Paragon Multiclass
Prerequisites: any multiclass feat
Level 11 Path Features:
Paragon Action - When you spend an action point to take an extra action, you regain the use of one non-racial encounter power.
Paragon Training - You gain one feat from your second class for which you meet the prerequisites.
Level 16 Path Feature:
Paragon Mastery - You gain one multiclass feat with the prerequisite of paragon multiclassing, for which you meet the other prerequisites.
Paragon Multiclass Powers:
Level 11 - You replace one of your at-will attack powers with an at-will attack power from your second class. This power can be retrained or replaced, so long as it is replaced with an at-will attack power from your second class.
Level 11 - You gain one encounter attack power of 7th level or lower from your second class. This power can be retrained for another encounter attack power of 7th level or lower from your second class, and at 21st level, you can replace this power with an encounter attack power of 13th level or lower from your second class.
Level 12 - You gain one utility power of 10th level or lower from your second class.
Level 20 - You gain one daily attack power of 19th level or lower from your second class.
So, how's it look? Questions, comments, or constructive criticism?
Now then, looking at this here, I do say I like having paragon features that emulate the features you'd get with any paragon path. I'm too tired right now to think of any alternative features that might adapt more to the class in question, but for now these will do.
Now, forgive my ignorance (and unwillingness to check) but I don't remember any feats that specifically asked for Paragon Multiclassing as a prerequisite. Either I haven't seen them myself, or it could be best to instead to simply make it a class feat.
The powers are what they always were. Nothing much to say about them.
I must admit, I think a lot of people stopped thinking about paragon multiclassing when Hybrid characters became a viable option. I'll check back tonight and see how this goes.
Level 11 Path Features:Paragon Action - You can spend an action point to re-roll any attack roll, damage roll, or skill check, in place of taking an extra action.
Rerolling isn't usually as good as an extra action that's augmented by a PP feature. Rerolling with a bonus should be. Thus I'd suggest "You can spend an action point to re-roll any attack roll, damage roll, skill check, or saving throw with a +4 bonus in place of taking an extra action."
Paragon Training - You gain one feat from your second class for which you meet the prerequisites.
If this is intended to reduce the pain of having to spend 4 feats (MC, +3 feat swaps) to qualify, it doesn't go far enough, IMHO. Not even adding in the l16 feature.
Paragon Multiclass Powers:Level 11 - You replace one of your at-will attack powers with an at-will attack power from your second class.
Level 11 - You gain one encounter attack power of 7th level or lower from your second class.
Level 12 - You gain one utility power of 10th level or lower from your second class.
Level 20 - You gain one daily attack power of 19th level or lower from your second class.
Level 11 - You gain one encounter attack power of 7th level or lower from your second class. At 20th level, the power deals 1[W] extra damage if it's a weapon attack, or 1d8 extra damage if it isn't.
Level 20 - You gain one daily attack power of 19th level or lower from your second class. At 20th level, the power deals 2[W] extra damage if it's a weapon attack, or 2d8 extra damage if it isn't.
(The At-Will already scales, and utility powers don't have to) Or alternately, allow some retraining.
As for Paragon Training, it's actually just supposed to be a bonus feat from your second class. The actual powers of the path replace the need to spend those four annoying feats in heroic tier. That's why the path's prerequisite is only one multiclass feat.
And yes, I'll edit the powers block to include retraining.
I adjusted the reroll because I liked your base idea, but allowing a player to reroll a saving throw could throw off the game, and a +4 bonus to a rerolled damage roll could also be a bit too appealing.
I thought the +4 to a damage roll part was strictly a trap, honestly. I think removing it is a fine idea...
In paragon and up, saves become increasingly helpful, just because the number of monsters that have you-suck-save-ends at-will powers. I don't think allowing saves is overpowered.
I'm not looking to make anything overpowered, just something actually functional.
That's why the path's prerequisite is only one multiclass feat.
Ah. Nevermind that part then. If the entry cost is just 1 or two feats, that seems a lot more reasonable.
The best case I can come up with is a Avenger PMC Ranger multiclass. (Pick up twin strike w/o having to be a half-elf). Retrainable class powers are better than PitFighter's, but an extra feat is no where near as nice as Dirty Fighting, nor is the AP bonus as nice. Twin Strike is, of course, uber, but that's more twin strike's problem than this PPs problem.
At this point, i still wouldn't take it over pitfighter, but I'd no longer raise a questioning eyebrow at someone who did. So I think that's in the realm of balanced. TD will say it's way overpowered, but I disagree with him.
Likewise, I never saw the reason why you'd need to expend four feats to paragon multiclass, and not even get the most significant aspects of a paragon path.
And who knows? Maybe somebody at Wizards will read this and think it's a good idea.
Yeah, the basic idea behind this houserule was that somebody multiclassing should be able to, at least briefly, step into his secondary class' shoes without the heavy 50/50 investment of a hybrid class. You're still giving up your paragon path, which is a huge sacrifice, but it no longer sucks a tarantula's leg. Path features are, generally, the big reason why people take certain PPs. Nobody's taking Daggermaster for the powers; they're taking it for the high-crit daggers, no feat required.
Likewise, I never saw the reason why you'd need to expend four feats to paragon multiclass, and not even get the most significant aspects of a paragon path....
Yes. This is all too true. Paragon Multiclassing does have far too high requirements for not a whole lot of payback. Now, I really do doubt if it's any less harsh than Hybrid. Lets compare:
Hybrid: You have powers but have spend feats to gain basic features
Multiclass: You have basic feature but have to spend feats to gain powers.
Hybrid: You gain only what profociencies both classes share
Multiclass: You gain all your base class' proficiencies and none of your multiclass'
Hybrid: You can take the Paragon Path of one of the classes and continue taking basic powers from the other
Paragon Multiclassing: No sweet Paragon features, you only get basic powers of both classes
So yeah, even though they do kinda balance out, I agree with you: Paragon Multiclassing needs to be made more apealing. While it's probably a bit much, perhaps it would be better to have each Multiclass Paragon be its own thing based on the class.
So perhaps "Multiclass Wizard Paragon Path" would have its own set of features and powers completely differing from "Multiclass Rouge Paragon Path". I know it's a lot, but it's probably what I would do if I were tackling this problem.
Don't mind me too much for now, I just woke up and I'm just thinking out loud here.
Paragon Action - You can spend an action point to reroll any attack roll or skill check, with a +4 bonus to the reroll, instead of taking an extra action.
My only criticism of this feature is that it does not feel like a PMC ability. Perhaps being able to recover an encounter attack power would be more appropriate. That way, you can potentially use 3 encounter attack powers from one of your classes in an encounter instead of 2 and 2.
Paragon Multiclass Powers:Level 11 - You replace one of your at-will attack powers with an at-will attack power from your second class.
Level 11 - You gain one encounter attack power of 7th level or lower from your second class.
Level 12 - You gain one utility power of 10th level or lower from your second class.
Level 20 - You gain one daily attack power of 19th level or lower from your second class.
Any of these powers can be retrained or replaced, so long as they are replaced with powers from the same class.
The retraining clause seems too powerful to me. I think that at epic, only allowing you to retrain your level 7 encounter power to a level 13 would be better. This was suggested elsewhere.
Other than that, I like the rest of your suggestions.
Suggestion: try making Paragon MC combinations work first, then fix them when they're problematic. Don't discuss theoreticals. Build characters.
I understand where you're coming from here with regard to the MC rules in general. It's just that discussions about the existing PMC rules and whether or not they are adequate are more appropriate in other forums. There are already other threads in other forums that discuss the existing PMC and MC rules and whether or not they need changing. Threads in this forum are for critiquing the specific house rules likely for a specific group's games and not necessarily for general players to adopt.
No, I'm telling you to take a good look at the rules before you start changing them. I'm not telling you to stop talking about it.
The PMC rules could use some improvement, but the assumptions you're making are wrong. Take a good look at the powers spread between classes and what the current PMC rules already allow you to do. It does quite a fair bit.
It does have hiccups from time to time. For instance, prior to FRPG, Taclord/Wizard PMC tended to have a problem with not having three hands and having to buy an underpowered wand or staff for his multiclass powers. This is no longer true. Arcane Implement Proficiency changed all that. Focused Expertise improves the situation even further.
Now Taclord/Wizard is perfectly viable and actually kind of good. Wizard powers round out the Taclord's lack of ranged powers, and Taclord armor and HP allow him to unleash close-range Wizard powers at less risk than an actual Wizard. Arguably, WoST is better for a Taclord/Wizard, but there are pros and cons to that, mostly whether you like using The One Sword.
It is not true that 11th level Paragon Path powers and 12th level Paragon Path powers are universally superior to 7th and 10th level class powers. Look again.
In making homebrew modifications, it helps to know what the base system can already do and what it can't, so that you don't accidentally make rules that turn a random MC combination into some kind of freakish monstrosity.
The 11th level Paragon Multiclass Feature is being able to replace one of your at-wills with an at-will from your MC. This is a powerful feature, as it allows you at-will use of powers that should normally not be available in-class. Examples of powerful combinations are Fighters that can use Righteous Brand at-will (to powerfully enable nova strikes by friendly Rangers) or Paladins that use Eyebite to force their DC damages through.
Particularly, it is not hard for Strength classes to find at-wills from classes they're inclined to MC into to abuse. It's absolutely worth two 11th level features from a PP. The problem specifically is that casters who do not have unified implement usage nor attribute usage could have a problem along those lines. Wis casters are generally better off here, and Int casters fare the worse.
If you must add something to boost power, I second Stuntman's suggestion of allowing PMC'd characters to use action points to recover encounter powers. This is actually in line with Versatile Master's PMC characteristics.
I'm not sure about the retraining, though. Certainly, the 19th level power has no immediate need to have retraining. More importantly, no PP actually allows retraining. Allowing retraining at level 21 of your 7th level power to a 13th level power represents an Epic level advantage for PMC'ers, which I don't think all of them really need.
I'm on board for retraining, but I think it should only be with a power of the same level or lower. You can already retrain your Powerswap feats every level. PMC'ers aren't in any dire need of more flexibility.
Short version: PMC has problems, but I think you would hit the nail more squarely on the head if you actually tried to build some combinations and dealt with problematic cases, rather than applying a theoretical solution to a theoretical problem.
As for why I'm looking at this in a generalization instead of a case-by-case basis, all of these individual cases are based around precise selection of feats, powers, and sometimes equipment. Not every taclord/wizard is going to be effective, and moreover, any multiclass that relies on class features (warlock's curse, sneak attack, commanding presence, etc.) is inherently going to be nearly useless as-is, considering that characters either get only one use out of it (Sneak Attack, and while one use is still nice, c'mon), have to spend yet another feat to use it once per encounter (Commanding Presence, if I'm not mistaken), or never get it at all (warlock's curse).
Just because you can occasionally make something worthwhile doesn't mean that PMC rules are worth it. They're too costly, and since they require so much feat investment right off the bat, you may as well go with a hybrid character, because you're getting about the same number of powers, but then you have at least three feats freed up, and you can take a paragon path.
Regardless of how you look at it, a hybrid character will always have more options than a multiclass character, but they also get paragon paths.
I do not agree with this point. A multiclassed character can choose a paragon path instead of paragon multiclassing. A multiclassed character has the option of choosing as few or as many multiclass feats to take. Hybrids on the other hand must take at least one power of each type (at-will, encounter, utility and daily) from each hybrid class. Multiclassed characters have many options as well.
If multiclassing represents less of an investment than hybridizing, then why in the name of the D&D pantheon does it require a heavier investment in valuable feats for less return than you could get from just going hybrid?
Depending on your build, multiclassing may require less investment than hybrid. Since both systems are so different and result in vastly different types of characters, it is difficult to compare. A character concept is most likely can only be built using only MC or only hybrid.
Just because you can occasionally make something worthwhile doesn't mean that PMC rules are worth it. They're too costly, and since they require so much feat investment right off the bat, you may as well go with a hybrid character, because you're getting about the same number of powers, but then you have at least three feats freed up, and you can take a paragon path.
I do agree that PMC will generally require a higher investment than paragon hybrid. As is, when you PMC, you need to spend an additional feat to gain another feature from the class you multiclass into. PH on the other hand grants you a free Hybrid Talent feat to gain another class feature. The whole point of PH is to gain more class features and I feel that PMC should at least do that as well. I know you have the at-will swap with PMC. As powerful as that can be, it still feels like it is costing you something.
Again, your conclusion is wrong because your assumptions are wrong. Specifically, the problems are these:
1. You're assuming that 7th and 10th level powers are inferior to 11th and 12th level powers from Paragon Paths. They are not. Please look at them. Really look at them.
If you want, I can post specific comparison across classes and Paragon Paths. In fact, most optimizers tend to outright ignore most 11th and 12th level powers of Paragon Paths. Not so for 7th and 10th level powers from classes. Indeed, I rather think that this is an advantage in favor of the Paragon Multiclasser, not the Paragon Pather.
2. You're assuming that same level powers have similar power, and that any power has a uniform power regardless of who's using it. Again, not true. There's a reason that very few melee classes have multi-attacking powers at all, whereas controller and ranged Strikers can have them, even as at-wills.
A Fighter with high Int and Arcane Implement Proficiency to supplement his MC options is getting Thunderwave as an at-will power at level 11. That's better than Twin Strike at raw damage potential to multiple enemies, and all those enemies get marked by the Fighter, hit or miss. He could even be getting his +1 accuracy on that Thunderwave. Massive. I hope I don't need to lay out how even more ridiculous this gets with higher level Wizard powers. Wizard powers are balanced on the supposition that they don't mark everything they attack and that they're kind of squishy. Put that power on a Fighter and it's much more potent.
In that sense, getting Flame Shroud (marking every enemy in a burst 3!) is a strict and massive upgrade over even Rain of Blows.
Don't think Fighters are viable with high Int? Well, then, how about a Taclord? He doesn't get the mass-marking goodness, but he is tougher than a Wizard and can stand on the frontlines with a Defender, more or less. One of the problems with the Taclord is that he's got a terminal case of no-ranged attack. Scorching Burst (or Phantom Bolt, if you prefer) solves that problem definitively. Dimension Door can help him get out of tough situations, or he can employ the fantastic Wall of Fire. For daily attacks, Wizard attack trump his - also an upgrade. Most of the Warlord's Encounter powers are great, but when it comes to multi-action denial, Color Spray right in the enemy's face is still pretty tough to beat.
Think Wizards are OP for MC purposes? Well, then, how about Sorcerers and Paladins? Burning Spray meets you criterion for a powerful close blast at-will on a melee dude, or you can opt for Acid Orb's basic melee function and massive range. Both are great replacements for your odd at-will. If you're double teaming with a Fighter (or are a Half Elf!) blast the frontline with Tempest Breath, then take advantage of the situation with Brash Strike! If you don't like that, take advantage of Flame Spiral! Your enemies get blasted, then get damaged even more if they start their turn next to you (which should be easy for a frontliner to abuse). It's like Twin-Striking everything in a burst 1!
Okay, maybe it's just for caster powers on melees. Surely it doesn't work with melee/melee combos. Not so. Righteous Brand is a fantastic melee power pick-up for any Strength class. IMO, a better pick up than Twin Strike if you have a melee-using ally. Abuse the heck out of it with Bedeviling Assault! Now you can make sure your ally hits and provides you with an extra attack.
The hybrid rules are inherently unpredictable. That is why they were released with a disclaimer saying that it was not always kosher to use them. Sometimes, they get you what you want. Sometimes, you end up with brokenly good or brokenly bad characters. PMC isn't so volatile. It's not that hard to find synergies that work, and power-upgrades are obvious to most people who have already played the game.
Not every Taclord/Wizard is going to be optimized to the hilt, but building it in obvious fashion so as not to have glaring problems tends to yield a viable character, more or less, regardless of how you build it. You don't need to optimize it that much for it to be playable.
Some classes are not very viable poaching grounds for multiclassers. You've noticed that this usually includes classes that have very powerful class features (Rogues and Warlocks). That said, Rogue and Warlock powers are not all bad. You don't need to alter the entire structure wholesale in order to fix issues with multiclassing into Rogue and Warlock, even if such a thing were an issue to begin with.
Please look at the rules again. You can't "occasionally" make something worthwhile. As long as you know the powers and keep your attack attributes straight, you're going to come up with something that's playable. Now, you might have a point in saying that cross-attribute combinations should also be playable (Avenger/Fighter, for instance), but I'm not sure that that's a wise thing to champion, and in any case, your alterations don't even touch that particular issue anyway.
1. You're assuming that 7th and 10th level powers are inferior to 11th and 12th level powers from Paragon Paths. They are not. Please look at them. Really look at them.
Please, what Wizard 7th level power is better than "Silver Fire"(Simbarch of Aglarond)? "All Bets are Off" is a nice single-target power that does damage twice, that scales well. There's no 10th level equivalent to "Throw Caution to the Wind" (Stormwarden's encounter stance)
Paragon Paths can have powers that are disguised class features, and have class features. Not all PPs do, but some do, and that means that PP encounter/utility powers do not compare evently with class encounter/utility powers.
As a second note: "multiattack" is generally used to refer to powers that hit the same target twice, as that's better than hitting multiple targets. Only the Ranger gets a multi-attack at will, and I think the designer concencus has turned to "multi-attack powers overpowered" (which sounds about right to me). (Killing one enemy faster reduces incoming damage better than killing all enemies slower. The rough estimate that's been put together to compare multi-target DPR to single target DPR is "add in 1/2 the second target damage, 1/3 the third, and so on")
1. I don't buy the common held misconception here that multi-attack powers that don't target the same enemy are necessarily worse than ones that target one, particularly if those attacks carry controller or defender rider effects. The nearer you get to target HP on a multitarget power, the better it is than a multiattack power that targets only one creature, quite aside from riders.
2. Not every level 11 power is Silver Fire. Not every level 12 power is Throw Caution to the Wind. Apart from that, these powers aren't as great as you think they are. Silver Fire is fantastic against against Elites and Solos. Against normal monsters you can off with mass AoE anyway, it's not that good. Throw Caution to the Wind is another example. It's nice for adding +2 damage, if you totally ignore the fact that you're opening up your defenses wide open. Great for Ranger who don't expect to live if their Nova fails, bad for everyone else. You can get +2 damage with less resources. Really.
What's a great level 7 power?
Well, what about Sunder Armor? You're underestimating the power of this attack because you're working from the framework of one individual. D&D doesn't work like that. D&D is a game built around the premise of a party - you have at least 3, normally 4 to 5 individuals in a party. Sunder Armor allows ALL of them to critical on an 18-20 on their Nova turns, and that's going to do more to spike party-wide damage than a single individual granting +level/2 damage to just himself.
What's better than All Bets Are Off?
Surprise Attack, which is, unsurprisingly, also a Taclord power. The base damage is only 1[W]+Strength compared to All Bets are Off doing 2[W], and the second attack dazes. That said, you're gaining Combat Advantage for the second attack, and you can direct that attack to one foe, or any foe adjacent to a melee ally within 5 squares. This is a true multiattack power, and if your allies can use their at-wills as basic attacks, it gets even better.
The only requirement is that you have an ally who can actually attack worth something in melee, and that's not too hard to arrange beforehand.
If most of your allies are ranged, how about level 3, Blazing Beacon, adding +4 attack bonus to every ranged attack roll against the target! That's heinously effective - you can calculate the DPR boost for 1 Archery Ranger and 1 Warlock if you like. It's fantastic.
Let's say you don't like helping out your comrades for some reason. Well, I think Curtain of Steel is a fantastic pick-up for any melee character. 3[W] attack as an immediate interrupt? Wow.
Have you checked out Rain of Blood? For a Wis Wizard multiclassing into Invoker, that's just plain nasty. Area Burst 2 that plunks down Vulnerable 5: all to every target it hits? Enemy specific? And then ALL your allies get to rain death on your affected targets? Ouch.
What about Utilities?
Adding +2 damage is great, but I'm inclined to say that Wall of Fire is just as much if not more compelling as a winning battlefield power. Word of Vigor boosts party-wide encounter durability a good amount, and it's MUCH easier to use as a Defender because you're going to be adjacent to other Defenders or to squishies you're protecting. If you stack that with a real Leader around, you're gold.
Don't like that? Knights of Unyielding Valor is still kind of broken-powerful. You can effectively wall off entire platoons of the enemy and kill them one at a time.
For a Chaladin going multi-warlock, Shielding Shades is pretty nice. Reduce a critical hit's damage to 0? Yeah, I'd like that.
Are you an Int Invoker multiclassing Wizard? Well, then, how does being Invisible all the time, sound? Blur gives you +2 to all defenses, and enemies more than 5 from you can't see you. Since you're an Invoker, you like staying at ranges further than that, anyway, right? This power is so good, Ranged Rogues multiclass Wizard just to poach it. Automatic Combat Advantage for the rest of the encounter? Yes, please.
Resistance is similarly stupid-powerful. Having trouble against a foe with all-elemental attacks, or powerful elemental aces? Hey, gain Level + Int of the element of your choosing. You can throw that on pretty much whoever you like, too.
Seriously, dude. Look around for powers and power synergies. Silver Fire is good, but it's one target and that's it. The numbers on your spreadsheet are pretty but they only apply to one target. A Rogue can already kill a standard monster with regular attacks fairly quickly. He doesn't need to sac damage on an Encounter power just to kill one monster. That's only a sound strategy for Elites and such, and in that case, Leader bonuses are better.
1. I don't buy the common held misconception here that multi-attack powers that don't target the same enemy are necessarily worse than ones that target one, particularly if those attacks carry controller or defender rider effects. The nearer you get to target HP on a multitarget power, the better it is than a multiattack power that targets only one creature, quite aside from riders.
So the target is "incoming damage prevented". Control prevents incoming damage, so you want control spread as wide as possible. But if your control kicker is "dead", then you need to kill things to prevent incoming damage (because 2hp monsters fight as hard or harder than full hp monsters).
Yes, if you can do 1/2 of all 5 monster's HP with a single AoE attack, that's better than a multi-attack target that takes out 1 monster. But you can't. (And if you could, that estimate I gave above would work in this case just fine.)
Against normal monsters you can off with mass AoE anyway,
Lets just say that your play experience is very different from mine, if you can say that with a straight face, and leave it at that.
Well, what about Sunder Armor?
Played with that for3 levels now. It's enabled 1 crit.
What's better than All Bets Are Off?
A lot of things. I mentioned it because it scales, which most level 7 powers don't. I'm also rather surprised you're comparing PitFighter (+striker PP for a Defender class) to leader powers. Yeah, those work differently.
The numbers on your spreadsheet are pretty but they only apply to one target.
Again, I'm not who you think I am.
What Roxlimn keeps forgetting is that multiclass rules, as they stand, require the sacrifice of feats, and then the sacrifice of additional resources. Even if the powers are equal to PP powers, and even if the path features are somehow irrelevant, you're still out four more feats than any other class, three more if you still want the standard multiclass feat.
Especially because you often don't get access to the riders of your new swapped powers, it really seems that you're making an inferior trade: give up a feat and one of your existing powers to get a new power that doesn't always work that well.
As Roxlimn himself said, you need to look for synergies. This, of course, means that some combinations, even if they synergize based on ability scores, can be next to useless if you picked the wrong base class. Players shouldn't be that heavily penalized, sacrificing so many feats, to gain a less-than-stellar mix of powers.
This rule is a generalization: it lumps everything together, so that poor combinations aren't as severely crippled. In addition, I really don't find synergized powers to be as useful as all of the extra bonuses you get from a paragon path. In my experience, only combinations like TacLord and Wizard or Battlerager/Barbarian really work well.
Instead of arguing that the few good examples mean that the entire system is viable, I'm arguing that the myriad bad builds possible outweigh the good builds. If you think that my rules would make some builds severely overpowered, Roxlimn, then please give me some suggestions on how to make adjustments for these excruciatingly powerful builds instead of saying that my entire idea is poor because you can see a couple of ideas that might be inordinately powerful.
Instead of arguing that the few good examples mean that the entire system is viable, I'm arguing that the myriad bad builds possible outweigh the good builds. If you think that my rules would make some builds severely overpowered, Roxlimn, then please give me some suggestions on how to make adjustments for these excruciatingly powerful builds instead of saying that my entire idea is poor because you can see a couple of ideas that might be inordinately powerful.
Lord knows I'm not Roxlimn...
My understanding of his argument is that it's a rehash of Titanium Dragon's argument along the same lines way back at the start of 4e.
- Given the impossibility of actually balancing powers ad-hoc
- And unintended synergies
It is guaranteed that some power swaps will have great benefit.
- Overpowered matters more than underpowered
- No one deliberately nerfs themselves (Powergamers projecting. Provably false. But the point still stands)
- "All bugs are shallow"
- Therefore everyone will play the overpowered options, and no one will play the underpowered options
Then you need some cost (or tax) on powerswapping feats, because you can't possibly see the abuses future expansions will enable. Having a tax will limit the abuse.
Wasting a feat for what should be a zero-sum swap is that tax.
The only bit I really disagree with is the size of the cost. If the various Feat Taxes were not there, I think I would agree. But now that you need Weapon Expertise or Implement Expertise, Melee Training, Armor Specialization, Paragon Defenses, Something-Mastery, and frequently at least one class specific feat just to tread water with the base math... a feat cost is pretty expensive.
Personally, in a home game I'm perfectly willing to say "sure, take power X as if it were a class power" if it's in theme with the character. Zero feat cost. And for a house rule, that's probably the easiest to do. As a more general house rule, you have my suggestion to lower the cost somewhat. And while Roxlimn and I are repeating ourselves arguing about the correct cost, if you don't think your players are going to go nuts with it, go ahead and have the house rule. I'll bet you're right: none will even notice. If they do notice, it's a house rule. You can always change it back.
That is why my comment is, if you see a bad build, show it here and analyze why and where the PMC rules are going wrong. If the case holds true for a demonstrable number of builds, we can generalize a rule that will handle the problem specifically for those builds, without affecting every other PMC build.
So the target is "incoming damage prevented". Control prevents incoming damage, so you want control spread as wide as possible. But if your control kicker is "dead", then you need to kill things to prevent incoming damage (because 2hp monsters fight as hard or harder than full hp monsters).
Yes, if you can do 1/2 of all 5 monster's HP with a single AoE attack, that's better than a multi-attack target that takes out 1 monster. But you can't. (And if you could, that estimate I gave above would work in this case just fine.)
Not one. Two. AoE effects are much more powerful when applied in concert, just as multiattack powers are more powerful when concentrated on one individual. Two Encounter powers from AoE casters built for the job will wipe out about half the HP of an entire encounter group of normals, and probably sweep the minions as well.
Striker damage advantage isn't quite so dramatic. Two Encounter powers from Strikers in general won't kill a normal without special conditions or dice clump. It's possible, but unreliable. The matter of the value of AoE is a separate issue I'd like to discuss in another thread, if you like.
Lets just say that your play experience is very different from mine, if you can say that with a straight face, and leave it at that.
Absolutely. A level 11 monster would have about 80-ish to 90-ish HP, maybe up to 100. A single Thunderbomb from a mildly optimized Sorcerer will wipe out about 28+ of those HP en masse. If his Wizard friend is good enough to lob something similar, you'll have wiped out over half the HP content of the entire encounter in one go. All they need is some mild Leader boosting for the AoE targeting and some accuracy optimization so they don't miss all the time.
40 HP per monster is mop-up range. Your Defenders can clean one monster each in the remaining 4 rounds of combat (generously speaking), and the Wizard and the Sorcerer can trade stories while they idly pew-pew the remainder to smithereens.
No Dailies were used in this action.
Played with that for3 levels now. It's enabled 1 crit.
Then you're not optimizing it enough. Sunder Armor allows everyone to crit at 18-20 range. At the very least, one other melee attacker and one multi-attacking range attacker should be able to take advantage of this, every encounter. Is there no Ranger in the group?
Furthermore, you can't evaluate the power based on how many hits crit on the range it adds. That would be equivalent to counting how many rolls you've made that are exactly on the cusp of missing, and saying that Expertise is only worth that much.
A lot of things. I mentioned it because it scales, which most level 7 powers don't. I'm also rather surprised you're comparing PitFighter (+striker PP for a Defender class) to leader powers. Yeah, those work differently.
We're talking nova power, right? If you're looking for powers with which to nova, Leader powers are the best, because they enable 4 characters to nova out, instead of just one.
Then you're not optimizing it enough. Sunder Armor allows everyone to crit at 18-20 range. At the very least, one other melee attacker and one multi-attacking range attacker should be able to take advantage of this, every encounter. Is there no Ranger in the group?
Effectively two.. (the archer ranger, and Wil). But basically the issue is he applies it to a monster, and 3 attacks later the monster's dead. Not enough attacks to enable a crit. Or he applies it to an elite/solo when I'm off fighting someone else and the ranger's dominated (spec13h3). I'm not the Warlord player.
Furthermore, you can't evaluate the power based on how many hits crit on the range it adds. That would be equivalent to counting how many rolls you've made that are exactly on the cusp of missing, and saying that Expertise is only worth that much.
Er? You can do exactly that. That's exactly how much expertise is worth. (And that's a lot. I've hit a lot of times because of expertise.)
kilpatds:
Effectively two.. (the archer ranger, and Wil). But basically the issue is he applies it to a monster, and 3 attacks later the monster's dead. Not enough attacks to enable a crit. Or he applies it to an elite/solo when I'm off fighting someone else and the ranger's dominated (spec13h3). I'm not the Warlord player.
Well, that's not really a problem with the power, then, is it?
Note that this issue also applies to Silver Fire. You apply it to a monster, and if your allies kill it before you do, you don't even get to apply your bonus. Sunder Armor adds +10% critical percentage to all attacks. Assuming it affects 3 attacks per encounter, it increases your partywide critical percentage change by 27% every time you use it. If you do 10 encounters to the level, the odds are overwhelming that it will enable a critical at least once per level.
Er? You can do exactly that. That's exactly how much expertise is worth. (And that's a lot. I've hit a lot of times because of expertise.)
That's quite odd. The number of times I've rolled exactly what I need to hit were minuscule compared to the number of attacks I was making. In particular, Sunder Armor affects adds 2 numbers for a critical on a d20. Expertise only adds 1 (up to level 15) for a hit. I find it singularly odd that you find one more frequent than the other.
That's quite odd. The number of times I've rolled exactly what I need to hit were minuscule compared to the number of attacks I was making. In particular, Sunder Armor affects adds 2 numbers for a critical on a d20. Expertise only adds 1 (up to level 15) for a hit. I find it singularly odd that you find one more frequent than the other.
Sunder Armor only affects one monster, and frequently one that's already taken a few hits. And it only lasts 1 round (from the perspective of the rest of the party).. Weapon Expertise affects every monster in the encounter. Minions, lower level padding monsters, all of them.
Why would anyone use Sunder Armor on a monster that's about to go down? Clearly, its use is limited, then. Generally, you use it as an opening power on a new monster FF target. Few heroes are built to take down a monster in one round, round after round, but with Sunder Armor, you can all pile in and log in critical-enabled rounds. In a party of 5, that's 5 rounds of Sunder Armor being useful.
Similarly, if you target Fireball out into the middle of nowhere, it won't do anything.
Why would anyone use Sunder Armor on a monster that's about to go down?
Because the Warlord didn't win initiative, and wants to use a cool power rather than commander's strike. *shrug*. Not my character.
In fact, there are Paragon Paths that ask you to take powers from your own class for your 11th level power and 12th level power. Adroit Explorer asks you to pick a 7th level power for your 11th level power. Fey Beguiler asks you to pick a 10th level Rogue or Wizard power for your 12th level power.
In most cases, the powers are comparable. It's not uncommon to find 11th level Paragon Path powers that are, in fact, directly inferior to very similar 7th level powers. It's more common to find 12th level powers that are less powerful than 10th level options.