren't really going to do more damage than the swordmages.

Urpriest
2010-12-29, 04:47 PM
Ah, White Lotus Master Riposte, yes, that's been errata'd. Honestly though, I think that issue was from one really good feat for a swordmage rather than the hybird. They shouldn't get the curse damage on the repeat attack granted by the feat since they had to hit the target the first time to activate the feat, and without curse damage the Warlock at-wills aren't really going to do more damage than the swordmages.

It's not about the curse damage, it's about using the Infernal pact at-will's retribution feature as a striker mechanic. Though if you have that and WLMR, you'd just end up with enemies choosing to attack your allies and ignoring you.

Reverent-One
2010-12-29, 04:59 PM
It's not about the curse damage, it's about using the Infernal pact at-will's retribution feature as a striker mechanic. Though if you have that and WLMR, you'd just end up with enemies choosing to attack your allies and ignoring you.

Which a shielding swordmage will then reduce. It is a really good trick, and you're right, with the Infernal pact at-will, the warlock hybird will do it a bit better than a pure swordmage will.

Blackfang108
2010-12-29, 05:17 PM
Which a shielding swordmage will then reduce. It is a really good trick, and you're right, with the Infernal pact at-will, the warlock hybird will do it a bit better than a pure swordmage will.

Actually, it wasn't White Lotus Master (Heroic tier session), it was plain white lotus R. Still painful, not as OMG what just happened.

Essentially giving the Monster 1d6+Con+Con damage if it attacks you.

Meta
2010-12-30, 01:05 PM
I hate shardminds. Well, I hate them mostly because WotC tries to give them something resembling boobs in their pictures. :smallsigh: But I find them really pointless. We still don't have, say, goblinoids as actual races in 4e (just a stub in the MM) but we get, uh, shardminds?
I was greatly unimpressed with the Monk. Finally having a psionic monk felt like an improvement and I was looking forward to seeing one in action. One of my friends roled a Monk and... man... was it horrible. Our Warden routinely did more damage than him and even the Wizard was tougher than Mr. Monk.
Sadly, I have yet to find any DM who allows hybrids. I really wanted to play an AvengerlSwordmage but then WotC just had to nerf Avenger's AC (and now they suck).
People have mentioned that power points are borked, but I never say them in play, so I really don't know. Feels like a much needed mechanic to break 4e's constant 'everyone is the same' mantra.

Avenger's are the strongest they've ever been (which is quite potent) and it helps to think about monks as a blend of multitarget striker and soft controller. Sort of like an up close and personal sorcerer or seeker.