PDA

View Full Version : 4e new update is up.



Blazen
2010-05-04, 11:16 AM
http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updates

They just uploaded it. Take a look, nothing big to me. Unfortunately PHB3 has only received 1 update so far.

ShaggyMarco
2010-05-04, 11:28 AM
What got changed?

Edit: For those of us stuck behind work firewalls that won't let us see it, I mean. I don't need details, I'm just generally interested in what sort of adjustments were made.

Blazen
2010-05-04, 11:38 AM
The link should take you to the pdf/zip files. They changed the Ardent's wormhole plunge that stops teleport spamming at level one.

kieza
2010-05-04, 12:06 PM
It looks like they did a bit of work to "limit the potency of surgeless healing." The Cleric's Healer's Lore (+Wis to healing powers) now only applies when you let someone spend a healing surge. There are a couple other changes like that too.

Aron Times
2010-05-04, 12:08 PM
Oooh, Daggermaster and Pit Fighter got nerfed. Now, they only for for rogue and fighter powers respectively. This means that the popular monk/rogue/daggermaster build and the ranger/fighter/pit fighter build are now dead.

ShaggyMarco
2010-05-04, 12:20 PM
Does Pit Fighter still add damage to melee basic attacks?

Also, what about the fighter's Victorious Surge power and other similar "as if you had spent a healing surge" powers?

Hal
2010-05-04, 12:29 PM
I'm pretty disappointed by the change to Healer's Lore and Healer's Implement. Those really made for helpful features, especially in situations when the DM was pushing us to our very limits. We've had plenty of battles where the only healing I had left was my Consecrated ground and Astral Seal.

(Brutal DM, though he has yet to kill any of us)

Draz74
2010-05-04, 12:37 PM
Oooh, Daggermaster and Pit Fighter got nerfed. Now, they only for for rogue and fighter powers respectively. This means that the popular monk/rogue/daggermaster build and the ranger/fighter/pit fighter build are now dead.

Awww, I just finished statting up a Ranger|Fighter/Pit Fighter yesterday. :smallfrown:

Blazen
2010-05-04, 12:59 PM
The Healor's Lore requires the target to spend a healing surge. Also, I can understand the daggermaster change. Come on 18-24 20 crit range?
edit: woops 20.

Master_Rahl22
2010-05-04, 01:00 PM
I like the update to Infernal Wrath. I'm curious to see if it's still recommended to replace it in most cases.

@Blazen: What do you mean, 18-24? It's still 18-20 crit range, but it only applies to Rogue and Daggermaster powers now, so Sorcerers or other random classes that use Daggers can no longer end up with an 18-20 crit range by spending a feat (MC Rogue).

Mordokai
2010-05-04, 01:01 PM
The Healor's Lore requires the target to spend a healing surge. Also, I can understand the daggermaster change. Come on 18-24 crit range?

Ummmm... how can range on d20 be anything over, you know... 20?

ShaggyMarco
2010-05-04, 01:03 PM
How did Infernal Wrath get updated? Me and my Tiefling are interested.

Master_Rahl22
2010-05-04, 01:03 PM
Ah, I see you meant 20. If figured that was the case but didn't want to assume. Anywho, it's balanced with Rogues, which is why it's now limited to them.

@Shaggy: It's now a free action with a trigger of being hit, and deals automatic fire damage with no attack roll, rather than giving a +1 to hit and extra fire damage on an attack in the future..

Blazen
2010-05-04, 01:07 PM
When an enemy within 10 squares hits you they take 1d6 (scaling) + int/cha fire damage.

ShaggyMarco
2010-05-04, 01:11 PM
Is it an immediate reaction now? Or is the damage just bigger than the static damage before?

Does this work completely different now? What about all of the feats that adjust it?

Mando Knight
2010-05-04, 01:16 PM
I'm pretty disappointed by the change to Healer's Lore and Healer's Implement. Those really made for helpful features, especially in situations when the DM was pushing us to our very limits. We've had plenty of battles where the only healing I had left was my Consecrated ground and Astral Seal.

(Brutal DM, though he has yet to kill any of us)

To be honest, though, Astral Seal had ridiculous healing output before the nerf.

They're also letting Small guys use Medium mounts again. Hovering also got nerfed and boosted at the same time: hovering means you can't fall from stun, but everything else that hovering could do has been given to other forms of Flight as well.

Displacer armor got hit hard...
Is it an immediate reaction now? Or is the damage just bigger than the static damage before?

Does this work completely different now? What about all of the feats that adjust it?
It's completely different, and the feats that play off of it have been affected as well.

Blazen
2010-05-04, 01:18 PM
Its a free action. The damage is bigger (1/2/3d6 + int/cha). Not sure about feats though.
There was a change done to the weakened status.
Your attacks deal half damage. However, two kinds of damage that you deal are not affected: ongoing damage and damage that isnít generated by an attack roll.

Does this mean any damage not in a hit or miss line? I am wondering, would whirling rend, a barbarian attack where when you hit you also auto hit another target. would both hits be weakened?

Hzurr
2010-05-04, 01:19 PM
The ones that jumped out at me

Aid another has been updated so that it's 10+1/2 level DC, rather than a flat DC 10.

Charging has been updated. The rules on movement in a charge are stated a bit more explicitly, as well as that you can only use Free Actions after a charge (and using an action point is considered a free action)

Feychargers got a bit of a nerf (needed, in my opinion). It's now outlined that when you use your Fey Charge power, you're not actually using your Fey Step ability, so any feats or ability bonuses that key off of using "Fey Step" don't happen when you use Fey Charge

Hzurr
2010-05-04, 01:21 PM
There was a change done to the weakened status.
Your attacks deal half damage. However, two kinds of damage that you deal are not affected: ongoing damage and damage that isnít generated by an attack roll.

Does this mean any damage not in a hit or miss line? I am wondering, would whirling rend, a barbarian attack where when you hit you also auto hit another target. would both hits be weakened?

I believe that would still be considered "triggering from an attack roll." Things that wouldn't be triggered from an attack roll would be something like a damaging aura, or a zone that was created before you were weakened that deals automatic damage to a creature that starts its turn in it.

Blazen
2010-05-04, 01:22 PM
Wow displacer armor was seriously broken. Are you really surprised that they changed it to a 1 turn thing now?
@Hzur: In that case, many controllers and leaders just got a nice buff.

Faleldir
2010-05-04, 03:13 PM
WE GOT MEDIUM MOUNTS!

Well, not really, but it's a step in the right direction. Now all we need is an "Enhance Beast Companion" ritual.

Mando Knight
2010-05-04, 03:25 PM
I just noticed: Enlarged Sword Burst got axed, as did (somewhat ironically) Enlarged Fireball. Now only Wizard At-Wills and Encounter powers can be affected by Enlarge Spell.

Saintjebus
2010-05-04, 03:30 PM
Aid another has been updated so that it's 10+1/2 level DC, rather than a flat DC 10.



So it gets harder to help someone the higher you level? That makes perfect sense [/sarcasm]

NEO|Phyte
2010-05-04, 03:32 PM
So it gets harder to help someone the higher you level? That makes perfect sense [/sarcasm]

"I am a fighter that knows nothing about magic, but because I am high enough level, I can't fail to help the wizard use rituals" also makes perfect sense.

Saintjebus
2010-05-04, 03:40 PM
Actually, it does. The fighter is aiding the wizard- not casting the spell itself. It may be that the fighters role in aiding is "Stand there. Hold this potion. Hand me that spoon. Hold very, very still...."

That kind of thing doesn't get harder as you get more experience- it probably gets easier(especially if you have helped that particular wizard for most of your adventuring career).

NEO|Phyte
2010-05-04, 03:45 PM
That kind of thing doesn't get harder as you get more experience- it probably gets easier(especially if you have helped that particular wizard for most of your adventuring career).

Of course it doesn't get harder. It stays exactly as hard as it always has from level 1 to level 30.

Saintjebus
2010-05-04, 03:52 PM
The problem is that since it is 10 + 1/2 level, it simply eliminates the 1/2 level from the equation, because that's what you get added to your skill check. I just is going back to the paradigm that no matter how much you adventure, you are not going to have the min brains necessary to just "pick up" random information by virtue of being around experts in the field.

Blackfang108
2010-05-04, 03:54 PM
So how is my Dagger Sorceror supposed to get an 18-20 Crit range now?

Artanis
2010-05-04, 04:20 PM
*gets to the DP bit*

...they nerfed Avengers :smallconfused:

-----------


The problem is that since it is 10 + 1/2 level, it simply eliminates the 1/2 level from the equation, because that's what you get added to your skill check. I just is going back to the paradigm that no matter how much you adventure, you are not going to have the min brains necessary to just "pick up" random information by virtue of being around experts in the field.

4e has always assumed that characters face skill checks appropriate to their level. If the checks are getting harder, then logically, the checks to attempt to aid somebody with one of them should be getting harder. This in turn means that if characters go up in level, the checks they should actually be facing should be getting harder. The system doesn't care about a level 20 character deciding to Aid Another on a level 4 check, and it never has. It's consistent with how 4e has been since the beginning.


...I hope that that's coherent enough to make sense.

NeoVid
2010-05-04, 04:42 PM
So how is my Dagger Sorceror supposed to get an 18-20 Crit range now?

I was about to say, "Student of Caiphon with a Sunblade," but then I realized they'd killed that combo months ago.

Looks like it's the Luckbender PP for you, then.

Yakk
2010-05-04, 04:43 PM
Aiding the casting of a level 30 wizard is harder than a level 1 wizard.

Well, it is for anything that the level 30 wizard finds challenging.

If you want to aid doing something that a level 1 wizard could do ... well, the level 30 wizard is so good at it, that your "help" (holding the candle) would just get in the way (what do you mean, you cannot feel the probabilities mixing? No, don't let the wax drip there, that ... argh).

The relatively crude level 1 wizard spell -- the level 1 wizard is making mistakes herself, so you don't knock the eldrich balance off.

Really, aid another could have read "you give them a +2 bonus, up to a limit of +10 over your check". But that would be a weird rule (not just a check against a DC), and would add more state.

So how is my Dagger Sorceror supposed to get an 18-20 Crit range now?
He isn't?

With high str and dex, you can get 19-20. Do Sorcerers have an implement mastery feat?

Master_Rahl22
2010-05-04, 04:48 PM
Also, 4E just accepts that sometimes the rules won't make sense, but they will be balanced (or at least somebody's idea of balanced). In some places they threw out "realism" for "non-casters are useful after level 6".

Yakk
2010-05-04, 06:40 PM
*gets to the DP bit*

...they nerfed Avengers :smallconfused:
They nerfed a single paragon path from being able to spam minor melee basic attacks to 1/round.

They nerfed a daily that auto-blinded the target (no save, no way to avoid it).

They nerfed a Threatening Strike infinite damage combo (avenger with a basic attack that slides the target 1 = infinite basic attacks until you miss. If you find a way to slide them 1 on a miss, it is truely infinite damage).

How is that a smallconfused face?

cupkeyk
2010-05-04, 07:31 PM
I like the updates they made to movements that were already being houseruled anyway. Less contention on the table.

I just need to figure out how I can optimze a lancer halfling in 4e.

Aron Times
2010-05-04, 07:54 PM
My Lelouch expy died a little inside when he noticed that issuing suicidal commands to dominated creatures, like ordering someone to jump off a cliff, now grants them a free saving throw to snap out of it.

tbarrie
2010-05-04, 08:21 PM
Aiding the casting of a level 30 wizard is harder than a level 1 wizard.

Well, it is for anything that the level 30 wizard finds challenging.

Yeah, that's the same tweak I thought of: it should really be half the level of the character BEING aided, not the character DOING the aiding. Makes no difference with a typical party, so balancewise it shouldn't affect anything, but it makes a lot more sense.

Mando Knight
2010-05-04, 08:56 PM
My Lelouch expy died a little inside when he noticed that issuing suicidal commands to dominated creatures, like ordering someone to jump off a cliff, now grants them a free saving throw to snap out of it.

Damnit, WotC! The only ones who should kill are those prepared to be killed! Lelouch Vi Britannia commands it!

Artanis
2010-05-04, 09:11 PM
They nerfed a single paragon path from being able to spam minor melee basic attacks to 1/round.

They nerfed a daily that auto-blinded the target (no save, no way to avoid it).

They nerfed a Threatening Strike infinite damage combo (avenger with a basic attack that slides the target 1 = infinite basic attacks until you miss. If you find a way to slide them 1 on a miss, it is truely infinite damage).

How is that a smallconfused face?

Oh, I'm sure that the nerfs were needed. I was mostly thinking about the Avenger being the weakest Striker, so it getting nerfs - even needed ones - kinda snuck up on me as something unexpected.

Kylarra
2010-05-04, 09:33 PM
Tiefling's Infernal Wrath was completely revamped. Interesting.

Swordgleam
2010-05-04, 10:39 PM
I don't know how I feel about the Infernal Wrath change. On the one hand, good, they're fixing and improving things. On the other hand, that's pretty far-reaching - look how many feats had to be fixed.

And unlike the changes that affect one particular power for a certain class (which is most of them), this affects everyone who plays tieflings. It seems like it's something that should've been found sooner.

I guess I'm generally of the "if it's not incredibly broke, don't fix it" school of thought. This sort of change seems like more trouble than it's worth for everyone but RPGA.

tcrudisi
2010-05-05, 02:14 AM
Okay, I'm :smallconfused:. What was broken about the Tiefling's racial power before? It's nowhere near as powerful as the Half-Elf.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-05, 02:29 AM
My Lelouch expy died a little inside when he noticed that issuing suicidal commands to dominated creatures, like ordering someone to jump off a cliff, now grants them a free saving throw to snap out of it.

Um... yeah. That's the way it is in 3.5, and the way it was in 3.0 and even 2.0 if I recall correctly.

So why shouldn't it be that way in 4.0?

Lord Raziere
2010-05-05, 02:40 AM
Um... yeah. That's the way it is in 3.5, and the way it was in 3.0 and even 2.0 if I recall correctly.

So why shouldn't it be that way in 4.0?

because doing that is fun.......

I mean come on, I wanna see a guy going "Wheeee!!!! I'm dying!" while he falls through the air with his face in dominated glee :smallannoyed: is that too much too ask?

tcrudisi
2010-05-05, 02:57 AM
because doing that is fun.......

I mean come on, I wanna see a guy going "Wheeee!!!! I'm dying!" while he falls through the air with his face in dominated glee :smallannoyed: is that too much too ask?

No, it's not too much to ask. I enjoy getting dominated and I'm sure you enjoy getting dominated. Heck, who doesn't enjoy getting dominated? It fills all of us with glee. :smallamused:

Jokes
2010-05-05, 04:01 AM
Okay, I'm :smallconfused:. What was broken about the Tiefling's racial power before? It's nowhere near as powerful as the Half-Elf.

Which is probably why they changed it, to make it better. A +1 bonus and a bit of extra damage that doesn't scale well, even worse if you don't have cha as a primary stat, isn't particularly good.

I honestly don't know why they just didn't give them an extra power, like Drow have, use either one once/encounter and then have any feats apply to both powers.

ShaggyMarco
2010-05-05, 06:38 AM
Though, as my melee-focused Tiefling Barbarian/Paladin Hybrid, with feats and gear to support it, I will miss being able to help make sure one of my Dailies or Encounter powers hits by using Infernal Wrath to give myself a +3 to hit, +4 to damage, and push 3! (Plus 4 fire damage if I miss anyway!)

Now I can just insta-damage and push 2 when I'm hit, and then I get bonuses to my damage rolls on my next turn which may or may not be worth anything since I might miss. I'm definitely losing my Crown of Infernal Legacy. It's just not worth it any more.

I kind of, for my character, liked the old version better. The new one, however, is way better for almost any Tiefling you'd want to make.

pasko77
2010-05-05, 06:48 AM
Yeah, that's the same tweak I thought of: it should really be half the level of the character BEING aided, not the character DOING the aiding. Makes no difference with a typical party, so balancewise it shouldn't affect anything, but it makes a lot more sense.

I agree 100%.

Blazen
2010-05-05, 07:14 AM
Shaggy, if your playing homebrew then you can probably convince your DM to house rule the original infernal wrath.

Kurald Galain
2010-05-05, 07:21 AM
While I find it rather odd that WOTC would change core racial abilities two years after publishing them, I must admit that the original tiefling power is mediocre to awful. Indeed, of all the tieflings I've seen played in the past, they went for the stat boosts, fire resist and possibly bloodhunt, but I don't recall seeing any of them use infernal wrath, ever.

It used to be one of those powers that aren't really worth the "brain space" remembering you have them; compared to the highly visible and iconic Dwarf, Elf, Dragonborn, Halfling and Eladrin abilities it really falls flat.

ShaggyMarco
2010-05-05, 07:28 AM
Unfortunately, due to past campaigns becoming so confusing to make/update characters because of volumes of house-rules, my group agreed to play this campaign house-rule free, with all errata applied. That said, the DM does allow rebuilding of affected parts of your character if something is changed. I'll be able to swap out my Crown of Infernal Legacy for an equivalent level item and have the option of retraining any of my Infernal Wrath feats. I still like Furious Rebuke due to the push working with my Gauntlets of the Ram, and Rites of Spirit's Blood still gives me a +2 bonus to hit vs. bloodied targets instead of +1, so rebuilding will be minimal.

Rake
2010-05-05, 07:38 AM
I love how they're 'updates' and not 'errata'.

Asbestos
2010-05-05, 10:00 AM
While I find it rather odd that WOTC would change core racial abilities two years after publishing them, I must admit that the original tiefling power is mediocre to awful. Indeed, of all the tieflings I've seen played in the past, they went for the stat boosts, fire resist and possibly bloodhunt, but I don't recall seeing any of them use infernal wrath, ever.

It used to be one of those powers that aren't really worth the "brain space" remembering you have them; compared to the highly visible and iconic Dwarf, Elf, Dragonborn, Halfling and Eladrin abilities it really falls flat.

I had a Tiefling Wizard and, while I tried to make use of Infernal Wrath, it never had any useful effect. Its been a very disappointing racial power since Day 1 of 4e.

tbarrie
2010-05-05, 10:42 AM
I love how they're 'updates' and not 'errata'.

Well, some of the things in there could be considered "errata", but not all of them; calling the change to Infernal Wrath an "erratum" would be pretty farcical. ("Oops, that was supposed to be a free-damage power that triggers when you get hit, not a boost to your own attacks. We just noticed the mistake now. Also, every feat we've released over the last two years that interacts with it was also misprinted. Our bad.")

Arguably it should be titled "updates and errata", but this is a minor quibble. (You could also make a case for errata and updates being in separate lists, but the line between them is often fuzzy.)

BobTheDog
2010-05-05, 11:13 AM
Well, some of the things in there could be considered "errata", but not all of them; calling the change to Infernal Wrath an "erratum" would be pretty farcical. ("Oops, that was supposed to be a free-damage power that triggers when you get hit, not a boost to your own attacks. We just noticed the mistake now. Also, every feat we've released over the last two years that interacts with it was also misprinted. Our bad.")

Arguably it should be titled "updates and errata", but this is a minor quibble. (You could also make a case for errata and updates being in separate lists, but the line between them is often fuzzy.)

QFT. This is their way of avoiding/preparing 4.5 (the verb to use depends on your opinion on the future reality of 4.5). And it gives more power to their special pet, the Insider subscription. What with all updates automatically appearing on your Builder, it makes having an updated Builder, if not a necessity, a very, very useful tool.

BlckDv
2010-05-05, 11:18 AM
They have also as much as said that they are trying to cram in as much updating/errata as they can prior to the release of the Rules Compendium in order to make what would otherwise be a reprinting of key parts of the PHB into a reasonable purchase, and ensure that the Essentials line uses the "correct" rules when it goes to print.

I am very curious to see if the Rules Compendium includes an index of class/item power changes, in effect making it a hard copy guide to updates/errata.

Kylarra
2010-05-05, 11:25 AM
It's still worth pointing out that you can just upkeep $10 at the end of the year for your builder and have it fully update with everything prior to that anyway. It's not like you need to buy every month in order to have their updates.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-05, 01:42 PM
It's still worth pointing out that you can just upkeep $10 at the end of the year for your builder and have it fully update with everything prior to that anyway. It's not like you need to buy every month in order to have their updates.

But that's not RAI! :smallbiggrin:

Yakk
2010-05-05, 01:58 PM
I have no doubt that there is going to be a PHB reprint with updates in it.

I have no doubt that people will call this D&D 4.5.

Mando Knight
2010-05-05, 02:22 PM
But that's not RAI! :smallbiggrin:

Of course. The RAI is that you purchase the yearly subscription and all of the splatbooks, as well as as many miniatures as you can't afford, then max out your credit card on more. :smalltongue:

Regardless of how good or bad a product is or how much the producers love it, WotC's a company, and it's every company's goal to squeeze every last penny out of your wallet.

Asbestos
2010-05-05, 02:30 PM
I have no doubt that there is going to be a PHB reprint with updates in it.

I have no doubt that people will call this D&D 4.5.
Of course, it doesn't seem near the overhaul that 3rd had when it became 3.5. At least not to me.

Kylarra
2010-05-05, 02:33 PM
But that's not RAI! :smallbiggrin:
RAW has you able to print out the errata/updates and paste them into your books for free* though. :smallcool:


*minus the costs of printing and internet use

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-05, 02:37 PM
RAW has you able to print out the errata/updates and paste them into your books for free* though. :smallcool:


*minus the costs of printing and internet use

But... then you've destroyed their Collecter's Value!!! :smallfurious:

(Too bad there isn't a specific text colour for "Sarcasm" here.)

Kylarra
2010-05-05, 02:40 PM
But... then you've destroyed their Collecter's Value!!! :smallfurious:

(Too bad there isn't a specific text colour for "Sarcasm" here.)That's neither RAW nor RAI. :smallbiggrin:

Kurald Galain
2010-05-05, 02:41 PM
I have no doubt that there is going to be a PHB reprint with updates in it.

I have no doubt that people will call this D&D 4.5.
I count 23 pages of errata for the PHB, including rather fundamental changes to the rules on skills, combat effects, combat actions, keywords and resistances, and conjurations. Furthermore, the DMG has had fundamental errata to the rules for skill challenges, flight, and mounts. This is not counting the addendums printed in PHB2 and PHB3, notably the new rules on weapons-as-implements.

Mind you, most of these changes are clearly for the better. Nevertheless, anyone who would call the result 4.5 by now can easily be said to have cause for that.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-05, 04:12 PM
Mind you, most of these changes are clearly for the better. Nevertheless, anyone who would call the result 4.5 by now can easily be said to have cause for that.
Only if you want to drive yourself crazy :smalltongue:

WotC is clearly going to keep updating their rules (including core rules) as needed. Since they have been more-or-less continually revising the ruleset since release I would have a hard time figuring out the dividing line between 4.0 and 4.5. Not to mention 4.501, 4.732, etc.

@Yakk
I'm actually not so sure they're going to release an updated version of any of their books. I think Bob has it right - WotC is pushing for more people to rely on DDI for their gaming needs. The book releases are "luxuries;" expensive versions that appeal to those who care about the default fluff, having physical goods, and getting early access to new materials.

With that in mind, and considering the sizable expense entailed in reprinting and distributing an "old" book, I doubt that WotC will do anything of the sort - at least not unless they plan to sell more "collector's editions."

In any case, a fine piece of price discrimination IMHO.

Kurald Galain
2010-05-05, 04:18 PM
Only if you want to drive yourself crazy :smalltongue:

Indeed :smallsmile:

However, two things: first, WOTC has stated they will release a lot of errata for the next few months, and very little after that, with a clear cutoff point. And second, WOTC intends to release "D&D Essentials", which appear to be new books containing updated rules (and regardless of their content, will likely end up being called 4.5).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-05, 04:27 PM
Indeed :smallsmile:

However, two things: first, WOTC has stated they will release a lot of errata for the next few months, and very little after that, with a clear cutoff point. And second, WOTC intends to release "D&D Essentials", which appear to be new books containing updated rules (and regardless of their content, will likely end up being called 4.5).
Interesting, I did not know that.

I agree with the D&DE point - though it is more accurately 4' than 4.5 - but somehow I suspect that WotC isn't going to be able to keep their hands off the rules after their supposed "cut-off" date.

Artanis
2010-05-05, 09:43 PM
And to be fair, the number of pages can be rather misleading as well. The page count is greatly inflated by the fact that many of the entries have two or three times as much information as is strictly necessary. I appreciate them giving the reasoning behind various changes, and reprinting things like the power/item/whatever block to reflect the changes, but you have to admit that that can take up a lot of extra space. If take out that stuff and boil it down to just what was changed, it gets a hell of a lot shorter.

Coidzor
2010-05-05, 10:36 PM
Interesting, I did not know that.

I agree with the D&DE point - though it is more accurately 4' than 4.5 - but somehow I suspect that WotC isn't going to be able to keep their hands off the rules after their supposed "cut-off" date.

Indeed. Just look at some of their other products.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-06, 12:29 AM
Indeed. Just look at some of their other products.
Well, I wasn't make a jibe at WotC specifically...

Y'see, when you have an elegant method for updating a set of rules, it's real tempting to use it. After all, no set of rules is without flaw and so long as they keep introducing new books they will keep adding new variables to that base set of rules - and every addition is another chance for error.

Honestly, it's best for the game that the producer keeps tweaking their rules for maximum playability. The only risk is that they "go off the deep end" and radically change the game in such a way that it triggers a revolt from their player base. Even then, all they need to do is "roll back" the update to restore peace unto the land.

Gralamin
2010-05-06, 01:07 AM
Movement Silliness
You can jump while crawling, which may allow you to move farther.
You can stealth while mounting, or jump while mounting.

Mount Silliness
So Mounts needs to be nerfed (and by that I mean clarified). As is there is no detection of whether the creature you are trying to mount is friendly. So imagine the following:


Mount (Move Action): The rider mounts a creature adjacent to it and enters its space.

Take a Halfling Rogue with the OA defense bonus. He walks up to an opponent of Medium size or larger (including swarms) and uses the mount action. He moves into the creatures space and mounts it. Since the Halfling Rogue is an adventurer...

Actions (Adventurers Only): An adventurer and his or her mount have one combined set of actions: a standard action, a move action, and a minor action. The player chooses how the two creatures use the actions on the adventurerís turn. Most commonly, the mount takes a move action to walk or fly, and the adventurer takes a standard action to attack. The adventurer and the mount also share a single immediate action each round and a single opportunity action each turn. If the adventurer dismounts, the two still share one set of actions on that turn, but have separate sets of actions thereafter.
...Its actions gets folded into yours. (it's initiative also becomes the same as yours). Congratulations, you are now riding around on a solo if you want.

You can use the same idea if your friend is dominated: mounting them allows you to remove their actions.

Sophismata
2010-05-06, 02:22 AM
You can use the same idea if your friend is dominated: mounting them allows you to remove their actions.

So sigged.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-06, 02:34 AM
You can use the same idea if your friend is dominated: mounting them allows you to remove their actions.
That's what she said :smallbiggrin:

In the alternative: Is That What They're Callling It Now? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle7dma8aj8)

Sir Homeslice
2010-05-06, 04:57 AM
From the looks of it, WotC seriously hates all implement users and options that can compete with Twin Strike.

Kurald Galain
2010-05-06, 05:12 AM
From the looks of it, WotC seriously hates all implement users and options that can compete with Twin Strike.

To be fair, implement users did just get superior implements.

Sir Homeslice
2010-05-06, 10:41 AM
To be fair, implement users did just get superior implements.

Which in no way makes up for WotC's blatant hatred of them filling their roles how?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-06, 10:59 AM
Which in no way makes up for WotC's blatant hatred of them filling their roles how?
In that WotC no more hates implement users than any given MMO hates a class that it nerfs.

Seriously, the Daggermaster cheese was clearly not intended to bring Sorcerers OVER 9000. Rangers are supposed to be the top damage dealers - but all they can do is damage. Everyone else has strong secondary abilities (e.g. control, leader) to make up for the lesser damage abilities.

Sir Homeslice
2010-05-06, 11:08 AM
In that WotC no more hates implement users than any given MMO hates a class that it nerfs.

Seriously, the Daggermaster cheese was clearly not intended to bring Sorcerers OVER 9000. Rangers are supposed to be the top damage dealers - but all they can do is damage. Everyone else has strong secondary abilities (e.g. control, leader) to make up for the lesser damage abilities.

Enlarge Spell's nerf reason was basically "enlarging dailies provides control at the cost of removing damage that was easily made up for, therefore no additional control for Wizard dailies!"

And Sorcerers have no good Paragon Paths anymore that isn't Celestial Scholar or Lightning Fury, as those two are limited to Cosmic and Storm Sorcerers respectively. And as an aside, just because Rangers are supposed to deal damage, doesn't mean nobody else gets to deal damage.

And you're kinda wrong, Rangers make passable soft controllers and off-tanks for ranged and melee respectively. Throw and Stab's nerf was horrendously unjustified and unwarranted.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-06, 11:38 AM
Enlarge Spell's nerf reason was basically "enlarging dailies provides control at the cost of removing damage that was easily made up for, therefore no additional control for Wizard dailies!"

And Sorcerers have no good Paragon Paths anymore that isn't Celestial Scholar or Lightning Fury, as those two are limited to Cosmic and Storm Sorcerers respectively. And as an aside, just because Rangers are supposed to deal damage, doesn't mean nobody else gets to deal damage.

And you're kinda wrong, Rangers make passable soft controllers and off-tanks for ranged and melee respectively. Throw and Stab's nerf was horrendously unjustified and unwarranted.
I'm pretty sure that WotC meant for Enlarge Spell to have a real cost - hence the "no using on non-damaging spells" clause. You can still use it on Encounters - and they're plenty good.

I'll admit that I don't intimately know Sorcerers but surely Dragonsoul Heir, Wild Mage and Primordial Channeler aren't that bad. Getting a 16-20 crit range 1/EN for a close blast, for example, looks pretty good to me.

As for Rangers - "passable soft controllers" are not the same as Secondary Controllers.

Artanis
2010-05-06, 12:11 PM
And as an aside, just because Rangers are supposed to deal damage, doesn't mean nobody else gets to deal damage.
Nobody's saying that other classes should be unable to deal damage. Why do you think people complain about the Avenger so much? Because they feel it should be able to do damage.

No, what people say is that if a class can only do one thing, it should be better at that one thing than classes that can do something else. Since Rangers can do little more than make things die, they should be the best at making things die.


And you're kinda wrong, Rangers make passable soft controllers and off-tanks for ranged and melee respectively. Throw and Stab's nerf was horrendously unjustified and unwarranted.

I gotta agree with Oracle_Hunter on this one. An occasional half-hearted kicker does not make somebody a controller, and being able to physically clog up an approach route does not make somebody an off-tank.

Yakk
2010-05-06, 01:17 PM
Rangers should be as good as other strikers at making things die.

A class, in their primary role, should not be designed to be sub-standard to other classes in their primary role. If this means that the Ranger is missing "secondary" roles, then give the Ranger secondary roles, don't break the role paradigm of 4e.

Leaders should all be good at leading.
Strikers should all be good at striking.
Defenders should all be good at defending.
I really don't know what Controllers should be good at.

Draz74
2010-05-06, 01:26 PM
I really don't know what Controllers should be good at.

... Anything the other three aren't good at?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-06, 02:13 PM
Rangers should be as good as other strikers at making things die.

A class, in their primary role, should not be designed to be sub-standard to other classes in their primary role. If this means that the Ranger is missing "secondary" roles, then give the Ranger secondary roles, don't break the role paradigm of 4e.
I think you run into a problem of variation: how many different ways can you design Strikers such that all of them have the same damage output?

By adding Secondary Roles you allow classes that turn out to be weak in their Primary to make it up by aiding another class in its role. So even if Rangers and Sorcerers don't do the same amount of damage, at least the Sorcerer can help out the Controller with a few debuffs here and there.

Otherwise, the question when choosing a Striker would always be "which class does the most damage" instead of "do you want to do pure damage, or do you want to do good damage while crippling their counterattacks? Or would you rather be better able to soak up damage?"

Aside from the Warlock (which is really a Controller with Secondary Striking) and the Avenger (which is just poorly designed) I think WotC has done a good job on this front. And when a class goes bad, WotC usually figures out a way to "fix" them, sooner or later (e.g. the Paladin).

Divide by Zero
2010-05-06, 02:21 PM
I really don't know what Controllers should be good at.

Er, controlling?

Kurald Galain
2010-05-06, 02:51 PM
Er, controlling?

Yeah, but is control defined as area effects? Status effects? Debuffs? Zones? Multi-hit attacks? WOTC still doesn't seem to be sure.

Sir Homeslice
2010-05-06, 05:10 PM
Nobody's saying that other classes should be unable to deal damage. Why do you think people complain about the Avenger so much? Because they feel it should be able to do damage.

Explain:

Rangers are supposed to be the top damage dealers - but all they can do is damage. Everyone else has strong secondary abilities (e.g. control, leader) to make up for the lesser damage abilities.

Oracle says that since Rangers are clearly lacking a secondary role, they should be able to do more damage. Since Sorcerers are secondary controllers, they should deal less damage. Sorc control isn't as large as Oracle makes it out to be, so they have to make up for it by damage, right?

They don't.


No, what people say is that if a class can only do one thing, it should be better at that one thing than classes that can do something else. Since Rangers can do little more than make things die, they should be the best at making things die.

Total load of crap. Assuming basic competency, team of specialists > team of generalists. Similarly, a striker that can't strike or a defender that can't defend is chaff at its main role and really needs to be fixed somehow.


I'll admit that I don't intimately know Sorcerers but surely Dragonsoul Heir, Wild Mage and Primordial Channeler aren't that bad. Getting a 16-20 crit range 1/EN for a close blast, for example, looks pretty good to me.
Dragonsoul Heir is a defender PP on a Striker that does precious little to actually increase the damage Sorcerers deal. Wild Mage is laughable as a PP, and Primordial Channelers are only good if you can constantly get Fire for your WIld Soul's resist.

Thajocoth
2010-05-06, 05:17 PM
Controlling is reducing what the enemy can do. Status effects, moving them to less advantageous positions, taking out a lot of minions at once... And summoning, since they don't really do damage on their own. The other roles are easier to describe, certainly, but I'd say Controller is still pretty clear. (Defender = Take damage & get enemy to focus on you; Striker = Deal damage; Leader = Heal, buff and get the party into advantageous positions.)

I saw a demotivator recently that said "Warlords wield allies, Psions wield enemies." That's basically it... What a Leader does for allies, a Controller does the opposite for enemies.

Gametime
2010-05-06, 08:22 PM
Explain:

Total load of crap. Assuming basic competency, team of specialists > team of generalists. Similarly, a striker that can't strike or a defender that can't defend is chaff at its main role and really needs to be fixed somehow.



Well, yeah, but a team of specialists with secondary functions is better than either. The question is how much of your specialized functionality you sacrifice to obtain that secondary function. It is, however, pretty obvious that if two classes do the same amount of damage, and one of them also does other useful things on top of that, then the second class is strictly better.

How much extra damage the first class should do to make up for that is a thorny issue. Arguably, the game would be better served by not having any of the classes purely devoted to damage, and making all the strikers equally good at damage dealing as well as possessing a moderately useful secondary function.

Artanis
2010-05-06, 08:53 PM
It is, however, pretty obvious that if two classes do the same amount of damage, and one of them also does other useful things on top of that, then the second class is strictly better.

This. Exactly this.

NeoVid
2010-05-06, 09:42 PM
I'll admit that I don't intimately know Sorcerers but surely Dragonsoul Heir, Wild Mage and Primordial Channeler aren't that bad. Getting a 16-20 crit range 1/EN for a close blast, for example, looks pretty good to me.



I do know Sorcerers that well, and those are all pretty sad PPs. Wild Mage was an amazingly fitting PP for my Sorc, and I still couldn't bring myself to take it.

The PP I ended up using on my dagger-specialist Sorc was Demonskin Adept.

Also, highly relevant. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/23728241/Sorry_about_the_sorc?pg=1)

BobTheDog
2010-05-06, 10:28 PM
Take a Halfling Rogue with the OA defense bonus. He walks up to an opponent of Medium size or larger (including swarms) and uses the mount action. He moves into the creatures space and mounts it. Since the Halfling Rogue is an adventurer...

You can use the same idea if your friend is dominated: mounting them allows you to remove their actions.

To both of these, I say:


Willing: You can use a creature as a mount only if it is willing.

I'll grant you, though, a Halfling Psion with the right powers could mount a dominated ally... (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Interestingly, the Compendium forgot to remove the Saddles requirement. So I guess that Halfling psion's first command to the dominated ally would be "wear this". :smalleek:

cupkeyk
2010-05-07, 12:30 AM
To both of these, I say:



I'll grant you, though, a Halfling Psion with the right powers could mount a dominated ally... (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Interestingly, the Compendium forgot to remove the Saddles requirement. So I guess that Halfling psion's first command to the dominated ally would be "wear this". :smalleek:

That's page 46 of the DMG. the updates was in addition and not replacement after all.

Gralamin
2010-05-07, 12:58 AM
To both of these, I say:



I'll grant you, though, a Halfling Psion with the right powers could mount a dominated ally... (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Interestingly, the Compendium forgot to remove the Saddles requirement. So I guess that Halfling psion's first command to the dominated ally would be "wear this". :smalleek:

You are correct that willing should still be there, and I missed that (primarily because I thought it was in "Mount and Rider" and not Mount), but the Compendium is wrong about the Saddles. My mistake then, but fun to think about.

Asbestos
2010-05-07, 01:35 AM
I do know Sorcerers that well, and those are all pretty sad PPs. Wild Mage was an amazingly fitting PP for my Sorc, and I still couldn't bring myself to take it.

The PP I ended up using on my dagger-specialist Sorc was Demonskin Adept.

Also, highly relevant. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/23728241/Sorry_about_the_sorc?pg=1)

I'm sure that Arcane Power 2 or some Dragon articles will rectify the Sorcerer PP weaknesses. Its still not a bad class though, even if it can't go Daggermaster for cheesiness.

Zaq
2010-05-07, 01:39 AM
I'm sure that Arcane Power 2 or some Dragon articles will rectify the Sorcerer PP weaknesses. Its still not a bad class though, even if it can't go Daggermaster for cheesiness.

OK, my lack of 4e system mastery is showing. What was so cheesy about it? Why was everyone so hot and bothered about Daggermaster? I understand that it gave you an increased crit range with all your powers, but why is that so special that people are walking around acting like Sorcerers no longer exist as a result? Is being ever-so-slightly more likely to max your damage dice and add a couple d6 really The One True Path To Power? Because I've never understood why people get so... excited over increased crit ranges. I look at them and think "oh good, more stuff I can't control and thus can't use to its fullest effect." Clearly, though, I'm the noob here, so what's the big deal?

cupkeyk
2010-05-07, 01:43 AM
OK, my lack of 4e system mastery is showing. What was so cheesy about it? Why was everyone so hot and bothered about Daggermaster? I understand that it gave you an increased crit range with all your powers, but why is that so special that people are walking around acting like Sorcerers no longer exist as a result? Is being ever-so-slightly more likely to max your damage dice and add a couple d6 really The One True Path To Power? Because I've never understood why people get so... excited over increased crit ranges. I look at them and think "oh good, more stuff I can't control and thus can't use to its fullest effect." Clearly, though, I'm the noob here, so what's the big deal?

Because sorcs get AoE's. They get more mileage out of the increased threat range by getting more chances of rolling attacks. They then dump a lot of crit riders into the build for extra devastation.

Asbestos
2010-05-07, 04:18 AM
OK, my lack of 4e system mastery is showing. What was so cheesy about it? Why was everyone so hot and bothered about Daggermaster? I understand that it gave you an increased crit range with all your powers, but why is that so special that people are walking around acting like Sorcerers no longer exist as a result? Is being ever-so-slightly more likely to max your damage dice and add a couple d6 really The One True Path To Power? Because I've never understood why people get so... excited over increased crit ranges. I look at them and think "oh good, more stuff I can't control and thus can't use to its fullest effect." Clearly, though, I'm the noob here, so what's the big deal?

If the optimal PP for your class is the PP for another class than either something is wrong with your class or with that PP, especially if the rest of that other class is basically worthless to you. That's my take at least. With the Not-Venger builds the problem seems to clearly be with the Avenger class. But say, with the Ranger and Pit Fighter the Ranger is a very strong class with its own good PPs, so what do we make of the 'optimal' Ranger that 'must' take Pit Fighter? Is the PP too powerful when applied outside of the class it was designed for? The same applies to Daggermaster which is a very attractive PP for non-Rogues and even non-Dex-centric classes. Are those classes too weak or is the PP so powerful that it is 'optimal' even if you are subpar when using the powers associated with the PP? The Sorcerer and Avenger builds that go Daggermaster never even make use of the Dex powers from that PP, they're taking it solely for the extremely powerful features so they can crit-fish.

Kurald Galain
2010-05-07, 04:30 AM
OK, my lack of 4e system mastery is showing. What was so cheesy about it? Why was everyone so hot and bothered about Daggermaster? I understand that it gave you an increased crit range with all your powers, but why is that so special that people are walking around acting like Sorcerers no longer exist as a result?
If your aim is doing damage, then tripling your critical hit rate is going to outshine every other paragon path option you can think of. Normally your crit rate is one-in-twenty; with daggermaster (or student of caiphon, same story) it's one-in-seven. And crits do a lot of damage, plus other effects by weapon type, plus free slide and prone if you're a chaos sorcerer.

That said, yeah, some people are overreacting, particularly on the WOTC forums. Having seen the daggermaster in action, I can also attest that it's one of the most boring PPs ever.

Kurald Galain
2010-05-07, 04:33 AM
If the optimal PP for your class is the PP for another class than either something is wrong with your class or with that PP, especially if the rest of that other class is basically worthless to you.
That is a very good point, and it appears to be exactly what WOTC is trying to alleviate. Even worse, a handful of PPs (notably daggermaster, student of caiphon, and pit fighter) are or used to be the best PP option for quite a lot of classes.

A still present example is how many wizards and psions take Divine Oracle solely for its level-16 feature. I wouldn't be surprised if that got nerfed, too.

Asbestos
2010-05-07, 07:05 AM
That is a very good point, and it appears to be exactly what WOTC is trying to alleviate. Even worse, a handful of PPs (notably daggermaster, student of caiphon, and pit fighter) are or used to be the best PP option for quite a lot of classes.

A still present example is how many wizards and psions take Divine Oracle solely for its level-16 feature. I wouldn't be surprised if that got nerfed, too.

Indeed, its my belief that the best example of class X should be as pure a version of class X as possible. Some PPs are going to be better than others, but hopefully the best PP for a specific class will be one for that class and not another. As it is, or was, CharOp might make you think that there are less PPs than classes. And, again, I think it demonstrates either a problem with the Path or with class if its much better to exit the class than stay within it.

This isn't to say I think multiclassed characters should be weak, I just don't think that an X/Y should outclass an X in such an obvious and egregious way as that to make a good X you 'have' to be an X/Y.