|
Thus, feat taxes! Edit Honestly, I wish this was a more 'landmark' page because I think I just accidentally summed up all of 4e's mechanical flaws in one sentence.
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Torchlighter posted:EDIT: The thing about FWT is, no other person gets a straight +1 to hit unconditionally. And with D&D, you're not expected to swap out weapon types, so it really is just +1 to hit Also, Dwarves had no Strength bonus, and this offset it. Dwarven Weapon Training made hammers & axes as good as swords. It all kind of works out if you think about how PHB-only, pre-errata 4e looked.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Would a reasonable solution just be to, as a GM, lower the defense formulas by 2? I do remember that Implements have the roughest time trying to hit most defenses they target despite them being much lower than the AC formula. I never really thought about how close to a coin flip nearly every attack is for everyone who isn't a Fighter.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Alternatively, provide lots of conditional ways to increase attack bonuses, gain combat advantage, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:Would a reasonable solution just be to, as a GM, lower the defense formulas by 2? I do remember that Implements have the roughest time trying to hit most defenses they target despite them being much lower than the AC formula. I never really thought about how close to a coin flip nearly every attack is for everyone who isn't a Fighter. Monster AC is [14 + Level], with Soldiers getting 2 more, and Brutes and Artillery getting 2 less Monster non-AC Defense is [12 + Level]; or rather, it's going to vary between +2 and -2 of that across Fort/Reflex/Will, but [12+Level] should be the average So non-AC Defense is 2 lower than AC, but implement powers don't get the +2 weapon proficiency bonus, so it's a wash. Agent Boogeyman posted:No, I get it, it's an extra +5% chance to hit that never goes away. However, I just ran the numbers and you're actually right; The average chance to hit only decreases as you gain level compared to the average target AC defense. At Level 1 it's a 55% chance to hit, and at Level 11 through 21 it's only a 50/50 split, and then becomes 45% at Level 30. Yikes. Double check my math here: It should be something more like: Level 1 18 base STR, +2 STR score from Racial bonus = 20 STR = +5 STR modifier TWF = +1 modifier Weapon expertise feat tax = +1 modifier Total bonus = +7 65% chance to hit an AC 15 monster Level 11 18 base STR, +2 STR score from Racial bonus, +3 STR score from leveling-up = 23 STR = +6 STR modifier Half-level bonus = +5 modifier TWF = +1 modifier Weapon expertise feat tax = +2 modifier Weapon enhancement / inherent bonus = +2 bonus Total bonus = +16 60% chance to hit an AC 25 monster Level 21 18 base STR, +2 STR score from Racial bonus, +6 STR score from leveling-up = 26 STR = +8 STR modifier Half-level bonus = +10 modifier TWF = +1 modifier Weapon expertise feat tax = +3 modifier Weapon enhancement / inherent bonus = +4 bonus Total bonus = +26 60% chance to hit an AC 35 monster Level 30 18 base STR, +2 STR score from Racial bonus, +8 STR score from leveling-up = 28 STR = +9 STR modifier Half-level bonus = +15 modifier TWF = +1 modifier Weapon expertise feat tax = +3 modifier Weapon enhancement / inherent bonus = +6 bonus Total bonus = +34 55% chance to hit an AC 44 monster ==== So yeah, if you dropped monster AC by 2, then TWF would be a flat upgrade, but at the same time using a weapon with +2 weapon proficiency would still be better. (and keeping in mind that using a weapon with +3 weapon proficiency is already better playing by RAW rules) The last thing I would keep in mind is that inherent bonuses are "late", in that if you were playing by loot rules, you should instead have: a +1 magic weapon at level 1, rather than a +0 inherent bonus, which drives up the chance-to-hit to 70% in the table above a +3 magic weapon at level 11, rather than a +2 inherent bonus, which drives up the chance-to-hit to 65% in the table above a +5 magic weapon at level 21, rather than a +4 inherent bonus, which drives up the chance-to-hit to 65% in the table above and then it's actually "on-time" for level 30 as far as having a +6 magic weapon or a +6 inherent bonus
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
I'd put in the +2 strength bonus from Epic Destiny as well for the level 21 and level 30 there, if we're going full char-op. So it's 65% and 60% to hit respectively from the additional +1.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
It's almost like you could base a 4e retroclone around the assumption that you hit on a 10+, and then just shitcan all the numbers you add to your attack roll. (plug)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
berenzen posted:I'd put in the +2 strength bonus from Epic Destiny as well for the level 21 and level 30 there, if we're going full char-op. So it's 65% and 60% to hit respectively from the additional +1. IF you go whole hog char-op, with a 20 in your starting stat at level 1, Kensei as your Paragon Path, and Destined Scion as your Epic Destiny, and wield a +3 proficient weapon, your base attack at level 30 is literally just a straight 40. I've spent WAY too much time playing with the character builder over the last couple weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Madness at Gardmore Abbey trip report, cont.: it's still pretty drat great and a joy to DM. We hit the encounter where the party can reveal their deepest secrets; two characters independently turned out to have been responsible for the death of their best friend, and in my view, "he stayed in the Elemental Chaos to get me out" narrowly lost to "after he lost drawing straws, I painted Explosive Runes on him to suicide bomb our evil dragon master." Both, however, paled in comparison to the sorcerer's revelation. "I have like 80 rations in my bag of holding but keep mooching off yours." Monstrous.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
It is perhaps worth mentioning that Fighter's weapon talent isn't just +1 attack, it's also connected to some pretty good feats.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Also even if it were literally nothing but +1, well, +1 to hit is weighted so heavily in value in 4E that it remains tempting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It is perhaps worth mentioning that Fighter's weapon talent isn't just +1 attack, it's also connected to some pretty good feats. As someone who hasn't played a fighter, what kinda feats are those?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Dick Burglar posted:As someone who hasn't played a fighter, what kinda feats are those? Forceful Opportunist - Push one square and shift into vacated square on hit w/ OA. Pinning Challenge - MBA with Two-Handed Weapon against marked target immobilizes until Start of Next Turn on hit. (Paragon) There are others, but these are the BIG two.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
I'm looking at beholders and I've been wondering for a while: do you think his triggered eye rays are missing a declaration that they don't provoke an OA by design, or did a designer think it would be inferred while it actually isn't? Seems with the way it's written the party could easily cluster around it and get an OA for everyone every turn, and that would easily offset the damage and effects he does. You might argue getting close is the bread and butter good strategy against all artilleries, but something feels off about this. Particularly when you have an official adventure with an encounter area that's like 8x8 squares, i.e. not a lot of room for an artillery to evade melee PCs. Looking at the old Monster Manual entry it seems pretty clear cut: the off-turn eye rays are made as part of an aura, and then under eye rays it says using them doesn't provoke an OA, implying ever. So "no OAs on off turn rays" seems to have been the original design intent but obviously they changed the mechanics and wording and it all leads back to: were they aware what they were changing them to, and was it intentional?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
The Monster Vault entry for a Beholder says that their eye rays do not provoke OAs. MM3 says it too. MM2 says it too. MM1 says it too. I checked Dungeon #209, which has a named Beholder solo, and that one's entry says no OA provoking either. EDIT: If you're referring to the triggered part, that one by extension does not trigger an OA, because it says "uses one random eye ray against the triggering enemy", but the eye ray entry is the one that says does not provoke OAs.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Well, it says "this attack does not provoke" and I always take that to mean that not provoking is a property of the Eye Rays power, not of each individual ray, and that another power that just calls upon the list of rays might still provoke. Or at least that's the reading that jumps out at me. Splitting hairs I know but this is 4E. Full disclosure, I've used beholders in the past and always ruled that eye rays didn't provoke, triggered or not, and it always worked out fine, but I did always have nagging doubts and I'm just making sure I'm not accidentally locking any strategic options away from my players that they'd be supposed to have. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Beholders are supposed to be dangerous as all hell, and they'd be very neutered if the triggered rays provoked.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Make the beholder take staff expertise then hold a staff in his teeth like a dog holds a stick. It's very annoyed that nobody takes it seriously anymore, but nobody can argue with the results!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Make the beholder take staff expertise then hold a staff in his teeth like a dog holds a stick. This reminds me, I don't miss the days when monsters followed the same character creation rules as PCs.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Section Z posted:Make the beholder take staff expertise then hold a staff in his teeth like a dog holds a stick. You're joking but a melee weapon for beholders in 2e and 3e was the mouthpick: a polearm mounted on a mouthguard so the beholder could use it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
"Inhruherh! Hoo hare enher hy hair? Hoo hill hay hor hih inhulh!"
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Arivia posted:You're joking but a melee weapon for beholders in 2e and 3e was the mouthpick: a polearm mounted on a mouthguard so the beholder could use it. Bar none, this is the greatest post you have ever made.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Bar none, this is the greatest post you have ever made. 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
I'm picturing the beholder with a halberd in the corner of his mouth like Razor Ramon with a toothpick and one eyestalk curls down to mimic his one greasy strand of hair.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
While beholders holding things in their mouths is funny, everyone seems to forget that beholders are telekinetic. They don't need hands.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Please tell me there exists artwork of a beholder with a mouthpick. Edit: I have no idea what is going on with this image but it amused me. Oh poo poo, that's a selfie stick.  KPC_Mammon posted:This reminds me, I don't miss the days when monsters followed the same character creation rules as PCs. "Every top-end antagonist is a full caster in different clothes." Dick Burglar fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:While beholders holding things in their mouths is funny, everyone seems to forget that beholders are telekinetic. They don't need hands. Maybe they needed to hold it in their mouth because their GM wouldn't allow telekinesis as qualifying for "Wielding" benefits? Dick Burglar posted:"Every top-end antagonist is a full caster in different clothes." So even without how much easier it is to make NPCs with their own standards, at least it's more honest.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Okay, so the party I'm running will be Level 30 real drat soon - maybe next session. I'm looking through the various Epic Destiny features so I know what to prepare for, and this one has struck me: Undetectable Thief (30th level): At last, you have reached the point where you can trick the greatest of the gods and primordials. Even slipping into the Nine Hells and snatching away the scepter from a Lord of the Nines hand is not beyond you. If they discover something is missing, you can stay hidden from sight, even when your prey is looking right at you. You gain a passive Stealth score equal to 10 + your Stealth modifier. Any creature that has a passive Perception lower than your passive Stealth score, or that has an active Perception check result that does not equal or surpass your passive Stealth score, cannot see you unless you choose to let that creature see you. Her Stealth score will be something like +36. How do I even run this?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:How do I even run this? For combat, enemies are now effectively fighting an invisible stalker forever. Penalty to hit the thief (unless it's aoe, iirc?), plus have to guess what square the person is in if you didn't beat their passive stealth. Basically you've now got a 1/turn, party-wide "Effect: Enemy takes damage equal to an At-will, Encounter, or Daily power" each turn with a face on it (that no one can see unless the thief wants them to). But it's level 30 and most level 30 capstone effects are like "have 2 or 3 real fun and satisfying combats and then end your campaign" deals anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Thief of Legend owns and I'm sad I never got to play one.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:For non-combat, unless people have a reason to expect they're there, just compare passive to passive and call it (unless the thief chooses to be visible). 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:Yeah, in this case it's an adventure and a half. Red Metal posted:Thief of Legend owns and I'm sad I never got to play one. Like stealing people's titles and authority in religious organizations.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:For non-combat, unless people have a reason to expect they're there, just compare passive to passive and call it (unless the thief chooses to be visible). "have 2 or 3 real fun and satisfying combats and then level your character" is generally my accepted pace for 4E at this point, I don't think the game has a lot of staying power at any given level.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
I think the takeaway, then, is to consider the next few fights a victory lap, and then one big super-finale.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
I'm kind of hoping to keep the challenge up. I think it will turn out okay, since thief is hardly a stand-out class, but it's a bit early for a victory lap.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:I'm kind of hoping to keep the challenge up. I think it will turn out okay, since thief is hardly a stand-out class, but it's a bit early for a victory lap.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Don't make that be the first encounter with their new trick, though, that's no fun. Give them a chance to feel absurdly awesome, and then t he opposition begins to adapt.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:Make them fight on a sand dune or snowy hilltop or something where the thief's footsteps will be visible for one fight (to at least eliminate the "squares guessing" game) but then follow it up with a situation where they utterly trivialize some other gimmick, imo Technically he doesn't even need to do this; "it cannot see you" is not exactly the same as "you are hidden from it". Enemies can tell what square an invisible creature is in if that creature is running around or throwing attacks. Of course, CA on almost all your attacks and +5 defense against almost all enemy melee or ranged attacks is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Don't make that be the first encounter with their new trick, though, that's no fun. Give them a chance to feel absurdly awesome, and then t he opposition begins to adapt. Ferrinus posted:Technically he doesn't even need to do this; "it cannot see you" is not exactly the same as "you are hidden from it". Enemies can tell what square an invisible creature is in if that creature is running around or throwing attacks. Of course, CA on almost all your attacks and +5 defense against almost all enemy melee or ranged attacks is pretty good. I can live with a perma-invisible effect. It's a perma-hidden effect that's giving me the heebie jeebies since that seems pretty rough to adjudicate in-play.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Okay, Level 30 hit. The Planeshaper is, I think, going to be even crazier than the Thief of Legend will be. Holy mother of god. Shape Reality (30th level): Your transcendent understanding of the universe empowers you with the ability to bend and warp your environment. You gain an aura 10 that allows you to reshape reality as you see fit. During your turn, you can alter the environment in any of the following ways by spending a minor action: Change the temperature. Creatures that start their turns within your aura automatically take 15 cold damage or 15 fire damage (your choice). You can spend another minor action to return the temperature to normal, eliminating this damaging effect. Permanently transform any squares of difficult terrain within your aura into normal terrain. Permanently transform any squares of normal terrain within your aura into difficult terrain. Create breathable air in any or all squares. Fill 9 unoccupied squares with a solid surface, such as stone or wood. If you fill a square with a solid surface that is not attached to another surface (in other words, you create a stone slab 5 squares up in the air), the surface hovers in place.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 15:29
|
|