PDA

View Full Version : [4e] "Broken" discussion.



JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 12:44 AM
I've seen a lot of people saying that 4e will eventually break, that there is no way that all of the powers and particularly combinations of powers will not lead eventually to utterly broken combos.

So far in 4e core we have one really broken power: Blade Cascade. LSC and Blood Pulse also have higher-powered applications than were intended if you use them creatively, but neither seems "broken" to me - depending on how you rule the RAW on Blood Pulse. Are there any others that come to mind?

So who thinks that the situation will spiral out of control after a few, or many splatbooks, and who thinks the opposite? Please try to give reasons for either viewpoint.

EDIT: Seal of Binding + Divine Regeneration added to broken combo list.

Edea
2008-06-24, 12:59 AM
Seal of Binding + Divine Regeneration is another combo. Bewitching Whispers isn't exactly broken, but you can cast it on allies for some exceedingly warped reason, so at high levels that's up to a +8 power bonus to your fighter's Opportunity Attacks <_<. There's also the Cloud Chariot; apparently there aren't many (are there any?) enemies capable of dispelling it, so you get to ride around in that thing all day, throwing **** at land-bound foes just like in 3E. Easily one of the best utility spells in the game.

I dunno about broken, since many of these things only happen once per encounter or day, but I do feel that with enough splat material, something is going to interact unintentionally, probably due to poor wording. Also depends on how well D&D Insider content is monitored before publication.

Also, worth mentioning that we really don't even have all of 4E CORE yet, much less any of the splatbooks.

Thrud
2008-06-24, 01:01 AM
Part of the problem here is that there will be a lot more 'core' books, and WotC says that they really mean 'core'. These are not add on splatbooks, they are new core manuals. And the more you add onto anything, the more chances there are of the games becoming broken. Magic the Gathering is a perfect example of this. Most of the MtG expansions are pretty balanced within themselves (removing the very beginning of the game, because it was such a radically new idea at that point), but as soon as you add in other expansions all sorts of combos that WotC never intended come around and problems ensue.

This will wind up happening in 4ed, just as it has happened in every other game that produces the sort of volume of supplements that D&D does. It is a simple mathematical progression. As you add complexity necessarily you unbalance the system.

Or to quote star trek III, 'The more complex you make the drains, the easier it is to plug them up.' (only in a scottish accent, which necessarily makes it cooler. And probably a dwarven saying, since everyone knows all dwarves are scottish.)

:smallbiggrin:

Chronos
2008-06-24, 01:02 AM
One point to emphasize: A lot of people have been saying that the proper comparison is what we have of 4e vs. core-only 3e. Really, though, even this isn't quite the full picture. The proper comparison would be core 4e vs. core 3e, but we don't even have all of core 4e yet. In 3e, most of the overpowered spells were in Conjuration or Transmutation; it's possible that in 4e, the overpowered spells will be in Illusion or Enchantment (which we haven't seen yet). We won't be able to really compare the systems until they've released the equivalent of what was released in 3.x core.

Thrud
2008-06-24, 01:04 AM
Woo hoo, the ninja barbarian strikes!

:smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 01:11 AM
Sometimes I forget that "core" in 4e is an ongoing proposition. The PHB2 and DMG2 sure seem like splatbooks to me, just like they were in 3e.

Thrud
2008-06-24, 01:14 AM
Yeah, I know, but WotC keeps arguing that they are not. Part of what annoys me so much. As in, it doesn't offend me as a gamer, it offends me as a consumer.

tyckspoon
2008-06-24, 01:18 AM
I don't think 4E will ever get as bad as 3E was toward the end of the life-cycle. The impossibility of dipping things to acquire a collection of items to mix-and-match should see to that. Whereas you could take a complementary constellation of, say, 2 levels in 5 different PrCs in 3rd, you have to choose what you're going with in 4E. Maybe you have a killer combination with *this* multiclass picking up a power and then going into *that* Paragon Path. Cool. But wait! Your combination could be greatly improved by also heading into that other Paragon, or multiclassing again to get a third class's utility... ooh. Can't do that. 4E forces you to sort the best small combination instead of allowing you to assemble a massive array of synergizing features like 3E could. That should tend to limit the overall brokenness, subject to this next paragraph.

The other factor is how attuned the designers are to the community and how quickly they come to a full understanding of their own game. I think we're unlikely to see another Blade Cascade error where something is completely uncapped, for example. And the designers may start paying more attention to how certain powers interact with 'out of archetype' multiclasses and paragon paths, although there may easily get to be too many Paragon options for that to be a reasonable expectation. I also suspect there is a fairly large FAQ/errata/rules update thing in the future clarifying how teleports interact with movement-triggered abilities, and not just to possibly limit an otherwise overpowered ability; it seems like that's a fairly large rules headache just waiting to become an even bigger problem.

marjan
2008-06-24, 01:19 AM
If experience with WotC is any sign, then they will screw up pretty soon. Though it must be admitted that so far they did pretty good job (they could have done it better, but this isn't bad).

TheOOB
2008-06-24, 02:23 AM
Every game system can be broken, and the more content you release, the more likely it is to be broken.

The simple fact that they have a mathematical base they are working on helps makes things less broken. Heck they are allready doing better then 3.5, 3.5 was broken at launch with polymorph, gate, divine power, ect.

Daracaex
2008-06-24, 02:37 AM
Also, worth mentioning that we really don't even have all of 4E CORE yet, much less any of the splatbooks.

We don't? I'm confused. Core is three books: the PHB, DMG, and MM, and those have already been released. What's this about more? Is the 3.5 PHBII considered core now? Maybe we should limit the phrase to "the first three books released."

ghost_warlock
2008-06-24, 02:40 AM
We don't? I'm confused. Core is three books: the PHB, DMG, and MM, and those have already been released. What's this about more? Is the 3.5 PHBII considered core now? Maybe we should limit the phrase to "the first three books released."

No, we don't have all the 4e Core. WotC has been very adamant that all future 4e PHB's, DMG's, and MM's are considered Core. 4e Core will be more than just the first three books. Potentially, we could have 30+ 4e books and they could all be considered Core.

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 02:43 AM
Maybe the first three should be considered the "Base" books?

ShadowSiege
2008-06-24, 02:47 AM
Sometimes I forget that "core" in 4e is an ongoing proposition. The PHB2 and DMG2 sure seem like splatbooks to me, just like they were in 3e.

Yes, we need a new term for the first primary books. I propose "basic" as the term, as it is still short (though two syllables instead of one), and covers well what the 4e PHB, MM, and DMG are: bases upon which to expand the game, but a complete game by themselves. As for the exact meaning of "core" in 4e, I'm not sure if they've defined it yet, but I'd imagine it would be all non-campaign setting books published after the basics. They'll certainly be splatbooks by our current definition. I'm hoping the primary purpose of each is to present new power sources (psionic, shadow, etc) and new monsters/templates to go along with the sources a'la Tome of Magic.

As others have already stated, they're working off a mathematical formula, and hopefully they won't have uncapped abilities such as Blade Cascade. The multiclassing itself is a good limiting factor on power creep to be, preventing the abominations that were class1/class2/prc1/prc2/prc3/etcetera. The paragon paths are my concern, as they start to give more powerful powers which may mix in such a manner that is adverse to balance, and can be gained by taking an appropriate multiclass feat. On the other hand, I'm not terribly concerned about epic destinies, except where later ones might be gradually more and more powerful than the destinies preceding them.

Edit: Osiris ninja'd my proposal for labeling the three initial books "basic" or in his case, "base". Curse my proclivity towards wordiness.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-24, 02:50 AM
Yes, we need a new term for the first primary books.

Although I'm not sure I agree... "Current Core" abbreviated C.C.

Daracaex
2008-06-24, 02:57 AM
Although I'm not sure I agree... "Current Core" abbreviated C.C.

But that term would change as the other "core" books come out. I think I like "base." It's just as short and simple as "core," it perfectly describes what the three are, and it will be pretty easy to get it to catch on. Personally, I'll probably start using this term in conversations from now on so that it can be spread around.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-24, 03:02 AM
But that term would change as the other "core" books come out. I think I like "base." It's just as short and simple as "core," it perfectly describes what the three are, and it will be pretty easy to get it to catch on. Personally, I'll probably start using this term in conversations from now on so that it can be spread around.

If WotC isn't going to specially designate the first three books from the other Core books they release, I see no reason why players should do so other than splitting hairs and strawman-ing 4e 'base' vs. other edition 'core' arguments.

Crow
2008-06-24, 03:02 AM
Yeah, I know, but WotC keeps arguing that they are not. Part of what annoys me so much. As in, it doesn't offend me as a gamer, it offends me as a consumer.

Echo that, as a consumer. It really kind of pisses me off, to tell you the truth. It upsets me that I paid a decent chunk of cash for the base rulebooks, and I am in escence, not getting the entire system. I could buy multiple systems for what a person pays for the 3 base books alone.

Back on topic, count me as one of those who is quite certain the system will eventually break. There will also be a whole lot of powers which will cause rules headaches due to the ruleset being exception-based.

TheOOB
2008-06-24, 03:11 AM
Echo that, as a consumer. It really kind of pisses me off, to tell you the truth. It upsets me that I paid a decent chunk of cash for the base rulebooks, and I am in escence, not getting the entire system. I could buy multiple systems for what a person pays for the 3 base books alone.

You are getting an entire system in the three books. D&D 4e is completely playable as is, as opposed to say shadowrun 4e which still isn't fully playable(and probally never will be since unwired seems to have gotten axed).

What wizards is saying is that certain core traits to the system, such as new classes, will be restricted to core books instead of supplements, that way most of the important crunch is kept within a limited number of books, making it easier for players to get what is important to them.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 03:11 AM
"These other books are core too!" does piss me off, but I don't think it will impact my game on a personal level. When you get right down to it, it's just marketing speak.

Plus, it sort of makes sense with the whole "power sources" thing: PhB1 is the "core" rules for Martial, Divine and Arcane heroes, PHB2 will be the "core" rules for another set. I don't know *what* the hell they'll put in DMG2 though.

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 03:16 AM
You know, I hadn't actually thought about the power sources. That is an interesting thought the though. The Base books are core for martial, divine, and arcane. The next set of core books will be for nature and psychic. That's a pretty neat idea. It isn't core for the system, but core for a particular set of rules for the system.

JaxGaret
2008-06-24, 03:39 AM
They've basically redefined core for 4e; it simply doesn't have the same meaning as it did in 3e.

I like base for the PHB + DMG + MM. I'll start using that.

nagora
2008-06-24, 05:33 AM
Part of the problem here is that there will be a lot more 'core' books, and WotC says that they really mean 'core'. These are not add on splatbooks, they are new core manuals.
In other words: if you don't spend the money on these books then you are playing it wrong and are a bad person. You must only accept DMs who use all these books: if they don't then they are bad DMs who are screwing you over. Demand more! You're a sheep, right? You have a right to be fleeced!

Hasbro is a good corporate citizen and like all good corporate citizens it takes the duty to maximise its shareholders' dividends and share prices seriously. You wouldn't want to make nice little Hasbro cry, would you? Well, would you? Some of these shareholders don't yet even have a single Ferrari!

Buy buy buy!

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 05:57 AM
{Scrubbed}

You came into this thread, not with the intention of contributing to the discussion on hand, but with the intention of making Hasbro seem like a bunch of, money-grubbing imps (they are, but that's not the point). {Scrubbed}

Everyone who plays D&D 4e, and who doesn't have a compulsion to buy everything that a corporation tells them to buy, knows that system works fine to play as is. We know that it works, you probably know that it works, so we don't need to buy the new books.

Your whole goal on topics such as these, seems to be degrade the D&D 4e system makers. Your probably irked that 3.5 got canceled, and that's fine, you have a right to be. I plead with you now, to just leave it out serious discussion threads.

Anyway, so I'm not hypocrite: BOOYAH! I got people to use something I contributed in making up!

ghost_warlock
2008-06-24, 06:03 AM
You know nagora, your an idiot. No, your not.

You mean "you're" when you say "your," there.

BTW, I would prefer if everyone using ad hominem arguments would promptly return to gleemax. We're supposedly civil, here.

Tormsskull
2008-06-24, 06:07 AM
You know nagora, your an idiot. No, your not. That's a mean thing to say.


You could have deleted that line then.



Your worse then an idiot, your a troll.


Harsh, and I'm pretty sure agains the CoC for giantitp.



Your probably irked that 3.5 got canceled, and that's fine, you have a right to be.


I highly doubt it. Check out his sig.

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 06:10 AM
What are you talking about warlock it's alway been "you're". :smallwink:

BTW, the way were you referring me or nagora?

Back on topic: My PHB should be coming to day which will give me a better chance to look for unbalanced power or combos.

Charity
2008-06-24, 06:11 AM
They are both you're not your, and how are you helping?

There is another bit of brokeness I pointed out elsewhere.

The Demigod capstone ability allows you to refresh encounter powers as soon as you use the last one, if you are an elf that means once you have used all your encounter powers you can keep on refreshing your elven accuracy and never miss, heck you could keep rerolling till you crit... which of course gets worse with blade cascade etc..
Though this does have contentious interpretation issues...

nagora
2008-06-24, 06:20 AM
You know nagora, you're an idiot. No, you're not. That's a mean thing to say.

You came into this thread, not with the intention of contributing to the discussion on hand, but with the intention of making Hasbro seem like a bunch of, money-grubbing imps (they are, but that's not the point). You're worse then an idiot, you're a troll.

Actually, I was making a serious point in the form of sarcasm. Defining certain books as "core" puts a real pressure on DMs to include them in their campaigns. People like to quote "rule 0", but the reality is that players expect to play D&D when they play D&D! And if they've been officially told by the publishers of D&D that such-and-such is a core item and the DM thinks it sucks then there's going to be friction.

The fact that this situation might be caused by a cynical marketing scheme rather than some clever organisation of the source material is something worth lampooning, I think.

It's even fairly on-topic since this strikes directly at the DM's ability to amicably fix problems that arise in future splatbooks which have been mysteriously blessed with the "core" label.

A future druid who discovers that their powers interact with the original set of books in a way that allows them to nuke cities can point to that label and argue that the DM's cheating by denying them something in the core books. The larger the "core" set the more chance there is that something is going to get out of whack and cause trouble for DMs trying to houserule it to something reasonable.

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 07:53 AM
I apologize then. Sarcasm is somewhat hard to detect over a written post.

I still give DMs, and players, enough credit to recognize a marketing scheme.

From now on I'm going to bring my soon-to-be-heavily marked PHB with whenever I go to buy a "core" manual or check on here first. If the combat rules are different then I'll probably pick it up or mooch of a fellow party member.

Roland St. Jude
2008-06-24, 08:12 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Apology or no, please clean it up in here. Say what you like or don't about a game, but don't attack other posters.

Jayabalard
2008-06-24, 08:38 AM
If WotC isn't going to specially designate the first three books from the other Core books they release, I see no reason why players should do so other than splitting hairs and strawman-ing 4e 'base' vs. other edition 'core' arguments.Because you can't count on everyone having all of the "core" books once there starts being 10+ core books.

So when someone is describing the bookes they have available, they could say 4e Base (phb1, DM1, MM1) + phb3, phb5 & phb 9 and splat books x, y, and z.

calling a large number of books "core" is WOTC trying to put pressure on people, DMs and players alike" to buy more books. People are much more likely to feel like they "have to buy" or "have to include" books that are "core" than books that are "not core".

Indon
2008-06-24, 08:43 AM
I propose "Vanilla".

And each new round of PHB/DMB/MM can be a numbered "Expansion". *

So you can refer to "Vanilla 4E", "4E 1'st expansion (or just 4E+1, which looks scientific so its' cool)", 4E+2, 4E+1 and 3 and so on.


*-This is not entirely tongue-in-cheek - just mostly.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-24, 08:46 AM
I propose "Vanilla".

And each new round of PHB/DMB/MM can be a numbered "Expansion". *

So you can refer to "Vanilla 4E", "4E 1'st expansion (or just 4E+1, which looks scientific so its' cool)", 4E+2, 4E+1 and 3 and so on.


*-This is not entirely tongue-in-cheek - just mostly.

Why say Expansion...

I mean... we can have Vanilla... then toppings! Cherries, Nuts, Sprinkles, Whipped Cream....

I propose that the Martial Power book be Peanut Butter Cups.

Blackdrop
2008-06-24, 08:49 AM
So, what, Shadow Power would be chocolate? :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2008-06-24, 09:09 AM
Why say Expansion...

Video games. Also, I'm really hungry all of a sudden... mmm, peanut butter cups...

Charity
2008-06-24, 09:12 AM
Why say Expansion...

I mean... we can have Vanilla... then toppings! Cherries, Nuts, Sprinkles, Whipped Cream....

I propose that the Martial Power book be Peanut Butter Cups.

No no, Vanilla then with 1 splat its raspberry ripple, then rum 'n' raisin, mint choc chip, all the way up to tripple choc fudge delight and cookie dough.

I'm starting to really appreciate 4e flovour now...

marjan
2008-06-24, 09:16 AM
I'm starting to really appreciate 4e flovour now...

And they say 4e doesn't have one. :smallwink:

Indon
2008-06-24, 09:56 AM
And they say 4e doesn't have one. :smallwink:

Well, for now, it's pretty vanilla. :P

Pinnacle
2008-06-24, 10:36 AM
Back on topic, count me as one of those who is quite certain the system will eventually break. There will also be a whole lot of powers which will cause rules headaches due to the ruleset being exception-based.

Aren't pretty much all rulesets exception-based?

Yakk
2008-06-24, 10:38 AM
Seal of Binding + Divine Regeneration
Two demigods. Both activate their regen power, the one Seal of Binding's the other.

Now the Binded target is immune to attacks until the end of the encounter?


I don't know *what* the hell they'll put in DMG2 though.

That's easy. Off of the top of my head, enough stuff for 3 DMGs:
World building!
Class building!
Paragon path building!
Epic desteny building!
Power building!
Weapon building! Magic weapon building!
Armor building! Magic armor building!
Feat building!
Race building!
Class modification!
Variant rules! (diagonal movement, terrain, flight)
Gesalt rules!
Combat pace control tweaks!
Non-vacian power usage rules!
Trap building mechanics!
Narrative mechanics!
Genre-enumation mechanics!
Monster quirk tables!
Kingdom generation systems! (random, point-based, etc)
City generation systems! (random, point-based, etc)
Dungeon generation systems! (random, point-based, etc)
Quest generation systems! (random, point-based, etc)

Arbitrarity
2008-06-24, 10:42 AM
Two demigods. Both activate their regen power, the one Seal of Binding's the other.

Now the Binded target is immune to attacks until the end of the encounter?


And is stunned, while the other has standard action sustains. Yeah... that's smart.
However, throw it on a monster, and boom, stun, damage, can't do anything. Broken against solos.

EvilElitest
2008-06-24, 11:16 AM
In other words: if you don't spend the money on these books then you are playing it wrong and are a bad person. You must only accept DMs who use all these books: if they don't then they are bad DMs who are screwing you over. Demand more! You're a sheep, right? You have a right to be fleeced!

Hasbro is a good corporate citizen and like all good corporate citizens it takes the duty to maximise its shareholders' dividends and share prices seriously. You wouldn't want to make nice little Hasbro cry, would you? Well, would you? Some of these shareholders don't yet even have a single Ferrari!

Buy buy buy!

Awwwwww, poor Hasbro. Must give them money

I can't see why people can mock this, i mean, it is funny, an generally accurate. When has anybody doubted WoTC wants money, it a business

Anyways, i think 4E will eventually become broken, for the same reason 3E became broken. WoTC doesn't care. Let me explain myself

#e was horribly, horribly broken, yes. It was broken from Core out, and people noted taht. But Wotc didn't fix it. I mean, for most of 3E existence, WotC never really bothered to attempt to fix 3E in any way, and often made the problem worst through lack of caring about balence in their supplements. Generally, they didn't care enough to try to save 3E's broken balence. When 4E was being made, i figure they realized they need to get their credibility back and made a huge focus on balence, so people would you know, buy the game, as it lacks 3E's focus on balence. But as 4E adds more and more books, which it will, because this is WotC who hopes to make money, eventually it will fall apart under its own weight. I mean, i suppose it is possible that WotC could balence each and every other supplement carefully, but after they get a bunch of customers with them, i doubt they will take the effort to carefully balence it when they can just sell it instead. I mean, people put up with 3E brokeness, they will do the same for 4E

And i think Yak make a good point
from
EE

marjan
2008-06-24, 11:20 AM
#e was horribly, horribly broken, yes. It was broken from Core out, and people noted taht. But Wotc didn't fix it. I mean, for most of 3E existence, WotC never really bothered to attempt to fix 3E in any way

To be honest, they did try (3.5e is huge errata of 3e). They completely screwed up, but they did try.

Baxbart
2008-06-24, 11:24 AM
I have to say - at least so far I'm quite happy with the way 4E is working out. Yes, I will admit it does need a little tidying here and there for some small clarifications, as mentioned before - but I haven't found as many hideous glaring holes as I came across in 3.5.

But then again, its WotC, its only a matter of time before we get swamped in sourcebooks and someone invents the new pun-pun.

EvilElitest
2008-06-24, 11:25 AM
To be honest, they did try (3.5e is huge errata of 3e). They completely screwed up, but they did try.

true, they did try, but they didn't understand the problem properly enough to fix it. It is like a social reform, you might fix some stuff, but the real problem is still there
from
EE

Duke of URL
2008-06-24, 11:32 AM
WotC never really bothered to attempt to fix 3E in any way, and often made the problem worst through lack of caring about balence in their supplements. Generally, they didn't care enough to try to save 3E's broken balence. When 4E was being made, i figure they realized they need to get their credibility back and made a huge focus on balence, so people would you know, buy the game

The true "conspiracy theorist" mentality would claim that the later supplements of 3.5 were so unbalanced precisely so that they could point to 4e (already in development) as a counter-example of a 'balanced" system.

Of course, I don't actually believe that, as I subscribe to the concept of never attributing to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence.

Tormsskull
2008-06-24, 11:39 AM
Anyways, i think 4E will eventually become broken, for the same reason 3E became broken. WoTC doesn't care. Let me explain myself


To be honest, I think this is a player created problem. When a new splatbook comes out, current D&D players reading through it typically get excited about new abilities, powers, classes, etc, that allow them to do things that they can't currently do with current core books.

In essence, players are looking for more powerful abilities, powers, classes from those splatbooks. WotC knows this, and so they give the players exactly what they want. If players demanded balance, WotC would be forced to provide balance (lest they lose money).

EvilElitest
2008-06-24, 11:48 AM
The true "conspiracy theorist" mentality would claim that the later supplements of 3.5 were so unbalanced precisely so that they could point to 4e (already in development) as a counter-example of a 'balanced" system.

Of course, I don't actually believe that, as I subscribe to the concept of never attributing to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence.

Hmmmm, that is an interesting theory. Personally, i think the implicatin of the ToB was more deliberate however, and the last frew splatbook

Anyways, Tormskull, i think players are looking for more options and cool stuff, not power on its own, however because of the lack of balence that is what they get
from
EE

The New Bruceski
2008-06-24, 11:50 AM
To be honest, I think this is a player created problem. When a new splatbook comes out, current D&D players reading through it typically get excited about new abilities, powers, classes, etc, that allow them to do things that they can't currently do with current core books.

In essence, players are looking for more powerful abilities, powers, classes from those splatbooks. WotC knows this, and so they give the players exactly what they want. If players demanded balance, WotC would be forced to provide balance (lest they lose money).
I can believe it. That was the major problem with Spellfire, and was an issue with Magic for a while before they worked out the current system of sets.

Actually Magic is a good analogy. The problem with some of the cards was not their power alone or in their set, but that they could be combined with every card and odd rule from previously.

Deepblue706
2008-06-24, 12:23 PM
Of course, I don't actually believe that, as I subscribe to the concept of never attributing to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence.

That's fascinating. I try NOT to attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by malice (without looking closely at the details)!

I'd go into my whole conspiracy theory about making the masses believe the general public is stupid and incompetent, so that they dismiss it when most people do something "bad" (by contrast, I see the average human being to possess profound potential, only diverted only by plain ignorance)...but that's for another time and place.

As for 4E following the "path of the broken", I don't think it will be as bad as 3E. Although, I can certainly see the possibility of the creation of some ridiculous combinations of abilities that end up being absolutely game-breaking, and will probably warrant a good amount of houseruling for the game to function best for all participating players.

Chronos
2008-06-24, 04:27 PM
I'm still not convinced on the first three 4e books being comparable to the first three 3e books. Sure, you can play the game with just the first three 4e books, but you can also play the game with core 3e with the schools of transmutation and conjuration removed, and several of the base classes missing. In fact, 3e without transmutation, conjuration, the monk, or the druid, I dare say the game would be pretty well balanced. So how do we decide how much of the system we need, to be truly "core"?

One way, of course, is to say "whatever the folks who publish it say is core". By this standard, it's trivially clear that we don't have all of 4e core yet. But that's not very satisfying, since we're then relying (even more than usually) on the whim of a marketing department.

You could say that "core" is "the minimum amount of material needed to play the game". But that's a lot smaller than just the first three books, and isn't actually all that well-defined. You need to have at least one class in the "core", but which one? A game with fighters only would be playable, but so would a game with wizards only, or rogues only.

You could say that "core" is "the minimum set of books needed to play the game, and everything contained within them". This, at least, forces us to use the entire PHB, but how then is the Monster Manual core? You could play a complete game where all of the enemies are humanoids with class levels, built according to the same rules as the PCs. And the 3.0 PHB (which came out some months before the other two books) includes a section at the back with a brief summary of the material in the DMG and Monster Manual. Is that enough to call just that one book alone, the "core" of 3.0?

Alternately, you could define "core" in terms of what capabilities are available to the players, and the first three 3.x books contain capabilities which are not found in the first three 4.0 books. In 3.x core, for instance, there are mechanics which allow PCs to magically mess with the minds of others, something which (from what I gather) is not yet implemented in 4.0. If we want to see which version has the more balanced charm powers, we'll have to wait and see just what the 4e charm powers are. So in this sense, what we have to date of 4e is not yet enough to compare it meaningfully to even the core of 3.x.

Hyooz
2008-06-24, 04:52 PM
A Fey pact Warlock who multiclasses into Cleric to take the Divine Oracle paragon path becomes pretty scary pretty quick once he hits level 16.

Most of your fey pact powers are vs. will, and the Divine Oracle has an ability that lets you roll twice for any vs. Will power and use the higher roll. Now pair that with some fun Warlock powers that deny a foe their standard action (vs. Will, of course) and sustain to keep them from taking a standard action (vs. will, of course) and you are a nigh-unstoppable lockdown machine.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 05:55 PM
A Fey pact Warlock who multiclasses into Cleric to take the Divine Oracle paragon path becomes pretty scary pretty quick once he hits level 16.

Most of your fey pact powers are vs. will, and the Divine Oracle has an ability that lets you roll twice for any vs. Will power and use the higher roll. Now pair that with some fun Warlock powers that deny a foe their standard action (vs. Will, of course) and sustain to keep them from taking a standard action (vs. will, of course) and you are a nigh-unstoppable lockdown machine.

Is that actually "broken" per se or just good?

Looking at it Curse of the Golden Mist (which I assume is the one you're referring to) is a Daily power requiring a Standard action to sustain it, and a 50% hit chance with a reroll is still only a 25% hit chance. And any really powerful opponent can use Action points to at least do *something*.

erikun
2008-06-24, 06:03 PM
And remember: if you miss both rolls, you wind up dazed for your currect turn and your next turn. No move action for you (you already took a standard) and you're giving all your enemies a +2 hit. Not always a good idea.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-24, 06:05 PM
And remember: if you miss both rolls, you wind up dazed for your currect turn and your next turn. No move action for you (you already took a standard) and you're giving all your enemies a +2 hit. Not always a good idea.

That said, it actually sounds like an awesome build for sheer flavour reasons. I mean dude: "I sold part of my humanity to fey creatures for a fraction of their power, and now a God shows me the future" what about that is *not* made of *awesome*.

Hyooz
2008-06-25, 09:19 AM
I suppose it's not broken in the same respect as a lot of stuff in 3.5 was (and some of the newer stuff in 4e) but considering the sheer volume of vs. will powers you get as a fey-pact warlock, you're really versatile and really hard to stop. Will tends to be one of the lower defenses anyway, and since you're going to have your attack pumped (and 2d20 take the highest is significantly better than just a d20. I don't have the distribution available to me right now, but when I worked it up, it surprised me.)

Even Eyebite is powerful at that point (against one opponent at least.) Unless something has really stacked its Will defense, you will hit almost all the time.

But, yeah, probably not so much broken as it is just a really scary build.

Hyooz
2008-06-25, 10:07 AM
Having wrote up a quick Java program to generate a distribution of 2d20 drop the lowest, I think it's been longer since I've programmed than I thought, or else 2d20 really owns hard. This is the distro I got (having run 5000 trials, and re-run the program several times with similar results):

Average roll is: 20

Distribution of rolls is:
0 : 0
1 : 16
2 : 35
3 : 80
4 : 106
5 : 178
6 : 168
7 : 251
8 : 251
9 : 316
10 : 353
11 : 371
12 : 453
13 : 494
14 : 480
15 : 550
16 : 605
17 : 599
18 : 646
19 : 679
20 : 757

Yeah... anything with a 20 average can't be quite right. If anyone here has any Java/general programming knowledge, here's the code I used:

public class Distribution {

public static void main(String[] args){
int roll1;
int roll2;
int average;
int sum = 0;
int[] distro = new int[21];

for(int i = 0; i < 5000; i++){
roll1 = (int)(20*Math.random() + 1);
roll2 = (int)(20*Math.random() + 1);

if(roll1 > roll2){
sum += roll1;
distro[roll1]++;
}

if(roll2 > roll1){
sum += roll2;
distro[roll2]++;
}

else {
sum += roll1;
distro[roll1]++;
}
}

average = sum/5000;

System.out.println("Average roll is: " + average);
System.out.println();
System.out.println("Distribution of rolls is:");
for(int i = 0; i < 21; i++){
System.out.println(i + " : " + distro[i]);
}
}
}

Indon
2008-06-25, 10:19 AM
Hmm. A 2d20 drop lowest distro.

Out of all 400 possibilities:
1: 1
2: 3
3: 5
4: 7
5: 9
6: 11
7: 13
8: 15
9: 17
10: 19
11: 21
12: 23
13: 25
14: 27
15: 29
16: 31
17: 33
18: 35
19: 37
20: 39

It's not a bad program, but I think it would've been easier to do in your head.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-25, 10:30 AM
Having wrote up a quick Java program to generate a distribution of 2d20 drop the lowest, I think it's been longer since I've programmed than I thought, or else 2d20 really owns hard. This is the distro I got (having run 5000 trials, and re-run the program several times with similar results):

It's not 2D20 drop lowest, though, it's 1D20, re-roll on a miss. Basically it turns you chances of missing from 1/X to 1/X^2. It turns a 50% miss chance into a 25% miss chance. On the other hand, if you *do* miss second time around, you get stunned.

Hyooz
2008-06-25, 11:21 AM
Hmm. A 2d20 drop lowest distro.

Out of all 400 possibilities:
1: 1
2: 3
3: 5
4: 7
5: 9
6: 11
7: 13
8: 15
9: 17
10: 19
11: 21
12: 23
13: 25
14: 27
15: 29
16: 31
17: 33
18: 35
19: 37
20: 39

It's not a bad program, but I think it would've been easier to do in your head.

I'm at work right now, so I had to make it look like work :smalltongue:


It's not 2D20 drop lowest, though, it's 1D20, re-roll on a miss. Basically it turns you chances of missing from 1/X to 1/X^2. It turns a 50% miss chance into a 25% miss chance. On the other hand, if you *do* miss second time around, you get stunned.

1d20 re-roll on miss is effectively 2d20 drop the lowest, though. You're just rolling the 2d20 one at a time. The possibility of stunning yourself is there, yes, which helps keep this from true brokeness, and more on the side of a good build.

mikeejimbo
2008-06-25, 11:39 AM
Dang! It'll be a while before I can use the Seal of Binding trick in the game I'm playing.

Yakk
2008-06-25, 02:47 PM
And is stunned, while the other has standard action sustains. Yeah... that's smart.
However, throw it on a monster, and boom, stun, damage, can't do anything. Broken against solos.
Ah yes -- the "solo can be crippled with a single power, not much harder than a standard monster" problem.


I'm still not convinced on the first three 4e books being comparable to the first three 3e books. Sure, you can play the game with just the first three 4e books, but you can also play the game with core 3e with the schools of transmutation and conjuration removed, and several of the base classes missing. In fact, 3e without transmutation, conjuration, the monk, or the druid, I dare say the game would be pretty well balanced. So how do we decide how much of the system we need, to be truly "core"?

One way, of course, is to say "whatever the folks who publish it say is core". By this standard, it's trivially clear that we don't have all of 4e core yet. But that's not very satisfying, since we're then relying (even more than usually) on the whim of a marketing department.

You could say that "core" is "the minimum amount of material needed to play the game". But that's a lot smaller than just the first three books, and isn't actually all that well-defined. You need to have at least one class in the "core", but which one? A game with fighters only would be playable, but so would a game with wizards only, or rogues only.

Yes, Wizards in 4e have less room devoted to them. However, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues have orders of magnitude more space devoted to them.

The 3e core Fighter, after seeing the real-estate devoted to the 4e base Fighter, looks like a class you'd design on the back of a napkin. With one exception, every one of the 3e core Fighter's class abilities are things that other classes can pick up by level 6, and be just as good as the Fighter is.

If you focus on the Wizard, yes the class has less real estate devoted to it. That real estate was used for other classes.