4th Edition Quirks

[Username17]

One thing I've noticed from playing 4E, the biggest drawback for the defender types seems to be that healing is so good, generally it seems you're better off using a cleric or a warlord as a defender, since their healing is good enough to negate enemy attacks well, just in a different way.

I guess the only real advantage of a defender is that you can go through more encounters in a day, because you won't run out of Healing Surges as quickly. That's pretty minor.

...and you get the same benefit by inflicting more damage or by stunlocking enemies such that they are allowed less turns with which to attack you and require healing surges.

Defender -> Striker isn't a different character role, it's just an offense/defense slider, and a pretty minor one at that. The Tron Paladin does more damage and is less defensive than the Grind Paladin, by a substantial margin. The two Rogue builds also differ slightly on offense/defense specialization, as do the two Ranger builds. The Bowazon does less damage than Drzzt but is a lot harder to kill. At what point do these sliders make a new role?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "never."

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Going with the slider analogy:

Wouldn't it be better if one let the players decide where to set the slider?

[baduin]

Actually, 2ed already had the same four class groups: Fighters (Rangers were a subgroup of fighers, not of Rogues), Magicians, Clerics and Rogues. 4ed didn't start with any basic thinking about the roles a character can play in combat, but with that 4 groups. They simply tried to invent some things which could make those groups different.

Accordingly, the "roles" in D&D are:
armored fighter,
unarmored fighter with skills,
armored caster with healing.
unarmored caster without healing

[CatharzGodfoot]

Warforged aren't especially powerful, but they are pretty fucking cool. You can go all inspector gadget with a rod in one arm, a wand in the other, an orb in your chest, a holy symbol on your kneecap, a hand crossbow popping out of your hand, glowing flashlight eyes, thieves' tools in your fingers, hidden compartments all over, a heavy shield riveted to your arm, another crossbow popping up from a shoulder turret..

It might be superfluous for all but a swordmage/artificer, but it's totally rad.

[MartinHarper]

They've fixed Stealth.

http://ww2.wizards.com/dnd/insider/skil ... rm=stealth

This actually looks reasonable to me. Most stealthy characters need to be hidden in order to hide. High-level rogues can do "exception-based design" things that are barely human. Thoughts?

[Tydanosaurus]

That looks pretty good.

[Sma]

Except there no way to sneak up on someone standing in the middle of the crowded town square without GM fiat.

[Tydanosaurus]

Isn't "Distracted" defined in a few exceptions, besides relying on the DM and roleplaying?

[RiotGearEpsilon]

A crowded town square can count as concealment or improved cover pretty easily, depending on how many people there are. If you aren't yet in combat, other creatures can count as improved cover and let you become hidden, allowing you to get an OMGWTF pounce on your target.

[Sma]

It says straight out that creatures cannot be used as cover. So ruling that they indeed count as such is exactly the GM fiat I was talking about.

No clue about the distracted thing though.

[Amra]

Hang on... creatures can't be used as cover? Let me... just... turn that around... OW! AAARGH! OO! The pain... THE PAIN!!!

*wince*

OK, I've got that to fit. Creatures can't be used as cover. That makes perfect sense now. And I've had a brilliant idea: I'm going off to play straight Paladin for 20 levels. That makes sense to me now as well.

I think I need to lie down.

[RiotGearEpsilon]

Creatures can't be used as cover to REMAIN hidden. They can be used as cover to BECOME hidden.

Granted, this is still pretty silly.

[Kaelik]

33 new Rituals released!

Featuring such amazing shit as:

1) Paying 30 GP for special magic one time use Curtain that takes 10 minutes to hang up.

2) Becoming super super invisible (which depending on the rules, really just gives a -10 to Perception checks) as long as you never move or attack. So I guess it's like blowing the amount of money you would need to build a false wall in 10 minutes to eavesdrop from behind, to eavesdrop on a conversation (that you knew would take place in this exact place long before, that you have full access to, that isn't watched.)

3) Overland Flight! Super Broken! Except that you lose all actions except your move action and you can only use your move action for flying and if you do anything else you crash (though it doesn't say the ritual ends, or that you take any damage from this crash).

So basically, hope your DM doesn't forget that, and try to give you a (God Forbid) encounter with a flying monster on your trip.

Oh, and best of all, because the ritual doesn't end when you "crash" you still get no standard actions even afterward. And if dismissing it is even possible, it probably requires a Standard action, which they can't take, so apparently even the lowliest level 1 character can kick ass on anyone who was stupid enough to cast Overland Flight.

[RandomCasualty2]

Defender -> Striker isn't a different character role, it's just an offense/defense slider, and a pretty minor one at that. The Tron Paladin does more damage and is less defensive than the Grind Paladin, by a substantial margin. The two Rogue builds also differ slightly on offense/defense specialization, as do the two Ranger builds. The Bowazon does less damage than Drzzt but is a lot harder to kill. At what point do these sliders make a new role?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "never."

Well, the idea of the defender role is not only one of defense versus offense, but rather the defender is supposed to soak attacks. Like we saw with 3E, having uber defense doesn't really mean much if you can't get the enemies to attack you. To be a true defender role, you need to be able to draw fire.

Now granted, the 4E defenders do a pretty terrible job of that role. The marks are only marginally effective, and if you want to keep your teammates alive, you're pretty much better off going cleric, because unlike the fighter, the cleric can actually reverse the damage that gets through, so he can bring back fallen companions.

I don't think this means that a defender role in general can't work, just that it has to be much more potent. At the very least, you should be able to do a similar effect to shield other to everyone adjacent to you as a free action and defenders need more hit points.

[Username17]

I personally don't understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have the rules prevent you from remaining hidden just because there is unbroken line of sight between you and the observer. That statement right there invalidates the entire concept of even having a stealth skill. If you stop being hidden just because it is possible for an enemy to see you, why even roll dice?

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Hiding behind a halfling was silly, but it should be possible to hide in a crowd.
Crashing damage is defined in the DMG.

I personally don't understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have the rules prevent you from remaining hidden just because there is unbroken line of sight between you and the observer.

4e rules don't say that. You can remain hidden with regular cover and regular concealment, both of which involve an unbroken line of sight between some part of you and the observer.
They should have allowed you to keep hiding from "distracted" observers.
Ninjas and such have rogue utility powers, I guess.

[Tydanosaurus]

I personally don't understand why anyone thinks it is a good idea to have the rules prevent you from remaining hidden just because there is unbroken line of sight between you and the observer. That statement right there invalidates the entire concept of even having a stealth skill. If you stop being hidden just because it is possible for an enemy to see you, why even roll dice?

-Username17

Despite having exception based design, they can't get their minds around a rule given for simplicity (automatic 360 degree vision unless line of sight is blocked by an obstacle) not applying to creatures using stealth.

My guess is the designers think getting rid of the default rule means mobs suddenly need to declare a facing, like in 2E. Obviously that would muck 4E up, so they don't want to do that. OTOH, they could also just say Stealth is an exception, add some higher DC's for unblocked LOS, undistracted mobs, LOS blocked by characters, etc., and move on.

What's really odd about 4E stealth is that almost every MMO stealth program uses facing. . .

[Fwib]

One thing that I noticed in particular was that the errata'd bluff, if used to hide with, automatically makes you visible again at the end of your turn - which is pretty nasty.

[Manxome]

What's really odd about 4E stealth is that almost every MMO stealth program uses facing. . .

They do? You mean that facing exists, or that it's actually used in stealth mechanics?

I'm not aware of any MMOs where facing affects the stealth mechanics. It's possible that I've played one where it did and I didn't realize, but I'd be interested to hear what game(s) you're thinking of.

All MMO and RTS games where I know the details of the stealth mechanics, stealth is dependent only on distance, abilities, and level (plus being in a position to see the target if they weren't being stealthy).

[Draco_Argentum]

WoW uses facing to the best of my recollection.

[Tydanosaurus]

All MMO and RTS games where I know the details of the stealth mechanics, stealth is dependent only on distance, abilities, and level (plus being in a position to see the target if they weren't being stealthy).

They blend together for me. WoW most notoriously, LotRO IIRC. Usually, the engine factors:

Distance (Often, that's what Stealth is in MMO's, a cap on Perception Distance)
Speed
Actions
Target Perception
(Stealth Algorithm)

The Algorithm can be anything, based on ability scores, skill scores, class, size, whatever.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Further talking about 4th Edition's failure, I'd like to point out that the greatest raw DPR'er in the game isn't the ranger or rogue, it's the fighter.

The stances up the fighter's damage incredibly, especially against multiple foes. This is further compounded by the fact that the fighter gets multi-hitting powers, too, which is supposed to be the ranger's big trick. If you just want to further emphasize how much a ranger sucks, you can just take the multiclassing feats for them and pick up the relevant dailies and encounter power. But where are you going to get the appropriate weapon? Why, a double sword of course. Seriously, those are some of the best weapons in the game.

And they're planning to give the fighter the Twin Strike at-will power in Martial Power. I'm serious; once they do that rangers just will not be able to keep up in damage.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I still think daily powers are one of the worst ideas for 4th Edition.

Depending on your resting and adventuring schedule, your power can shoot way the hell up. I mean, even to an extent not seen in 3rd Edition since there were more spells to go around and combat didn't last as long. Let's not even get into the issue of action points and magic item powers, because it's depressing.

Since taking an extended rest and the schedule of adventures is a fukken roleplay concern and will be different for every game, this just shouldn't have been added. This is one of the most unworkable things about 4th Edition and it gets worse in the paragon and epic tiers.

[Username17]

The 4e daily powers are just the 3e 5 minute adventuring day. The fact that they put every class on that schedule is fucked up, but at least it is nomnally fair.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Also, is it just me or does the rogue seems to be, well, pretty damn weak.

It's not hard to put together a high-level warlord that will outdamage an equally high-level rogue even discounting the attacks and effects he or she will grant. So what gives.

And I know this has already been put out on the boards, but I'd like to reiterate that the idea of the striker class is really fucking stupid. Not the least because fighters outdamage them with some tweaking, but that's just because it's a feature that everyone can do.

I find that though fighters don't really make credible defenders, they make really good 'strikers', since they get the lion's share of powers that target more than one enemy. I mean, imagine this low-level combo. You activate Rain of Steel and Come and Get it against three enemies. Then you blow an action point and use Rain of Blows. If all of your damn attacks hit, that's like 10 friggin' damage rolls you're doing in the space of one round and it's not even a lot of work. If your DM is being an ass and decided to go with the dumb 4 encounters per day, it gets even crazier since fighters still get the automatic damage stances that keep their mojo running.

Bah.








Hey, conspiracy theory time. It's a well-known fact Andy Collins whined and jerked off obsessively to the fact that his fighter/barbarian wasn't very good in 3rd Edition. Do you think that his filthy semen-covered hand is responsible for this travesty?

I was willing to cut him a pass until I found out that fighters were going to get Twin Strike in Martial Power. Now fighters who budget their powers are going to get more attacks per round than a ranger and they have better armor and healing surges to boot. How is that fucking fair?