Class that broke your heart

[NomGarret]

Which class did you really want to love but just never lived up to expectations?

For me it's the Seeker. I love the flavor. I like what they tried to do for thrown weapon users. The powers just fell flat.

[GPuzzle]

My heartbreaker was the Runepriest. So fun, yet... It didn't work.

[georgie_leech]

My heartbreaker was the Runepriest. So fun, yet... It didn't work.

I dunno, Zaq's got a decent guide for That Rune Aimer that gets decent results. Not amazing, but not terrible.

[GPuzzle]

It didn't work in WotC's eyes, that is. It has 1 article and the PHB3 as a resource.

At least it's an exercise in inventiveness.

[Nightgaun7]

Avenger. I really want to like it, but the best way to play an Avenger is to throw away as much of it as you can. Or play something else and just use the MC feat every encounter.

Bladesinger is another one. Should be an awesome arcane/martial combo, instead it's got a class feature that would be horrendously overpowered on anything else and the class still sucks.

Warlock is fun and has a nice niche, but it just can't compete with other strikers that well. And to get close it requires quite a lot of work. Compare to the Scout and Ranger, which crank out massive damage without any effort at all.

[masteraleph]

I really wish that Psions got something more worth it than Dishearten as they leveled up.

[Kurald Galain]

Druid. Yes, you can shapeshift into whatever you want. No, the shape you select makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

[theMycon]

Avenger.
It could be so cool. I has such nice flavor, and playing the way the fluff suggests is fun and exciting. It has plenty of unique gimmicks. It can even, at higher levels, if you put in an amount of optimization work that would be on the "cheese" to "flat out chicanery" spectrum for a better class, produce acceptable striker-level damage.

Unfortunately, even with this, you're still a burden on the party. With two of the censures, they have to fight around letting you get your bonus damage, even assuming the DM plays nice. And with the "hit me!" one, you're sucking up the heals, and making sure you have enough surges to function decides when they rest. And despite being a striker, you need to put as much of your resources into defense as a defender.

And if you don't have the optimization guide handy/memorized, your damage will be decidely subpar.

[Nightgaun7]

Druid. Yes, you can shapeshift into whatever you want. No, the shape you select makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

I should have mentioned this, too. Coming from 3.5 and Druids being my favorite, 4E was crazy in this particular aspect.

[Inevitability]

I really liked the idea of the assassin. Sure, rogue was a good enough class, but sometimes I just want to play a ninja-like killer with magical shadow powers.

[tcrudisi]

My heartbreaker was the Runepriest. So fun, yet... It didn't work.

It worked - it just needed more support. It was tied for my favorite leader with the Bard. It's tempting to say it was my heart-breaker as well, simply because I wanted more than the PHB3 for it.

Instead, I'm going to go with the Wizard. Curse you, Wizard. You had one job: be a controller. And at that job you excelled. You were without a doubt the #1 hard-controller in the game. And then you had to go and be the #1 AoE blaster, too. We had a Sorc and Monk, you know. You were supposed to do okay in a secondary role, not dominate in it. Screw you, Wizard.

[Nightgaun7]

Curse you, Wizard... And then you had to go and be the #1 AoE blaster, too. We had a Sorc and Monk, you know. You were supposed to do okay in a secondary role, not dominate in it. Screw you, Wizard.

Quoted for truth

[Kimera757]

I really wish that Psions got something more worth it than Dishearten as they leveled up.

I was hoping, given 4e's balance techniques, that the psion would shine. It did not. It's best power is a grindy power and many cool powers were not converted. (Some could not have been, of course, but the wheel was reinvented again.)

[vasharanpaladin]

I really liked the idea of the assassin. Sure, rogue was a good enough class, but sometimes I just want to play a ninja-like killer with magical shadow powers.

And yet worse, because of the assassin's failure, the entire Shadow power source pretty much died on arrival. So much wasted. :smallfrown:

[Nightgaun7]

And yet worse, because of the assassin's failure, the entire Shadow power source pretty much died on arrival. So much wasted. :smallfrown:

Well, that and the Vampire. Shadow just sucked.

Also the Monk and Ki. I don't really know what else they would have done with Ki, but whatever it was, we never got to see it.

[NomGarret]

Vampire is another good one. There are too many points where it not only broke, but the devs put in extra hurdles to fixing it. Like not formatting leveled powers so you have to add weird verbiage to make new powers. And I like having vampire as a class.

[SangoProduction]

I'm not so entirely sure the wild shape's actual shape not mattering is entirely bad. It means that you can pick what you want, theme-wize, and not be punished for it.

[georgie_leech]

I'm not so entirely sure the wild shape's actual shape not mattering is entirely bad. It means that you can pick what you want, theme-wize, and not be punished for it.

It certainly is jarring coming from any other edition of D&D. Don’t get me wrong, I understand and accept why it works that way, but it can be a bit hard to see what the point of turning into an eagle is when it doesn't let you fly. I think if they had fluffed it as gaining animal features or qualities, sort of a partial transformation borrowing the powers of nature, it could have made more sense.

[SangoProduction]

It certainly is jarring coming from any other edition of D&D. Don’t get me wrong, I understand and accept why it works that way, but it can be a bit hard to see what the point of turning into an eagle is when it doesn't let you fly. I think if they had fluffed it as gaining animal features or qualities, sort of a partial transformation borrowing the powers of nature, it could have made more sense.

Ah, right. I forget you could turn into things that could normally fly. Yeah. If they had said it was a partial shift, it probably would have been an easier pill to take.

[Lalliman]

I'm not so entirely sure the wild shape's actual shape not mattering is entirely bad. It means that you can pick what you want, theme-wize, and not be punished for it.

It certainly has its merits. You no longer need to keep a list at hand of the creatures you wanna be able to turn into and what effects they have on your stats. But they could've done something with it. I think they should've taken a hint from WoW and given us a few different wild shape options, not tied to a single animal but to a purpose. Similar to how barbarians have multiple types of rage, druids could've had a power form (representing large animals like bears and elephants), a speed form (panthers, wolves, etc), a flight form, and whatnot. That would've been great.

[Nightgaun7]

It certainly has its merits. You no longer need to keep a list at hand of the creatures you wanna be able to turn into and what effects they have on your stats. But they could've done something with it. I think they should've taken a hint from WoW and given us a few different wild shape options, not tied to a single animal but to a purpose. Similar to how barbarians have multiple types of rage, druids could've had a power form (representing large animals like bears and elephants), a speed form (panthers, wolves, etc), a flight form, and whatnot. That would've been great.

This is exactly how the UA Druid from 3.5 worked, so it's not even like they would have had to "steal from WoW"

[SangoProduction]

It certainly has its merits. You no longer need to keep a list at hand of the creatures you wanna be able to turn into and what effects they have on your stats. But they could've done something with it. I think they should've taken a hint from WoW and given us a few different wild shape options, not tied to a single animal but to a purpose. Similar to how barbarians have multiple types of rage, druids could've had a power form (representing large animals like bears and elephants), a speed form (panthers, wolves, etc), a flight form, and whatnot. That would've been great.

The 4.0 community was largely killed off by people falsely claiming it was somehow an MMO (without...like...the massively multiplayer...or the online...).
So, I would be careful mentioning MMOs on this forum, as it's likely to raise the ire of more than a few people who bear scars of a great system's death. I doubt you meant it to be like that, and indeed your idea seems quite nice (maybe something I'd homebrew). I'm just saying.


This is exactly how the UA Druid from 3.5 worked, so it's not even like they would have had to "steal from WoW"

My case and point.

[Lalliman]

"steal from WoW"
I never implied that WoW is the only or first one to do it. It's just what came to mind.


So, I would be careful mentioning MMOs on this forum, as it's likely to raise the ire of more than a few people who bear scars of a great system's death.
Oh i'm aware. I was gonna include that they're similar anyways, but figured that'd just be poking the dragon. I don't think it's a bad thing. If people wanna rage at me for that, they're free to waste their time :smalltongue:

[SangoProduction]

I never implied that WoW is the only or first one to do it. It's just what came to mind.


Oh i'm aware. I was gonna include that they're similar anyways, but figured that'd just be poking the dragon. I don't think it's a bad thing. If people wanna rage at me for that, they're free to waste their time :smalltongue:

Was merely letting you know. Some people distaste such actions, so it's only fair to let you know what your actions were.

[Lalliman]

Was merely letting you know. Some people distaste such actions, so it's only fair to let you know what your actions were.
Oh no, I'm not trying to troll, if i made that impression. By "i don't think it's a bad thing" i meant 4e being video-gamey, not aggravating people.

[SangoProduction]

Oh no, I'm not trying to troll, if i made that impression. By "i don't think it's a bad thing" i meant 4e being video-gamey, not aggravating people.

My English is so bad...I'll stop trying lol. I think we came to a reasonable mutual agreement.

[NomGarret]

I'm not so entirely sure the wild shape's actual shape not mattering is entirely bad. It means that you can pick what you want, theme-wize, and not be punished for it.

One of my first thoughts was "shark that hovers! At level one! Awesome!" So I kinda got past it. I understand not everyone had that same thought.

[gadren]

Instead, I'm going to go with the Wizard. Curse you, Wizard. You had one job: be a controller. And at that job you excelled. You were without a doubt the #1 hard-controller in the game. And then you had to go and be the #1 AoE blaster, too. We had a Sorc and Monk, you know. You were supposed to do okay in a secondary role, not dominate in it. Screw you, Wizard.

WotC making Wizards too good in an edition of D&D that they published? Unheard of!
(I haven't played 5e, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess they're pretty good in that game, too?)


And yet worse, because of the assassin's failure, the entire Shadow power source pretty much died on arrival. So much wasted. :smallfrown:
Assassin's failure? What was wrong with assassin other than a lack of support? When I used to play in the 4e RPGA I really enjoyed playing my assassin and knew a couple other people with assassins, too.

[georgie_leech]

Assassin's failure? What was wrong with assassin other than a lack of support? When I used to play in the 4e RPGA I really enjoyed playing my assassin and knew a couple other people with assassins, too.

It tries to fill the same sort of thematic and strategic niche as certain kinds of Rogues. The trouble is, Rogues tend to do it better. The Assassin isn't unplayable by any means, but mechanical failures like having one of the weaker Striker class features led to it being nowhere near as popular as it could/should have been.

[Kurald Galain]

Assassin's failure? What was wrong with assassin other than a lack of support? When I used to play in the 4e RPGA I really enjoyed playing my assassin and knew a couple other people with assassins, too.

Lacklustre damage for a striker; lack of an effective nova; only mediocre paragon paths; and the fact that the Rogue has the same thematical niche and simply does a much better job at it.

Of course, at low level the differences aren't really noticeable.

[YossarianLives]

Druid. Yes, you can shapeshift into whatever you want. No, the shape you select makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Ditto. I think WotC was so eager to escape the madness of 3.5 that they made the druid's most iconic ability all but useless.

[vasharanpaladin]

Assassin's failure? What was wrong with assassin other than a lack of support? When I used to play in the 4e RPGA I really enjoyed playing my assassin and knew a couple other people with assassins, too.

The definition set forth for the "Striker" role is that of the alpha strike, to wit the neutralization of key targets as swiftly as possible. To do this, they are given tools for mobility, so that they may engage their target and escape reprisal; a higher at-will DPR, so that even their grinding attacks will more quickly be lethal; and greater spike tools, so that they can start the encounter with their biggest guns and reasonably expect their target will not see his first turn. Durability is given honorable mention.

The assassin as printed in DR379 has mobility, in the form of shadow step. It does not have reliable DPR, lacking as it does an accuracy-boosting class feature or a damage feature that actually scales. It does not have reliable spikes, unless you willfully abuse certain questionable verbiage in certain powers (including one that apparently deals 6[w]+3*mods if all three attack rolls hit). And just in case you thought it might be able to squeak by on staying power, it has the HP and surges of a wizard, relying on a trap secondary.

Now, add on to this that its so-called damage feature wants you to do the opposite of its intended role (that is, spend turns stacking up shrouds instead of annihilating someone right out of the gate), and its native paragon paths do practically nothing to help any of it.

The Essentials version is a vast improvement as long as you stick to Attack Finesse and never even consider assassin's shroud to be an option. Hybrid version even more so, since it can stack its own damage feature on top of another Striker's.

[Inevitability]

WotC making Wizards too good in an edition of D&D that they published? Unheard of!
(I haven't played 5e, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess they're pretty good in that game, too?)

They are. Although arguably bards might be better there now, as they get the ability to learn spells from another classes' lists.

[Surrealistik]

Assassin by far. Thematic and cool as ****, but utterly worthless at its job outside of Paragon, and a certain set of powers.

Put together a fix here: http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=200548

[Havelocke]

two weapon rangers...there appears to be no benefit to having two weapons now and other strikers deal far more damage (rogue, barbarian, sorcerer...)

[GPuzzle]

two weapon rangers...there appears to be no benefit to having two weapons now and other strikers deal far more damage (rogue, barbarian, sorcerer...)

Lolwut.

Two Weapon Rangers deal more damage than everyone because they attack more. Are you using big [W] Attacks? You want several attacks. I mean, seriously, they have an amazing series of powers from Novas that is just amazing.

I went out and made a simple example of a Nova with someone packing the entire Frostcheese package for massive damage, as well as packing a bit of Pronecheese. So long as you have an Action Point it works, and if you are an Adroit Explorer you probably have some. I'm going to be a Chosen of Kord just because it's very good.

At level 30, we're looking at about +35 to damage on a normal basis.


Roll Initiative

Free Action: Belt of Titan Strength (+10 to damage)

Free Action: Activate Berserker's Fury (+2 to damage)

Free Action: Begin The Hunt (Quarry an enemy and slap a +2 to hit, also +2 to Init)

Free Action: Ring of Free Time (gain a Minor Action)

Move Action: Move

Minor Action: Nonchalant Collapse: +40 vs Fortitude, with Fortitude sitting at 42, so you're pretty much guaranteed to hit. 2d8+47 damage for an average of 52 damage.

Minor Action: Test of Strength (make an MBA, enemy makes an MBA against you, if you deal more damage you gain a Standard Action to be used this turn). +42 vs AC, total of 2d8+52 damage for an average of 59 damage, vs the average of 38 damage of a monster by then. Also borderline guaranteed to hit.

Standard Action: Death Rend (two attacks, +42 vs AC, total of 4d8+104 damage for an average of 118 damage)

Standard Action: Blade Cascade (five attacks, +42 vs AC, total of 10d8+460 damage for an average of 495 damage)

ACTION POINT (regain Death Rend)

Standard Action: Death Rend (two attacks, +42 vs AC, total of 4d8+104 damage for an average of 118 damage)

Average damage: 22d8+47+460+104+104+52 damage, or 77+47+260+460=720+124=844 damage.

844 damage.

The Ranger deals more damage than anyone because it can exploit simple tactics very easily compared to any other class.

Saying that it deals less damage is not only wrong, it's a miss on basic optimization.

[Kurald Galain]

two weapon rangers...there appears to be no benefit to having two weapons now and other strikers deal far more damage (rogue, barbarian, sorcerer...)

Yeah, what Puzzle said. There is no benefit to having two weapons except if you're a ranger. And a small number of other classes with two-weapon powers, but mostly the ranger.

Even at mid-heroic tier, [W]+static+[W]+static beats [W]+ability+static. And that's not even counting off-action powers, which the ranger has quite a lot of.

[GPuzzle]

Even if you're going at Level 1, it deals a surprising amount of damage. A Half-Orc Dual-Wielding Rapier Ranger with Light Blade Expertise and a theme such as Ironwrought can have a Nova that deals 7d8+1d6+9 damage in 5 attacks for 38 damage. If it recieves so much as a buff from a Magic Weapon Artificer for +4 Damage, suddenly it spikes to 7d8+1d6+29 damage for 58 damage, which can only be described as devastating.

[MeeposFire]

Binder as while some classes are weaker than others to some degree binder has the distinction of being the class that has no need to exist at all. Simply put the binder is a controller built on the warlock class. In most cases the vast majority of a controllers ability to control comes from powers rather than class features (compare that to defenders, leaders, and strikers which all come with basic class abilities that define them in their roll and their powers tend to put them into certain secondary roles). Since controllers rely on powers to work your typical warlock can be just as control oriented as the binder just by taking their powers (including at wills if human). Due to that we have a class with little reason to exist as we could have added those powers straight up to the warlock class and just made them new pacts.

This especially hurt as binders were so awesome in 3e and was one of my favorite classes.

[Havelocke]

Thank you Gpuzzle, but the hardest part of 4th ed (we all know this) is HITTING the target! lots of attacks are good, they increase the chance to hit, but I have always considered casters more reliable in 4th ed. Rangers in previous versions were better, but again I am comparing a 3rd ed ranger to a 4th ed...3rd could use both two weapons AND be effective archers, not isolated to one or the other.

[theMycon]

Yeah, what Puzzle said. There is no benefit to having two weapons except if you're a ranger. And a small number of other classes with two-weapon powers, but mostly the ranger.

I think you're overstating it by focusing on powers. TWF has a significant benefit for lotsa strikers. It's just the ranger gets the best part (attacking separately with it) baked right in, while other strikers have to work for it with feats.

Dual Implement Spellcasting is objectively less useful than "my attacks naturally hit twice", but it's awesome. It's rated gold for sorcerers.

Two-weapon opening is amazing for especially daggermaster rogues; where you can get about a 1-in-5 crit chance* without too much work. Again, not as good as "I can get another attack every round", but every part of crit-fishing makes the other parts work a little better. I wouldn't turn down 2 or 3 extra attacks in an encounter from Two Weapon Opening.

*Estimated average including Oath & Ally boosts. I've reliably got 2-4 rounds/combat of 28% crit chance, rest of it 15%. And a friendly warlord ensuring 1 crit-SneakAttack an encounter. Obviously, YMMV.

[GPuzzle]

Thank you Gpuzzle, but the hardest part of 4th ed (we all know this) is HITTING the target! lots of attacks are good, they increase the chance to hit, but I have always considered casters more reliable in 4th ed. Rangers in previous versions were better, but again I am comparing a 3rd ed ranger to a 4th ed...3rd could use both two weapons AND be effective archers, not isolated to one or the other.

Not really.

If you're smart, you're looking at +10 to-hit at level 1 if you're working with your allies against an enemy AC of 15.

The more extreme examples at level 30 reach much, much higher. For example, an enemy AC of 44 vs +40 is very common, and likely to hit. If you have any decent Leader, you're probably hitting every turn.

And yeah, 4e Rangers have to dedicate themselves to one area, but it's very rare that one guy might be able to work on both areas. Rogues and Sorcerers are probably the only examples in Strikers when it comes to pure damage, Warlocks are more controllery/leadery so they can shift between positions easily, the rest is pretty much just Melee. Leaders can pull that off (Artis, Warlords and Bards love Daggers, Shamans are technically Melee, Clerics have so many options of where they want to fight), Defenders are pretty much Melee all the time unless they're Defenderlocks in which they can apply some good control from range, Controllers are almost always Ranged unless they're something like Headspin which wants to be close to the fight.


I think you're overstating it by focusing on powers. TWF has a significant benefit for lotsa strikers. It's just the ranger gets the best part (attacking separately with it) baked right in, while other strikers have to work for it with feats.

Dual Implement Spellcasting is objectively less useful than "my attacks naturally hit twice", but it's awesome. It's rated gold for sorcerers.

Two-weapon opening is amazing for especially daggermaster rogues; where you can get about a 1-in-5 crit chance* without too much work. Again, not as good as "I can get another attack every round", but every part of crit-fishing makes the other parts work a little better. I wouldn't turn down 2 or 3 extra attacks in an encounter from Two Weapon Opening.

*Estimated average including Oath & Ally boosts. I've reliably got 2-4 rounds/combat of 28% crit chance, rest of it 15%. And a friendly warlord ensuring 1 crit-SneakAttack an encounter. Obviously, YMMV.

Yeah - no.

Very rarely a class is defined by its features, and that's usually the Defenders.

Controllers rely pretty much on their powers and Leaders use powers to boost allies. Since there is almost no way to do a double-tap on 4e using a single attack (yeah, you can do the crazy thing and pick up something like a Tiefling Warlock with Gloves of Arcane Admixture using Hellish Blast+Hellfire Blood+Arcane Fire and something like Imperious Majesty to have a double-tap at-will because you will be cursing an enemy, dealing 1d10+7+whatever damage, and then doing a double-tap at 1d6+5 damage), you have to focus on multi-attacking, and that comes from most powers.

Also, quite a few Strikers want to be using two weapons - mostly daggers - which are the Monk, the Sorcerer and the Rogue - the Monk because it wants to have a Dagger for Starblade Flurry, the Sorcerer likes Daggers because Incendiary Daggers are amazing for him as well as thing like Weapons of Speed, so he probably wants to use that, and the Rogue if he goes Daggermaster can use a dagger but it's just for more versatility at that point. The Avenger can use two weapons if it goes Mia-esque but you're just picking stuff from the Ranger list at that point. The Barbarian has one build that focus on two weapons and it's more Monk-esque than Barbarian-esque. The Warlock doesn't really want two weapons because it can't use them as implements.

On top of all that, the core of most Novas don't come from features or feats, but rather powers. Feats generally are dedicated to amping up the individual damage. It's why DIS is gold for people like Sorcerers - why would you pass the opportunity of more damage for each roll when you're already doing two triple taps at least if you do a Flame Spiral+Demon-Soul Bolts AP sequence?

[theMycon]

...
I'm confused.

Did you just say "Yeah - no.", give random optimization tricks, and then agree with my thesis and expand upon it with specific examples?

Or did you disagree somewhere in there?

I mean, I always appreciate optimization advice, so thanks either way. But I'm not seeing any part of that which implies two weapons are useless outside of Ranger-ing.

[GPuzzle]

They're not exactly useless but very few classes actively want to dual-wield outside of specific builds.

Powers are that important. They define your attacks, which are key to applying as much damage as possible.

Feats increase damage, and no matter how many you stack that only work on the first strike, you will always deal more damage if you stack a reasonable number and then release several attacks.

And the whole Daggermaster thing is crit-fishing exploitation, which is one of the few reliable ways of getting multiple attacks via feats. So it's an oddball example rather than a classic one.

[Kurald Galain]

I think you're overstating it by focusing on powers.
No. It's the powers that give you extra attacks. It doesn't matter if they're dual wield powers like the ranger's, or off-action powers like the rogue's.



Dual Implement Spellcasting is objectively less useful than "my attacks naturally hit twice", but it's awesome.
Well, DIS is nice to have, but other feats are better until you have two +3 weapons or better (so, mid-paragon tier, really). And simple math shows that 2[W] + 2*statics is quite a lot more than 1[W] + statics + DIS.



Two-weapon opening is amazing for especially daggermaster rogues;
Sure, that's a good combo. But, note that TWO is not very good except if you have daggermaster; that daggermaster is top-notch regardless of what else you do; and that daggermaster would be better for a ranger than for a rogue, precisely because of the ranger's superior powers. That's why they had to errata it, of course.

[theMycon]

I disagree with nothing stated in the previous two posts. I don't think they disagree with anything I said.

At this point, are we all saying "Other classes can benefit from two weapons, but less than the ranger; because more attacks are awesome and Ranger powers hand them over on a silver platter"?

'Cause aside from wanting to make it sound like we're the one that's most right, I think we're all saying the same thing.



Sorry, I haven't been on a message board for a while, I forgot how conversations happen here.

[Kurald Galain]

Heh. It's called "violent agreement"; I hadn't seen those in a while. Kudos for spotting it :smallcool:

[Telwar]

Sure, that's a good combo. But, note that TWO is not very good except if you have daggermaster; that daggermaster is top-notch regardless of what else you do; and that daggermaster would be better for a ranger than for a rogue, precisely because of the ranger's superior powers. That's why they had to errata it, of course.

I thought it was because Avengers Can't Have Nice Things...where Nice Things are degenerate builds that are so out of the intended theme of the class as to not be funny, and yet not entirely too far from their origin in the Holy Slayer.


(Avenger broke my heart in Desolation Flats...high accuracy means nothing when other classes can approach that and hit more often and/or significantly harder. Le sigh.)

[Kurald Galain]

I thought it was because Avengers Can't Have Nice Things...

Also true. The two best paragon paths for any striker were Daggermaster and Student of Caiphon, largely for the same reason.

[vasharanpaladin]

Also true. The two best paragon paths for any striker were Daggermaster and Student of Caiphon, largely for the same reason.

Radiant Servant, too. Now the only Striker that doesn't get Strictly Better by multiclassing fighter is ranger...

[GPuzzle]

Radiant Servant, too. Now the only Striker that doesn't get Strictly Better by multiclassing fighter is ranger...

Even then it can actually get better by MC'ing Fighter, or at the very least hybriding.

[Fumble Jack]

As for classes that let me down, I'd have to agree with those of you whom said Assassin & Seeker. Fluffwise I liked them a lot & saw a lot of rp potential in them. The former for obvious reasons, the latter felt like a more flavorful ranger to me. They both needed a bit more support IMO and they just didn't get it.

Another class I wish had more support was Rune Priest, I really loved the concept but I felt they received the short end of the stick.

[R.Shackleford]

I should have mentioned this, too. Coming from 3.5 and Druids being my favorite, 4E was crazy in this particular aspect.

To be fair the 4e druid (one of my favorite classes) seems to be based on the 3.5 PHB2 druid variant... If only they have small boosts to the forms outside of powers I think it would have been received better.

Dwarven Swarm Druid was one of my favorites :).

What broke my heart was the Essentials Fighter, even more so since that is what the 5e Fighter seems to based on.

They had the Fighter near perfect and they took a huge step back...

[alexandraerin]

The Psion broke my heart from the moment that I saw that there was no at-will telekinesis or telepathy.

The thing that first got me excited about 4E was when I looked at the Wizard and saw that for the first time there was a version of wizards in D&D that actually resembled wizards anywhere except D&D and its spin-offs: they use staves and wands like fighters use swords, and they aren't just wizards from the time they wake up in the morning until just after the first big encounter, they are wizards all the live-long day. Even after using up all their reserves and firing off all their big guns, they are still wizards. They even have this subset of powers (cantrips) whose primary purpose is for roleplaying flavor and estabilshing, "I AM A WIZARD" that are freebies so you don't have to give up useful character resources in order to have the "I AM A WIZARD" foo.

So of course I expected something similar for the Psion. This is the class that lets you be a telepath or a telekinetic, right? As they had already implemented at least one feat that let you have at-will telepathic communication and the Wizard had a cantrip similar to at-will psychokinesis, it wasn't like there would be any game balance issue to worry about. Obviously the Psion would get the psionic version of cantrips.

But... no. The best you get is a character who is a telepath once about every five minutes, assuming they're resting constantly in between use. What a wasted opportunity. All the different attack powers they get could be re-fluffed into just about anything. Without some baseline psychic abilities, there's not really anything that says "Yes, this is a Psion" in the same way that the Wizard's flavor stuff says, "Yes, this is a Wizard".

[Kurald Galain]

The Psion broke my heart from the moment that I saw that there was no at-will telekinesis or telepathy.

Speaking of which...

The Illusionist.

The one from Arcane Power. After having a PHB1 that's mostly about evocation and conjuration magic, I was excited to open the Arcane Power splat and see what else is there. And it turns out that pretty much all of the illusionist powers are simply evocation powers with the damage type changed to psychic. Nooooo!

[Merlin the Tuna]

Re: the Runepriest. I will agree that the concept is interesting and the class as-is basically works, but dealing with one as a DM was consistently mind boggling. Each of their powers is basically two powers and comes with a stance attached. Even in a party of only 3 PCs, I had a heck of a time trying to keep track of what effects and modifiers were active at any given moment.

A lot of classes mentioned (Psions in particular) were ineffective, clunky, or underserved in their published versions, but I'm actually inclined to point at Fighters as a disappointment. Not because they were bad (they emphatically were not), but because the desire to roll every single f'in concept under the Fighter umbrella led to a ton of crufty sub-classes and vestigial power trees. There's an entire string of powers that are just for Battleragers (who should be Barbarians), an entire string of powers for two-weapon fighters (who should be a distinct class that is not Ranger), an entire string of powers for wrasslers (which could easily be its own class), and so on. No matter what kind of Fighter you're building and what combination of books & character builders you're using, 90% of the choices you're presented with don't even begin to apply to the character you're making, and a fair bunch of powers' true capabilities are hidden in the normally-pointless Keywords.

Edit: I suppose Rangers were in the same boat, what with TWF, beasts, archery, and some of the thrown weapon variants that came in down the line.

[darkdragoon]

Whirling Slayer Barb didn't catch on because it doesn't have a lot of focus fire. Tempest and Battlerager were way more popular before errata as well.

[alchemyprime]

Assassin by far. Thematic and cool as ****, but utterly worthless at its job outside of Paragon, and a certain set of powers.

Put together a fix here: http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=200548

Huh... considering how disappointed I was with the Dragon version of Assassins, I am super glad I checked out this thread! Totally using Surrealistik's version from now on!

And now I'[m wondering about this "splitting classes" business.

Oh, as for the biggest disappointment for me? Seeker. When I first heard "bow wielding controller" I was so so so hoping for a Martial Controller. But alas, it was not meant to be.

[Surrealistik]

Huh... considering how disappointed I was with the Dragon version of Assassins, I am super glad I checked out this thread! Totally using Surrealistik's version from now on!

And now I'[m wondering about this "splitting classes" business.

Oh, as for the biggest disappointment for me? Seeker. When I first heard "bow wielding controller" I was so so so hoping for a Martial Controller. But alas, it was not meant to be.

Thanks Alchemy, glad to see that someone is getting use out of the rework; if you have any feedback/questions, definitely let me know!

[Desamir]

I'm actually surprised at the people mentioning Avenger. Did you guys actually play a non-cheese Avenger to at least Paragon, after D382 came out? It's a rock-solid class. Good DPR, defender-level AC, very high mobility. Mediocre spike, but you can't have everything.

My only criticism of the class is that it had poor support at release and way, way too many trap options.

[vasharanpaladin]

Avenger wasn't "solid" by any definition until at least Divine Power, and in the post-MM3 game only that said build was. Part of the problem being that monster damage was buffed without buffing Retribution to match, another part that Pursuit and Retribution were given completely the wrong kickers.

Avengers also lack for in-class paragon path options that actually expand on their established role.

[GPuzzle]

Really, when you can have a Ranger|Bard/Cloaked Sniper as a very solid character overall, including a good Nova and plenty of out-of-standard attacks, I'm fairly sure that every character that is played, especially Strikers. Even most Rangers add some cheese to their flurry of death.

[Desamir]

Avenger wasn't "solid" by any definition until at least Divine Power, and in the post-MM3 game only that said build was. Part of the problem being that monster damage was buffed without buffing Retribution to match, another part that Pursuit and Retribution were given completely the wrong kickers.
I don't disagree that Avengers had poor support at release (I mentioned as much in my post), but they haven't been anything but solid since D382, by most striker metrics.

Retribution is a weird and silly censure that encourages you to build and play poorly; it's a niche playstyle that runs counter to the class's strengths. I'm talking more about vanilla Pursuit and Unity Avengers, who have Swordmage-level AC and consistent DPR.

Censure of Pursuit is a punishment mechanic, not a primary striker feature. It's a conditional bonus that punishes the monster for running away from you, and as such makes you somewhat sticky (which is helpful for the striker with the highest defenses in the game) and very good at chasing (which fits the theme of the censure).


Avengers also lack for in-class paragon path options that actually expand on their established role.
Ardent Champion is a perfectly good striker PP.

[MwaO]

Some notes:
Psion: Dimensional Scramble+Kinetic Burst+Thunder Tether+Dreamwalker Paragon Path is a lot of fun in a variety of ways. Brilliant Thought with 4 points of expenditure is a spammable multi-attack burst power. Yes, you can spam the powers that make things grind, but the powers above don't do that.

Wizard: They don't do as much damage as a Monk or a Sorcerer. Not even close unless we're comparing an optimized damage Wizard build against an unoptimized Monk or Sorcerer.

Ranger. Rangers are no longer the biggest damage dealers. Sorcerer and Monks and variations on those are in that slot. Yes, you can build a build that kills about 5 daily powers in a round, but you can get close to that with an Elf Monk who is just using encounters and can easily reach everything on a battlefield. Sure, need to MC the Monk into Fighter, but...

Paragon Paths. Increased critical hit chance <<< getting to attack 3 times with the encounter power. Strikers generally want either Shock Trooper or Demonskin Adept. Quite frankly, Demonskin Adept very well might be the top overall paragon path in the game.

Illusionist. There are great Illusion Wizard powers that are nothing like evocation. Illusory Wall, Maze of Mirrors, Visions of Avarice, Face of Death, Visions of Ruin, Mirage Arcana, Phantom Reality, Visions of Wrath, and False Reality. Color Spray and Prismatic Spray are very good 'not actually illusions, but from AD&D Illusionist' powers.

---

In general, I really dislike the BA Essentials classes, both for being boring and how they interact with the hybrid rules.

[Kurald Galain]

Wizard: They don't do as much damage as a Monk or a Sorcerer. Not even close unless we're comparing an optimized damage Wizard build against an unoptimized Monk or Sorcerer.
How's that? Literally every single damage boost that the sorcerer can use, the wizard can also use (although it takes a genasi wizard if you want to duplicate the class ability of +dex or +str to damage). That means that yes, they're close. Sorc gets slightly higher damage dice, wiz gets bigger area effects and better rider effects.

Unless you're into flame spiral spamming or machine gun breathing and want to compare that to a baseline wizard, of course.

[MwaO]

How's that? Literally every single damage boost that the sorcerer can use, the wizard can also use (although it takes a genasi wizard if you want to duplicate the class ability of +dex or +str to damage). That means that yes, they're close. Sorc gets slightly higher damage dice, wiz gets bigger area effects and better rider effects.

Unless you're into flame spiral spamming or machine gun breathing and want to compare that to a baseline wizard, of course.

Flame Spiral as a once an encounter choice puts a really wide distance between Sorcerer and Wizard assuming the build has some way of sliding a target adjacent to oneself. It isn't hard to boost that damage all the way up to 60+ hp of damage by 3rd level without any strange assumptions.

[Kurald Galain]

Flame Spiral as a once an encounter choice puts a really wide distance between Sorcerer and Wizard assuming the build has some way of sliding a target adjacent to oneself. It isn't hard to boost that damage all the way up to 60+ hp of damage by 3rd level without any strange assumptions.

That says nothing about the sorcerer, though, and everything about the flame spiral power. Yeah, it's one of those L3 thingies that you keep all the way to L30 because nothing better will appear, and it's one of the few zone powers that didn't get errata.

Of course, that's why the class is such a heartbreaker.

[vasharanpaladin]

I don't disagree that Avengers had poor support at release (I mentioned as much in my post), but they haven't been anything but solid since D382, by most striker metrics.
Excellent DPR, decent spike (though they only give anything remotely resembling a damn about two, maybe three encounter powers, two of which are at e3), no nova worth a damn. This has been true since release, and not having a good spike or nova is bad for a striker.



Retribution is a weird and silly censure that encourages you to build and play poorly; it's a niche playstyle that runs counter to the class's strengths. I'm talking more about vanilla Pursuit and Unity Avengers, who have Swordmage-level AC and consistent DPR.
That "weird and silly" censure was the best option they had until MM3 decided that monsters should actually deal damage (not that I'm complaining about the latter part, mind you). And, again, I say that Unity is the only one that got the right kickers; Retribution wants three things now: damage mitigation (DR and THP), healing, and the ability to shove idiots who aren't your target away from you before making an attack. Not, as they have been given, the ability to keep people away.



Censure of Pursuit is a punishment mechanic, not a primary striker feature. It's a conditional bonus that punishes the monster for running away from you, and as such makes you somewhat sticky (which is helpful for the striker with the highest defenses in the game) and very good at chasing (which fits the theme of the censure).
By that metric, so is Censure of Retribution. Which means Censure of Unity doesn't fit, and needs to be retooled. Because, get this? If you're not a defender, you don't want your target to choose. If the build option is the censure, then kickers based on that option need to support that censure. Pursuit kickers need to force the enemy away, Retribution needs to manipulate cannon fodder, Unity needs to position allies.



Ardent Champion is a perfectly good striker PP.
And to use it requires you to take an option that gives the choice of whether it works to the DM. Congratulations, you've gone from below average to baseline ten levels later!

[MwaO]

That says nothing about the sorcerer, though, and everything about the flame spiral power. Yeah, it's one of those L3 thingies that you keep all the way to L30 because nothing better will appear, and it's one of the few zone powers that didn't get errata.

Ok...we need play the rules we're given, not the rules we'd like to have. When I'm saying 60 damage, I'm assuming the damage can be doled out a maximum of once per turn. You hit the target, slide them next to you(trigger), they start their turn(trigger). That's it - no sliding them for more than once a turn sets of damage.

Sorcerer, as per the rules, is better at AoE damage because it has a few multi-attack/off-turn damage options. As an example, Thunder Leap doesn't have to actually mean you move squares. Explosive Pyre, Chains of Fire and yes, Flame Spiral are multi-attack spells. As is Demonsoul Bolts from Demonskin Adept.

And that Sorcerer + damage per damage roll added onto multiple damage rolls is really valuable.

[Desamir]

Excellent DPR, decent spike (though they only give anything remotely resembling a damn about two, maybe three encounter powers, two of which are at e3), no nova worth a damn. This has been true since release, and not having a good spike or nova is bad for a striker.
Fury's Advance and Relentless Stride at e3, Soulforge Hammering, Vengeful Parry. Strikebacks and Battle Awareness are better for Avengers than anyone else. Spark of Hatred is really good. Avengers make up for lacking nova with other features that nobody else gets. Your sole measure of worth isn't whether or not you have nova.


That "weird and silly" censure was the best option they had until MM3 decided that monsters should actually deal damage (not that I'm complaining about the latter part, mind you). And, again, I say that Unity is the only one that got the right kickers; Retribution wants three things now: damage mitigation (DR and THP), healing, and the ability to shove idiots who aren't your target away from you before making an attack. Not, as they have been given, the ability to keep people away.
Like I said--weird and silly. It's billed as a porcupine ability ("Isolating Avenger") but rewards you when you do the exact opposite. One of the few class features that was exclusively used to cheese.


By that metric, so is Censure of Retribution. Which means Censure of Unity doesn't fit, and needs to be retooled. Because, get this? If you're not a defender, you don't want your target to choose. If the build option is the censure, then kickers based on that option need to support that censure. Pursuit kickers need to force the enemy away, Retribution needs to manipulate cannon fodder, Unity needs to position allies.
Yes, that was the intention of Censure of Retribution, to be a punishment mechanic. The difference is that using it as a suicidal tool was easy and sort of effective, so that's what players did. It was a failure in that regard.

Pursuit is fine, because it does what it's meant to do. It either forces monsters to attack into your inflated defenses (making you a better duelist) or gives you a damage boost (making you a better duelist). If monsters run away (e.g. skirmishers and artillery), the associated powers give you the mobility to chase to take advantage of your damage bonus.


And to use it requires you to take an option that gives the choice of whether it works to the DM. Congratulations, you've gone from below average to baseline ten levels later!
By that logic, combat challenge is also a garbage class ability because it only works if the DM lets it. Not all class features need to add more glass to the cannon. There is a such thing as utility. That's also ignoring the superior riders and the benefits of being Dex-secondary.

I'm not saying Avengers are top tier by any means, but they are comfortably middle-of-the-pack at minimum, heroic through epic. It would only break one's heart if they were expecting a high DPR, high mobility, high defense striker to also be able to nova like a Ranger.

[Kurald Galain]

Ok...we need play the rules we're given, not the rules we'd like to have.
Indeed. So please look at the title of this thread.

Is it "hey, let's compare to see which arcane class is the best optimized striker"? Well, gosh, it's not! Wow, it's actually "Class that broke your heart". Imagine that! Now let's see, did the sorcerer break some people's hearts? Yup, sure did. Then please don't go trample on those hearts any further, mm'kay? :smallbiggrin:

[vasharanpaladin]

By that logic, combat challenge is also a garbage class ability because it only works if the DM lets it.
Apples to oranges. Combat Challenge is fine, because the defined role of the defender that it's attached to is to create a choice of two evils; the marked enemy can either attack the fighter and not accomplish anything, or try to go after someone else and risk not accomplishing anything and taking more damage. Either way, the fighter is accomplishing his stated task.

The avenger, as a striker, has the stated role of quickly eliminating priority targets. Whether his target runs, or his enemies gang up on him, or his allies aren't ganging up on his enemy is irrelevant to that task, but WotC decided they needed to matter, so they need to matter in a manner suited to the defined role. And that means that, unlike the fighter for whom the DM's choice of actions isn't, the avenger needs to be able to force the option that suits him.

"Punishment" mechanics work on defenders (except battleminds), because defenders (except battleminds) have the tools they need to make both options terrible. They don't work on strikers, because strikers can only make one option truly bad, and have no power to weight the choice in favor of that option.

That being said, I suppose I should clarify: What annoys me, personally, about the avenger, is that there are thematically cool options, but then Divine Power came out and made those into traps, because Censure of Unity exists as what's essentially a static damage bonus and the alternatives are conditional on what the DM does. I would also appreciate not having to multiclass fighter to get a decent +striker PP (or, y'know, not having to lock my option feature for it).

Having played with a (decently played) avenger recently, I can honestly say I'm not disappointed because they're bad, so much as they could be better. At the very least, a healthy round of errata for Retribution stuff so that it can be somewhat usable again.

[Dimers]

The avenger, as a striker, has the stated role of quickly eliminating priority targets.

The avenger is not a "striker" in that specific sense, no. It's apparent to both sides in this discussion that the avenger has a different role -- one of applying decent amounts of damage reliably in a way that picks on one opponent at a time, a single target striker-controller-defender, a duelist, a harrier, rather than a pure damage-dealer. Inherent in their armor and hit points is the idea that their role should include capturing attention. It's just like the warlock not really being a striker -- warlocks are higher-damage, single-target controllers. In that context, I don't find avengers disappointing, though I do wish they could give me more visceral joy of the dissect the heretical wretch with one devastating blow variety.

[tiornys]

I would argue that a better definition for the striker role is: the striker rapidly and efficiently neutralizes priority targets. This definition is more inclusive of classes like the Warlock and Pursuit Avenger, who do a great job of neutralizing their desired targets while killing them efficiently.

Personally, I was most disappointed by the Seeker.

[Telwar]

I don't disagree that Avengers had poor support at release (I mentioned as much in my post), but they haven't been anything but solid since D382, by most striker metrics.


The problem I have with avengers (pursuit and unity), as much as I love the class, having played other classes that had accuracy approaching the avenger's and significantly bigger hits overall (ranged thief, fire elementalist), the poor damage/hit on the avenger kind of pales, and isn't made up for by the high AC, which isn't as useful if you're not being attacked terribly often, and that's what interrupts, defenders, and burning down the monster are for.

Avengers needed slightly bigger hits or more control over their damage bonus. Pursuit's damage bonus was trivially neutralized ("wow, that's your OA? Shoot, I'll just stand here and cast") and Unity's required recalculation every turn. Their powers could've used another [W] or two, especially the dailies.

I was toying with doing a few avenger homebrews that were built around MBAs, but never got around to it before we moved to 5e and now to 13A.

[Desamir]

Apples to oranges. Combat Challenge is fine, because the defined role of the defender that it's attached to is to create a choice of two evils; the marked enemy can either attack the fighter and not accomplish anything, or try to go after someone else and risk not accomplishing anything and taking more damage. Either way, the fighter is accomplishing his stated task.

The avenger, as a striker, has the stated role of quickly eliminating priority targets. Whether his target runs, or his enemies gang up on him, or his allies aren't ganging up on his enemy is irrelevant to that task, but WotC decided they needed to matter, so they need to matter in a manner suited to the defined role. And that means that, unlike the fighter for whom the DM's choice of actions isn't, the avenger needs to be able to force the option that suits him.

"Punishment" mechanics work on defenders (except battleminds), because defenders (except battleminds) have the tools they need to make both options terrible. They don't work on strikers, because strikers can only make one option truly bad, and have no power to weight the choice in favor of that option.

That being said, I suppose I should clarify: What annoys me, personally, about the avenger, is that there are thematically cool options, but then Divine Power came out and made those into traps, because Censure of Unity exists as what's essentially a static damage bonus and the alternatives are conditional on what the DM does. I would also appreciate not having to multiclass fighter to get a decent +striker PP (or, y'know, not having to lock my option feature for it).

Having played with a (decently played) avenger recently, I can honestly say I'm not disappointed because they're bad, so much as they could be better. At the very least, a healthy round of errata for Retribution stuff so that it can be somewhat usable again.
Both options for Censure of Pursuit are good, so I don't see the problem. Forcing a priority target to attack you, a non-squishy target, is a good thing. So is getting a sizable damage bonus on a priority target. An avenger doesn't need to force either option because both are acceptable outcomes, and he depends on neither. It's also quite easy to trigger against artillery, which are often priority targets anyways. It's a perfectly workable class feature. For that matter, even if it wasn't, censures are a mechanically small part of the class, enough so that it wouldn't be a handicap.

Being a striker doesn't suddenly lower the value of your non-striker features to zero. You contribute to the party with the aggregate. Being hard to hit is useful regardless of your role.

I do agree that even though there are good options for avengers, there aren't nearly enough of them. Ardent Champion being Pursuit-only is a rather arbitrary limitation. The class has always been hard to build effectively simply because there are so many traps, and currently Retribution is one of them.

[Desamir]

I would argue that a better definition for the striker role is: the striker rapidly and efficiently neutralizes priority targets. This definition is more inclusive of classes like the Warlock and Pursuit Avenger, who do a great job of neutralizing their desired targets while killing them efficiently.
Agreed, though Warlock control is substantially better and Warlock DPR is substantially worse.


The problem I have with avengers (pursuit and unity), as much as I love the class, having played other classes that had accuracy approaching the avenger's and significantly bigger hits overall (ranged thief, fire elementalist), the poor damage/hit on the avenger kind of pales, and isn't made up for by the high AC, which isn't as useful if you're not being attacked terribly often, and that's what interrupts, defenders, and burning down the monster are for.

Avengers needed slightly bigger hits or more control over their damage bonus. Pursuit's damage bonus was trivially neutralized ("wow, that's your OA? Shoot, I'll just stand here and cast") and Unity's required recalculation every turn. Their powers could've used another [W] or two, especially the dailies.

I was toying with doing a few avenger homebrews that were built around MBAs, but never got around to it before we moved to 5e and now to 13A.
If you're not being attacked by your oath, then you're presumably getting a big pursuit damage bonus and are doing your job as a striker, and if you are being attacked by your oath, then you've taken a monster out of the fight and are doing your job as a striker/duelist.

But I'm genuinely baffled by the OA comment. Avengers have some of the best pre-essentials MBAs in the game. Granting free OAs to an Avenger is basically letting him twin strike crit fish for free. OAs with a crit range are pretty scary, and they even trigger Painful Oath. There's a reason the class has so few multi-attacks: Oath is a contender for the single best striker feature and the developers were real scared of it, so they gave Avengers mostly low-[W] powers to compensate, and many weak options that quickly became identified as traps. Even so, there are enough off-action attacks to make a solid striker, and that's what ultimately matters.

[Telwar]

If you're not being attacked by your oath, then you're presumably getting a big pursuit damage bonus and are doing your job as a striker, and if you are being attacked by your oath, then you've taken a monster out of the fight and are doing your job as a striker/duelist.

In order to trigger Oath of Pursuit's damage bonus, the target has to willingly move away. Not be force moved, move willingly. Since the target generally has an idea of what effects on it mean, if they don't have to move, they won't. Which, admittedly, is a form of control, but it doesn't help you drop the target.


But I'm genuinely baffled by the OA comment. Avengers have some of the best pre-essentials MBAs in the game. Granting free OAs to an Avenger is basically letting him twin strike crit fish for free. OAs with a crit range are pretty scary, and they even trigger Painful Oath. There's a reason the class has so few multi-attacks: Oath is a contender for the single best striker feature and the developers were real scared of it, so they gave Avengers mostly low-[W] powers to compensate, and many weak options that quickly became identified as traps. Even so, there are enough off-action attacks to make a solid striker, and that's what ultimately matters.

At mid-paragon, you're in the 1d12/2d6+14 or so assuming the feat tax of Painful Oath. Which isn't bad, but it's not great, either. But a ranged attack isn't triggering Oath of Pursuit, and if they moved away without shifting, they'd get one anyway *and* activate your Oath of Pursuit damage bonus.

Now, as a note, I tended to not crit, even at a 19+ and Oath. So my experience /= your experience (or possibly the average experience).

[MwaO]

Indeed. So please look at the title of this thread.

Is it "hey, let's compare to see which arcane class is the best optimized striker"? Well, gosh, it's not! Wow, it's actually "Class that broke your heart". Imagine that! Now let's see, did the sorcerer break some people's hearts? Yup, sure did. Then please don't go trample on those hearts any further, mm'kay? :smallbiggrin:

No, some people on this thread were comparing a Wizard to a Sorcerer in terms of AoE Striker potential. The only way that comparison can be true is if the Wizard gets to pick his best damage options, but the Sorcerer can't pick his. And the two of them optimize heavily for damage to minimize the Sorcerer's stat bonus. "Oh, I'm allowed to take Flame Shroud, because everyone realizes big areas are better, especially enemies only and some small ongoing damage, but you're not allowed to take Flame Spiral, because you're not allowed to realize that it is basically straightforward to get a minimum of two damage rolls out of it, one of which is an auto-hit."

If your heart gets broken because of something that's not true, wouldn't you like to know before keeping it that way?

[MwaO]

In order to trigger Oath of Pursuit's damage bonus, the target has to willingly move away. Not be force moved, move willingly. Since the target generally has an idea of what effects on it mean, if they don't have to move, they won't. Which, admittedly, is a form of control, but it doesn't help you drop the target.

Oath of Pursuit isn't an effect, it is a class feature that works depending on having an effect on a target. Monsters have no way of knowing about it unless they've experienced it and made the mental connection.

[Desamir]

In order to trigger Oath of Pursuit's damage bonus, the target has to willingly move away. Not be force moved, move willingly. Since the target generally has an idea of what effects on it mean, if they don't have to move, they won't. Which, admittedly, is a form of control, but it doesn't help you drop the target.
MwaO is correct that RAW monsters shouldn't know about Censure of Pursuit. Even if the DM metagames (which is my assumption), forcing monster behavior is a good thing if it means they're stuck attacking a suboptimal target. Avengers don't rely on Pursuit damage to strike; if it functions as a pseudo-mark, that's acceptable.


At mid-paragon, you're in the 1d12/2d6+14 or so assuming the feat tax of Painful Oath. Which isn't bad, but it's not great, either. But a ranged attack isn't triggering Oath of Pursuit, and if they moved away without shifting, they'd get one anyway *and* activate your Oath of Pursuit damage bonus.

Now, as a note, I tended to not crit, even at a 19+ and Oath. So my experience /= your experience (or possibly the average experience).
With a +3 Fullblade, Weapon Focus, heroic Iron Armbands, and +6 Wisdom (all expected pickups by 14th level) you should be doing 1d12+19 with an ~85-90% hit rate. If it's a Jagged weapon, then you crit 20% of the time for 2d12+31 and 10 ongoing (plus daze/prone/etc. if you're crit optimized). That's higher expected damage than any other pre-essentials OA, except maybe a strength Rogue who gets to add his sneak attack (and it's close). I'd be interested to know what class you think has a better OA.

It's a lose-lose situation for artillery. If they stand in place and use ranged attacks, they double the Avenger's DPR (which is high to begin with). I mean, Twin Strike Half-Elf Avengers are overdone cheese, and getting a free OA every turn is more damage than that. If they shift, they trigger Pursuit, which the Avenger can triple-dip with Relentless Stride and Fury's Advance/Soulforge Hammering. If they sit there and melee the Avenger, then they've essentially been neutralized.

[Dimers]

I'd be interested to know what class you think has a better OA.

"Any class that doesn't have to spend a feat and worship a specific god to get it," he snarked with a sigh of dismay.

My first step in an avenger fix is to give them an in-class, at-will, Wisdom MBA that plays to their strengths by critting on 19-20 against their Oath target. It is clearly within their role to be sticky against one chosen target, so that should be supported with powers, and I like positioning avengers as critfishers for part of their damage mechanism.

[vasharanpaladin]

"Any class that doesn't have to spend a feat and worship a specific god to get it," he snarked with a sigh of dismay.
Alternately, "any class for which half-elf is an optimal racial selection."



My first step in an avenger fix is to give them an in-class, at-will, Wisdom MBA that plays to their strengths by critting on 19-20 against their Oath target. It is clearly within their role to be sticky against one chosen target, so that should be supported with powers, and I like positioning avengers as critfishers for part of their damage mechanism.

Quick nitpick: Adding things that happen to mitigate a weak point is a patch, not a fix. For a "fix," I would point at things like stripping the Censure of Pursuit prerequisite off Ardent Champion (providing a solid, in-class +striker PP) at the least intrusive, or combing over all of the Retribution powers and feats to adjust them to the post-MM3 game at the most intrusive.

And then I'd think about new builds and powers. Though admittedly an at-will is problematic because of how domains work now. To me, anyway. :smallfrown:

That said, I'd also kinda like to see a two-weapon build for the avenger, if only because it feels like an impressive sight when taken with the usual description of cloth armor as robes...

[Desamir]

"Any class that doesn't have to spend a feat and worship a specific god to get it," he snarked with a sigh of dismay.

My first step in an avenger fix is to give them an in-class, at-will, Wisdom MBA that plays to their strengths by critting on 19-20 against their Oath target. It is clearly within their role to be sticky against one chosen target, so that should be supported with powers, and I like positioning avengers as critfishers for part of their damage mechanism.

Power of Skill is a feat tax for sure, and an unnecessarily limiting one, no arguments there. I like the idea of Avengers having an actual +striker at-will, and MBA with a crit range is a pretty cool design. My only suggestion would be to expand it to 18-20 in epic so it doesn't become obsoleted by Hand of Divine Guidance.

[Dimers]

Power of Skill is a feat tax for sure, and an unnecessarily limiting one, no arguments there. I like the idea of Avengers having an actual +striker at-will, and MBA with a crit range is a pretty cool design. My only suggestion would be to expand it to 18-20 in epic so it doesn't become obsoleted by Hand of Divine Guidance.

:smallbiggrin: That is in fact exactly what I wrote for it:


Avenger only: Keen strike. At-will / Divine, Weapon. Standard action; Melee weapon. Target: One creature. Attack: Wisdom vs AC. This power can score a critical hit on a roll of 19-20, or a roll of 18-20 if you are at least 21st level. Hit: 1/1/2[W]+Wisdom modifier damage. Special: This power is a melee basic attack.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

Thaneborn barbarian.

The concept is great - Conan/Kull is going to be king! - but you need four good attribute scores in Str, Con, Dex, and Cha. And for RP reasons you shouldn't be dumping Int and Wis. Even with our games' high point buy my best mate' thaneborn barbarian ended up as a fragile mess especially when compared to the dwarf fighter who had more hit points, better AC, better damage, better accuracy etc....

I was really disappointed because, story-wise, he was a great character. In the end I had to cheat a bit by giving him extra points for point buy and giving out some serious magic. All those changes worked as he completed the campaign at level 15 and is now lord of Neverwinter. But RAW? It's a heartbreaker.

[Dacia Brabant]

Vampire. As an old V:tM aficionado who's always been a fan of the genre (not one word about Twilight. Not. One.) I was stoked to hear that D&D was going to make Vampire into a class. And then... yeah, we all know the story. :smallfrown:

Honorable mention to the Psion, which was my favorite non-ToB class in 3.5, and when psionics were announced for PHB3 I couldn't wait for it to come out... only to find they had mislabeled a version of Wizard, one that had traded off the utility of either a proper Psion or a Wizard in exchange for... power points I guess. Meh.

[darkdragoon]

Re: Avengers. Strikers do get some "rattlesnake" options but usually they're baked into the power (Riposte Strike, Hellish Rebuke etc.) Retribution is only gained on a hit. So against certain enemies it practically never triggers, especially when some of its support raises your defenses. Others it's not practical due to eating daze+weaken or such.
Pursuit can have some timing issues (wait until it moves then everybody goes into GMSI mode) but is generally more manageable. Unity is super simple.

I'd probably put Paladins. V-shaped with uneven support, particularly on the Strength side. Divine Challenge nerfed over irrational fears. Probably the worst supported of the PHB1 classes.

[georgie_leech]

I'd probably put Paladins. V-shaped with uneven support, particularly on the Strength side. Divine Challenge nerfed over irrational fears. Probably the worst supported of the PHB1 classes.

At least at first I found the Divine Power made the difference from me struggling to get concepts to work, to feeling effective and powerful in my chosen roles. Besides, worst supported of the PHB1 classes still means fairly well supported compared to later classes. :smallbiggrin:

[NomGarret]

Yeah, one could easily fill a Forgotten Power book with Artificer, Runepriest, Seeker, and Assassin.

[vasharanpaladin]

Yeah, one could easily fill a Forgotten Power book with Artificer, Runepriest, Seeker, and Assassin.

Artificer and Runepriest at least got the equivalent (new build-defining feature + at least one power at each level + feats + paragon paths) in Dragon, the other two didn't even get that... :smallfrown:

[JBPuffin]

I'll say that, from my experience playing 4e, my group hasn't had problems with any of the classes. Current group is Fighter, Skald, Invoker, Avenger, Chaos Sorcerer and Binder, and everyone's doing their share consistently.

To be fair, however, I read quite a chunk of WotC forum's 4e optimization threads and understand completely that some classes tank, some rock, and others just never got the support they needed (looking at you, Assassin. They built you twice and neither did what it should've been able to - actually, kind of like 3.5 Ninja, expect even worse off).

[MwaO]

I'll say that, from my experience playing 4e, my group hasn't had problems with any of the classes. Current group is Fighter, Skald, Invoker, Avenger, Chaos Sorcerer and Binder, and everyone's doing their share consistently.

In general, if you can have the following:
Everyone's PC at relatively the same level of optimization
A DM willing to set the difficultly level of the campaign at that level of optimization and able to make it happen in a consistently interesting and challenging way

You don't need to worry about specific classes. A couple of classes will make that difficult at some point over time - the Binder in your group as an example, but...

[Telwar]

With a +3 Fullblade, Weapon Focus, heroic Iron Armbands, and +6 Wisdom (all expected pickups by 14th level) you should be doing 1d12+19 with an ~85-90% hit rate. If it's a Jagged weapon, then you crit 20% of the time for 2d12+31 and 10 ongoing (plus daze/prone/etc. if you're crit optimized). That's higher expected damage than any other pre-essentials OA, except maybe a strength Rogue who gets to add his sneak attack (and it's close). I'd be interested to know what class you think has a better OA.

What really hurts is I KNOW ALL THIS. Mathematically, it *should* work.

But when I crit less than 10% of the time even with Oath, which I realize (and the rest of the group also commented*) is mathematically improbable, that kind of makes the class not work. Hence, heart-breaking, and my love for classes that do not depend solely on crit-fishing.


* - "Hey, Telwar crit. That's the first time in two months, right?"

[Desamir]

What really hurts is I KNOW ALL THIS. Mathematically, it *should* work.

But when I crit less than 10% of the time even with Oath, which I realize (and the rest of the group also commented*) is mathematically improbable, that kind of makes the class not work. Hence, heart-breaking, and my love for classes that do not depend solely on crit-fishing.


* - "Hey, Telwar crit. That's the first time in two months, right?"

I'm assuming you mean with a 19-20 crit range? That's rather odd, sounds like it's time to switch dice.

I did a quick count of my attacks in the last few months on Roll20 and ended up with 14 crits out of 73 attacks, or 19.18%. Seems about right.

[Tegu8788]

Hybrids. With few exceptions, they are definitely the weaker half of the class.

[MwaO]

Hybrids. With few exceptions, they are definitely the weaker half of the class.

Not in my experience. In general, I think it is basically the opposite. They're usually stronger, simply because more power choices = more powerful and the opportunity cost for doing so is usually very low.

[Kurald Galain]

Hybrids. With few exceptions, they are definitely the weaker half of the class.

Indeed. We've had sooo many people come to this forum with requests like, "hey, I'm a first-time player, and I'd like to hybrid <two random classes that have almost nothing in common>", and then everybody responded with "NOOOO don't do that!"

I'd estimate that about 90% of the hybrid builds I've seen in play are visibly weaker than a regular class, once you get to high heroic tier.

[masteraleph]

Hybrids, when your goal is "this class sounds cool, and so does that one, so let me mix them together" tend to work quite poorly.

Hybrids, when your goal is "this class has some pretty powerful stuff, and so does that one, let me take the best of each" tend to work quite nicely.

[vasharanpaladin]

Hybrids, when your goal is "this class sounds cool, and so does that one, so let me mix them together" tend to work quite poorly.
Warlock|Executioner tends to be cool and functional, at least. :smalltongue:



Hybrids, when your goal is "this class has some pretty powerful stuff, and so does that one, let me take the best of each" tend to work quite nicely.
And unfortunately the only way to make some of WotC's own published classes usable. Hello, battleminds! Hello, swarm druids!

[MwaO]

Indeed. We've had sooo many people come to this forum with requests like, "hey, I'm a first-time player, and I'd like to hybrid <two random classes that have almost nothing in common>", and then everybody responded with "NOOOO don't do that!"

Right, note what you just said - incompetent player who would be incompetent no matter what they played asks to play a complex option.


I'd estimate that about 90% of the hybrid builds I've seen in play are visibly weaker than a regular class, once you get to high heroic tier.

There's really no reason a hybrid, assuming it starts with 16s pre-racial in both primary stats and fixes AC should be visibly weaker than a regular class. At that point, it really is just feat and power selection - in essence, most hybrids have better power selection at the cost of a feat. If the hybrid is visibly weaker, that means the player doesn't generally pick powers well. And that would have happened with that player no matter what class they played.

The problem is what you noted above - incompetent players get attracted to options that sound cool and then when it happens often enough in your area, players legitimately assume the problem is the option, not the players who choose to use the option. And that's routinely a problem for Bards, Monks, and multi classing in every edition(Bards are crazy powerful in 3.5 as an example, but only if you see them played in the right way)

[darkdragoon]

The lesser features are usually overlooked but it does matter when you're talking about stuff expected of the class, plus they may also take a hit in the NADs.

[MwaO]

The lesser features are usually overlooked but it does matter when you're talking about stuff expected of the class, plus they may also take a hit in the NADs.

Two sets of hybrid features are usually worth one normal set of features. There are some exceptions, but they're rare.

And if a PC is taking a hit to the NADs, that's something the same players are fully capable of doing with a single classed PC. It just usually isn't as glittery to them. Again, that's a great example of the problem not being that the option allows something to happen, but that the player doesn't fully understand the system.

Basically, there are some players who can't be trusted to play anything other than a single-classed PC and they'll probably still won't be pulling their weight. This just gets really exposed when they play a hybrid.

But the same set of classes can often be played by a competent player and actually work. The problem is again power and feat selection most of the time, not the two classes put together. Defender|Controller has some issues and Sorcerer|X too, but outside that, almost everything can work with good(not great) power selection.

(edit: just to be clear, I wrote the CharOp 4e Hybrid Handbook - I've gone over every single hybrid class multiple times. In general, they can all work unless the player deliberately allows the hybrid to do something that the designers have prevented in single-classed PCs from happening ever...)

[Sol]

The problem is again power and feat selection most of the time, not the two classes put together.

Don't discount the difficulty of item selection, either. That can be at least as overwhelming and complicated as power and feat selection, particularly for newcomers, particularly since the "this was designed for your class(es)" is far less overt than with powers and feats. Item selection is the area I see new (or bad) players stumble with most frequently, and they're a very important part of optimization.

New (and bad) players also often fill out each section in a vacuum, without considering how their feats may affect power choice, and how item selection can have huge impacts on your overall build. Even the simplest of optimization tricks, like picking an elemental type-changing weapon/weapliment, its paired dragonshard, and its paired better-than-focus-damage-feat, doesn't occur to people who aren't familiar with the system. Hell, the existence of an item bonus to damage doesn't occur to people who don't know where to find it.

I once played with a non-whirling single-dagger-barbarian with a +8 to damage rolls at level 16. I knew this was a low-OP group, so played a seeker, but I still ended up rebuilding to drop my static modifier from 25 down to 16, so as to overshadow him less.

[MwaO]

Don't discount the difficulty of item selection, either. That can be at least as overwhelming and complicated as power and feat selection, particularly for newcomers, particularly since the "this was designed for your class(es)" is far less overt than with powers and feats. Item selection is the area I see new (or bad) players stumble with most frequently, and they're a very important part of optimization.

Definitely. But that item selection as a problem will usually be hybrid neutral. Being a hybrid means you likely have access to one additional class in terms of feat access - that can be critical to giving an edge.

Though I've seen newer players not fill up the obvious slots in almost anything goes magic item games such as Living Forgotten Realms - no Dagger of Shielding +1, no Aversion Staff +1, Symbol of Victory +2, Rain of Hammers Ki Focus +1, etc... - things that if you have an empty hand/slot, give basically free stuff that takes advantage of wider item use options.

And hybrids ought to have a slight edge in total slots due to ki foci, holy symbols, or not having shield due to being a hybrid.

[Sol]

Definitely. But that item selection as a problem will usually be hybrid neutral.

Maybe. I think there's a case to be made for it blurring mental guidelines even further, though. One knows, thematically, just from reading the books, that an avenger wields a large-ass sword, that a paladin wears shining platemail, and that an archer ranger wields a bow. Hybrids make that less clear. What is a wizard|fighter (other than probably ill-advised)? There's dozens of answers to that.

Option paralysis is already a huge barrier to optimization, and hybriding blurring schtick compounds that.

It's absolutely true that I'm overstating the difference here -- there's a massive difference in power selection, feat selection, item selection, paragon path selection, and epic destiny selection between a fire-based dragon sorc and a lightning-based storm sorc and a radiant-based cosmic sorc and a cold-based fey sorc, and "what is a fighter?" has an alarming number of plausible answers itself, but so many of the optimized answers boil down to "what does this character do?," and making that question harder to answer makes making intelligent decisions based on that answer one step more difficult.