Anyone else concerned about the PHB1 classes? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Anyone else concerned about the PHB1 classes?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Sword_of_Spirit
Feb 06, 2009 19:50:38 The PHB2 classes are coming with these new and interesting mechanics, such as:

-1st level at-wills that provide benefits lasting the entire encounter
-More power for controllers (I understand the developers have admitted wizards are no longer up to par)
-Any excuse to allow characters more than 2 at-will powers
-etc

To which I say: Cool!

The biggest problem I see, however, is that the old classes may not be keeping up. I don't want the wizard to become a class one plays just because of the flavor, despite the mechanical disadvantages. I don't want the PHB1 classes to all become the "boring" old classes. I seriously hope they either fix some of this in the power source books, or perhaps provide minor updates in the PHB2 to address these issues.

Is anyone else concerned about this?
#2
silent_stone
Feb 06, 2009 20:35:36
Is anyone else concerned about this?

Me, at least a little. Everybody at the table needs to be able to shine, not just the ones who have access to the newest books and first to call dibs on the new Greatest Class Ever. The "classic" classes need to always be viable choices. New classes need to give players more options, not make older options obsolete.

However, it seems that WotC is doing a fair job of keeping everything balanced so far, in my opinion, so I'm not terribly worried about it.
#3
Molecule
Feb 06, 2009 20:51:37 Hmm, which at will power gives an effect that lasts the whole encounter?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the only class that gets 3 at-wills is the druid, right? That's sort of necessary given the nature of their class.
#4
disco
Feb 06, 2009 20:59:01 The creative team and WotC are very, vrey mindful of what they call the 'power creep' in 4e.

These concerns are sensible given 3.5's drastic power leak, but I don't think you have much to worry about in 4e.

CH: How are you planning on dealing with power creep? When the Swordmage was released, there was immediately the impression that it was stronger than the other classes. Are you going to let some things creep up, or are you actively going to fight against it?

MM: The goal definitely is to fight against it. It’s interesting because with a class like the Swordmage, who is much different than the Fighter because he does a lot of area bursts and attacks a lot more enemies than the Fighter, it’s easy to slice the class one way and say “the Swordmage can spend a standard action to attack everyone around him, and the Fighter can’t do that.” And that’s an area where, sure, the Swordmage gets that, but then the Fighter gets other options. He can heal himself. He’s better at locking down one guy and saying “now that I’ve attacked you, you don’t want to shift or attack someone else.” Things like that.

One of the hardest things about keeping power creep in check is almost not to go too far and make new things too weak. Playtests might say “wow, this guy can attack everything around it, we need to make everything else weak” but then he’s not good at defending because we’re worried about this one area. One of the interesting things about the roles is defining things in teamwork terms. The defenders are occupying the monsters and keeping them locked down, so you have more latitude to use area effects attacks. We’re not saying that OK, the wizard or the controller is the only guy who can do areas of effect. Anyone can do that, the important thing is the thrust of that attack. What’s the action’s goal. We wouldn’t want the Swordmage to throw a fireball in burst 2 and do a lot of damage and roast all these guys- that’s more of a controller thing. There’s an area we want to go. There’s still a level where we can make burst and area attacks work within the Defender role. That’s an important aspect going forward to keep in mind. We’re not going to look at things and say “area attack, you can’t do that.” That is not necessarily attached to one role.

http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/08/19/interview-with-mike-mearls-scott-rouse-and-randy-buehler-part-2/
#5
dabutcher
Feb 06, 2009 21:00:11 PHB2 Classes seem incredibly intuitive. Same with the Beast Master Ranger. And the Summoning Wizard. On another note, I consider the Rogue the weakest of the strikers, but I love to play one. The role-playing part of the game is often more important than the actual combat ability part.
#6
GhostStepper
Feb 06, 2009 21:12:21 As long as they keep rolling out overpowered options like the battlerager for the first set of classes, those classes will never fall behind.
#7
Moribund
Feb 06, 2009 21:40:35 Meh,

Sacred Flame grants temporary hit point that theoretically can last an entire encounter.

Divine Challenge is a class feature at-will. Other class abilities (like Combat Challenge and Misty Step) would probably be written as powers if they were released now.

The designers are becoming more familiar with and evolving the system. Also the classes in PH1 are the entry-level classes. They are meant to be the easiest to understand and play. It actually takes someone with a bit of game savvy to play a Wild Magic sorcerer and keep track of the various effects. This isn't a bad thing as it gives those ready for more complexity with the options they want, nor does more complexity necessarily equal more power.
#8
GMforPowergamers
Feb 06, 2009 22:37:24 I find it funny there are people who feel the PHB1 races and classes will get more covrage (7 months) with feats, powers, paragon paths, magic items, ect... and some people feel as you do that there may be pwoer creep in new classes...

I hope (so far I have seen nothing to make me think I am wrong) that these two factors balance eachother out...
#9
cadfan
Feb 07, 2009 1:53:32 I'm not particularly concerned. None of the new characters seems to break the math in any way. I generally check.

And for the record the WOTC comment about wizards was way, way less extreme than its reputation on this forum suggests. One of the designers mentioned that wizards weren't quite as control oriented as they felt a controller should be, and that newer controllers would have a little more in the way of status effects than the wizard. It was also conceded that scorching burst, while viable, was slightly weaker than a typical at will. The conversation took place in context of the invoker power that is identical to Scorching Burst, except that it does radiant damage and also inflicts a corner case status effect (it penalizes opportunity attacks, but the power is an area burst 1 power that damages allies, so its rough, though obviously not imposible, to use well).

Further comparison between PHB II controllers and the wizard tends to show that the wizard does better damage with area of effect attacks, and tend to strike larger areas, but that the newer controllers do better single target status effect inflicting attacks.

What I get from that is that Scorching Burst is a little below par, that wizards do more damage and less control than the designers maybe want, and that future controllers are having damage dialed down and control dialed up. This may mean that future controllers will be more fun for some people, but it doesn't mean that wizards are weak. The people who believe that area of effect damage is always a poor choice will prefer the stronger single target control of the new controllers. Those who aren't quite as worried about control but who simply love the sheer large scale damage that a wizard can inflict, will still have the wizard.
#10
ramses_iii
Feb 07, 2009 2:15:27 The classes have gone to press as they are now, so it seems a little too late to be voicing concerns about power creep. However, I don't think from what I've seen that we will need to worry about it. The classes look balanced to me -- each one offers different options, which seem much shinier because we haven't seen them before, but they don't seem to overshadow the power of the existing classes. The fighter is still the stickiest defender out there; the warden beats him in giving an attack penalty to more enemies but can't pin enemies down as well as the fighter can for instance. The cleric will still be the best leader at healing; the bard and shaman explore other aspects of the role. The new classes do new stuff, they do different stuff, but that doesn't mean they do better stuff.
#11
dragonstout
Feb 07, 2009 13:15:24 I've never DMed before, and none of my players have ever played an RPG before. However, we'd like to start. The main thing I'm wondering is: while the Bard, Sorceror, etc. look very cool, they look like they might put more of a rules burden on us, with more to keep track of: Sorceror with the even/odd thing, Druid with the shapechanging, etc. Based on the previews so far, do you think that the PHB2 classes will be good for total newbies, or should we stick to PHB1 classes for our first campaign?
#12
Sword_of_Spirit
Feb 07, 2009 16:02:01 Cadfan, thanks for the wizard info. I'm totally fine with wizards being different types of controllers that do more damage and have less status effects. So my concerns in that respect are now dispelled.

It sounds more now like may concerns may not be well-founded, which is good. I like the new classes, and I just hope that the old classes can continue to shine in their own areas.

I'd hope that is someone new to the game played through a campaign with only PHB2 classes, and was then introduced to PHB1 classes, their reactions might be something like, "Whoa! That's cool! Did you see what this class can do?!"
#13
dreadarchon
Feb 07, 2009 22:27:19 I think they've done a great job with balance so far. My only current concern is that Wizards are going to be terrible at casting rituals compared to other classes (despite their alleged role as the maters of ritual casting), but 4E has so far left me comfortable with the decisions of WotC.

I mean, hell, I can just houserule Wizard ritual casting. Make them cast in half the time and let them use rituals restricted to other classes (Bard-only, Sorc-only, etc.) is the current proposal.

Edit: Actually, with class-restricted rituals being new, it's possible that WotC could have given Wizards that second ability already. Just put a note at the start of the rituals section saying "Wizards ignore class restrictions" and no retroactive changes are needed.
#14
MusicOfCreation
Feb 08, 2009 11:41:57 I don't think power creep is going to be what hurts the PHB1 classes. However, I think novelty creep will.
#15
askanipsion
Feb 08, 2009 17:48:18 I think the original classes in PHB1 will be fine but I do think the cleric needs to have alittle more love.

Yes I know they put out an article last month with some cleric/paladin feats but they all leaned toward undead. Not every cleric/paladin would want to waste a feat to combat undead. I would like to see more general cleric feats - maybe ones that boosted their healing ability even more or more general Channel Divinity feats. I know Complete Divine will have more but out of all the classes so far, I feel it is the only class that has kinda not has gotten as much exposure.

Arcane Power will just explode for wizzies and warlocks so I have no fear no one will not want to play them still.
#16
lemonfrosted_dup
Feb 08, 2009 18:42:27
I've never DMed before, and none of my players have ever played an RPG before. However, we'd like to start. The main thing I'm wondering is: while the Bard, Sorceror, etc. look very cool, they look like they might put more of a rules burden on us, with more to keep track of: Sorceror with the even/odd thing, Druid with the shapechanging, etc. Based on the previews so far, do you think that the PHB2 classes will be good for total newbies, or should we stick to PHB1 classes for our first campaign?

If there's one area that 4e has actually gone pretty wonky it's apparent complexity vs real complexity. For example the wizard now has one of the easiest builds to play: just take the abilities that blow stuff up, point, and shoot. Fighters, on the other hand, have a surprising level of complexity with combat challenge and combat superiority and the (new, this unfamiliar) marking mechanics. In regards to the PHB2 classes, the barbarian looks more complex than it plays, as does the Bard. The Avenger is looking like it's mechanically simple, but has a tactical complexity that ammounts to "okay, so how do I use this thing?"

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Sword_of_Spirit Feb 06, 2009 19:50:38	The PHB2 classes are coming with these new and interesting mechanics, such as: -1st level at-wills that provide benefits lasting the entire encounter -More power for controllers (I understand the developers have admitted wizards are no longer up to par) -Any excuse to allow characters more than 2 at-will powers -etc To which I say: Cool! The biggest problem I see, however, is that the old classes may not be keeping up. I don't want the wizard to become a class one plays just because of the flavor, despite the mechanical disadvantages. I don't want the PHB1 classes to all become the "boring" old classes. I seriously hope they either fix some of this in the power source books, or perhaps provide minor updates in the PHB2 to address these issues. Is anyone else concerned about this?
#2 silent_stone Feb 06, 2009 20:35:36	Is anyone else concerned about this? Me, at least a little. Everybody at the table needs to be able to shine, not just the ones who have access to the newest books and first to call dibs on the new Greatest Class Ever. The "classic" classes need to always be viable choices. New classes need to give players more options, not make older options obsolete. However, it seems that WotC is doing a fair job of keeping everything balanced so far, in my opinion, so I'm not terribly worried about it.
#3 Molecule Feb 06, 2009 20:51:37	Hmm, which at will power gives an effect that lasts the whole encounter? Also, to the best of my knowledge, the only class that gets 3 at-wills is the druid, right? That's sort of necessary given the nature of their class.
#4 disco Feb 06, 2009 20:59:01	The creative team and WotC are very, vrey mindful of what they call the 'power creep' in 4e. These concerns are sensible given 3.5's drastic power leak, but I don't think you have much to worry about in 4e. CH: How are you planning on dealing with power creep? When the Swordmage was released, there was immediately the impression that it was stronger than the other classes. Are you going to let some things creep up, or are you actively going to fight against it? MM: The goal definitely is to fight against it. It’s interesting because with a class like the Swordmage, who is much different than the Fighter because he does a lot of area bursts and attacks a lot more enemies than the Fighter, it’s easy to slice the class one way and say “the Swordmage can spend a standard action to attack everyone around him, and the Fighter can’t do that.” And that’s an area where, sure, the Swordmage gets that, but then the Fighter gets other options. He can heal himself. He’s better at locking down one guy and saying “now that I’ve attacked you, you don’t want to shift or attack someone else.” Things like that. One of the hardest things about keeping power creep in check is almost not to go too far and make new things too weak. Playtests might say “wow, this guy can attack everything around it, we need to make everything else weak” but then he’s not good at defending because we’re worried about this one area. One of the interesting things about the roles is defining things in teamwork terms. The defenders are occupying the monsters and keeping them locked down, so you have more latitude to use area effects attacks. We’re not saying that OK, the wizard or the controller is the only guy who can do areas of effect. Anyone can do that, the important thing is the thrust of that attack. What’s the action’s goal. We wouldn’t want the Swordmage to throw a fireball in burst 2 and do a lot of damage and roast all these guys- that’s more of a controller thing. There’s an area we want to go. There’s still a level where we can make burst and area attacks work within the Defender role. That’s an important aspect going forward to keep in mind. We’re not going to look at things and say “area attack, you can’t do that.” That is not necessarily attached to one role. http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/08/19/interview-with-mike-mearls-scott-rouse-and-randy-buehler-part-2/
#5 dabutcher Feb 06, 2009 21:00:11	PHB2 Classes seem incredibly intuitive. Same with the Beast Master Ranger. And the Summoning Wizard. On another note, I consider the Rogue the weakest of the strikers, but I love to play one. The role-playing part of the game is often more important than the actual combat ability part.
#6 GhostStepper Feb 06, 2009 21:12:21	As long as they keep rolling out overpowered options like the battlerager for the first set of classes, those classes will never fall behind.
#7 Moribund Feb 06, 2009 21:40:35	Meh, Sacred Flame grants temporary hit point that theoretically can last an entire encounter. Divine Challenge is a class feature at-will. Other class abilities (like Combat Challenge and Misty Step) would probably be written as powers if they were released now. The designers are becoming more familiar with and evolving the system. Also the classes in PH1 are the entry-level classes. They are meant to be the easiest to understand and play. It actually takes someone with a bit of game savvy to play a Wild Magic sorcerer and keep track of the various effects. This isn't a bad thing as it gives those ready for more complexity with the options they want, nor does more complexity necessarily equal more power.
#8 GMforPowergamers Feb 06, 2009 22:37:24	I find it funny there are people who feel the PHB1 races and classes will get more covrage (7 months) with feats, powers, paragon paths, magic items, ect... and some people feel as you do that there may be pwoer creep in new classes... I hope (so far I have seen nothing to make me think I am wrong) that these two factors balance eachother out...
#9 cadfan Feb 07, 2009 1:53:32	I'm not particularly concerned. None of the new characters seems to break the math in any way. I generally check. And for the record the WOTC comment about wizards was way, way less extreme than its reputation on this forum suggests. One of the designers mentioned that wizards weren't quite as control oriented as they felt a controller should be, and that newer controllers would have a little more in the way of status effects than the wizard. It was also conceded that scorching burst, while viable, was slightly weaker than a typical at will. The conversation took place in context of the invoker power that is identical to Scorching Burst, except that it does radiant damage and also inflicts a corner case status effect (it penalizes opportunity attacks, but the power is an area burst 1 power that damages allies, so its rough, though obviously not imposible, to use well). Further comparison between PHB II controllers and the wizard tends to show that the wizard does better damage with area of effect attacks, and tend to strike larger areas, but that the newer controllers do better single target status effect inflicting attacks. What I get from that is that Scorching Burst is a little below par, that wizards do more damage and less control than the designers maybe want, and that future controllers are having damage dialed down and control dialed up. This may mean that future controllers will be more fun for some people, but it doesn't mean that wizards are weak. The people who believe that area of effect damage is always a poor choice will prefer the stronger single target control of the new controllers. Those who aren't quite as worried about control but who simply love the sheer large scale damage that a wizard can inflict, will still have the wizard.
#10 ramses_iii Feb 07, 2009 2:15:27	The classes have gone to press as they are now, so it seems a little too late to be voicing concerns about power creep. However, I don't think from what I've seen that we will need to worry about it. The classes look balanced to me -- each one offers different options, which seem much shinier because we haven't seen them before, but they don't seem to overshadow the power of the existing classes. The fighter is still the stickiest defender out there; the warden beats him in giving an attack penalty to more enemies but can't pin enemies down as well as the fighter can for instance. The cleric will still be the best leader at healing; the bard and shaman explore other aspects of the role. The new classes do new stuff, they do different stuff, but that doesn't mean they do better stuff.
#11 dragonstout Feb 07, 2009 13:15:24	I've never DMed before, and none of my players have ever played an RPG before. However, we'd like to start. The main thing I'm wondering is: while the Bard, Sorceror, etc. look very cool, they look like they might put more of a rules burden on us, with more to keep track of: Sorceror with the even/odd thing, Druid with the shapechanging, etc. Based on the previews so far, do you think that the PHB2 classes will be good for total newbies, or should we stick to PHB1 classes for our first campaign?
#12 Sword_of_Spirit Feb 07, 2009 16:02:01	Cadfan, thanks for the wizard info. I'm totally fine with wizards being different types of controllers that do more damage and have less status effects. So my concerns in that respect are now dispelled. It sounds more now like may concerns may not be well-founded, which is good. I like the new classes, and I just hope that the old classes can continue to shine in their own areas. I'd hope that is someone new to the game played through a campaign with only PHB2 classes, and was then introduced to PHB1 classes, their reactions might be something like, "Whoa! That's cool! Did you see what this class can do?!"
#13 dreadarchon Feb 07, 2009 22:27:19	I think they've done a great job with balance so far. My only current concern is that Wizards are going to be terrible at casting rituals compared to other classes (despite their alleged role as the maters of ritual casting), but 4E has so far left me comfortable with the decisions of WotC. I mean, hell, I can just houserule Wizard ritual casting. Make them cast in half the time and let them use rituals restricted to other classes (Bard-only, Sorc-only, etc.) is the current proposal. Edit: Actually, with class-restricted rituals being new, it's possible that WotC could have given Wizards that second ability already. Just put a note at the start of the rituals section saying "Wizards ignore class restrictions" and no retroactive changes are needed.
#14 MusicOfCreation Feb 08, 2009 11:41:57	I don't think power creep is going to be what hurts the PHB1 classes. However, I think novelty creep will.
#15 askanipsion Feb 08, 2009 17:48:18	I think the original classes in PHB1 will be fine but I do think the cleric needs to have alittle more love. Yes I know they put out an article last month with some cleric/paladin feats but they all leaned toward undead. Not every cleric/paladin would want to waste a feat to combat undead. I would like to see more general cleric feats - maybe ones that boosted their healing ability even more or more general Channel Divinity feats. I know Complete Divine will have more but out of all the classes so far, I feel it is the only class that has kinda not has gotten as much exposure. Arcane Power will just explode for wizzies and warlocks so I have no fear no one will not want to play them still.
#16 lemonfrosted_dup Feb 08, 2009 18:42:27	I've never DMed before, and none of my players have ever played an RPG before. However, we'd like to start. The main thing I'm wondering is: while the Bard, Sorceror, etc. look very cool, they look like they might put more of a rules burden on us, with more to keep track of: Sorceror with the even/odd thing, Druid with the shapechanging, etc. Based on the previews so far, do you think that the PHB2 classes will be good for total newbies, or should we stick to PHB1 classes for our first campaign? If there's one area that 4e has actually gone pretty wonky it's apparent complexity vs real complexity. For example the wizard now has one of the easiest builds to play: just take the abilities that blow stuff up, point, and shoot. Fighters, on the other hand, have a surprising level of complexity with combat challenge and combat superiority and the (new, this unfamiliar) marking mechanics. In regards to the PHB2 classes, the barbarian looks more complex than it plays, as does the Bard. The Avenger is looking like it's mechanically simple, but has a tactical complexity that ammounts to "okay, so how do I use this thing?"