Last session he declared that the feat Action Surge was too powerful, and that the bonus would only apply to a single attack roll, not to all attacks. As a wizard who routinely targets multiple enemies, I found this to be particularly annoying. I've played the same wizard since the game started about a year ago. I've had Action Surge since I started, and I've used it plenty of times before without him complaining.
I generally enjoy the game, but his houserules mostly seem to reduce the effectiveness of our characters (other players have had their own characters messed with). I think a houserule should be an agreement between all the people involved in the game, not just because GM is god. I don't think any of my houserule suggestions have been taken.
So: two things I'd like to ask you guys.
1) Is Action Surge really that overpowered?
2) What's the best way to convince the GM that he shouldn't just make houserules without discussing it with us first?
Thanks!
Personally I wouldn't houserule the things you mentioned.
I'm curious as to why he wanted to houserule those things.
Just be polite and ask him not to do so. Try doing so in private if you want. Also talk to the other players. You'd have a better chance if all of you were in agreement with this.
Unfortunately we'll be down to just two players after one of us moves to a different city, although the other remaining player is the one who had the most difficulty with his character
Personally I wouldn't houserule the things you mentioned.
I'm curious as to why he wanted to houserule those things.
The usual reason is that it's too powerful, e.g. it's too easy to get a dragon to surrender with a lucky roll, even when he has nearly half his HP left. Also the stealth rules were initially pretty confusing.
He's actually very good at analysing the power of feats/powers etc., and usually makes a very good case, but in this particular instance it just felt like being limited because he felt like it. I'm not happy with this change and I'd really like to be able make a case to keep it (beyond: "but it's a PHB1 power that's survived 5 errata", and "but it makes my character weaker").
1) It's for action points, so depending on how many encounters per day you get, you're not triggering it at all in anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of your fights.
2) It's only a +3 bonus, so it only actually affects about 15% of the rolls it applies to (theoretically even less if your attack bonus is high enough).
Assume you use an action point every other fight, have 10 fights per level, and target 4 enemies each time you make an action point attack. You would then expect Action Surge to make the difference between a hit and a miss on 30 attacks over ten levels, or about 3 times per level. Note that with his proposed nerf, it would make the difference between a hit and a miss less than once per level, at which point you have to ask, "Why am I taking this worthless feat?"
If he wants to nerf it into oblivion that's his prerogative, but you would be well within your rights to ask if you could immediately replace it with another feat rather than waiting to retrain it the next time you gain a level.
You might point out that it only has an affect every once in a while even without his nerf.
Assume you use an action point every other fight, have 10 fights per level, and target 4 enemies each time you make an action point attack. You would then expect Action Surge to make the difference between a hit and a miss on 30 attacks over ten levels, or about 3 times per level. Note that with his proposed nerf, it would make the difference between a hit and a miss less than once per level, at which point you have to ask, "Why am I taking this worthless feat?"
So when you do the maths, and compare it to... let's say implement focus. Slightly more difficult to figure out exactly how many attacks I'd make in a combat, but let's say 5 rounds, 2 people per round on average, that's 10 attacks (probably more). Get into combat 10 times, that's 100 attacks in total, and your implement focus means you've hit 5 more times per level.
So it's certainly on par with, and probably not quite as good as implement focus, but the nerfed version looks convincingly worse.
Thanks! That sounds like a reasonable argument for not changing it! Now for a judicious application of tact...
You'd be trying to flank anyway, so it seems reasonable to assume you'd get the bonus on 75% of your attacks. If you attack, let's say, 8 times per fight and have 10 fights per level, then the feat would make a difference about 3 times per level, the same as the un-nerfed Action Surge.
Also, 75% is really quite high on a two-person game.
I would say that one argument would be that it horks up the purpose of the game. The purpose of the game is to have fun. The role of the DM is to help the players have fun. Action Surge is not so powerful that it will damage the game in any meaningful way, and access to it is generally seen as one of the benefits of playing a human. Nerfing Action Surge thus nerfs humans - and does so unnecessarily. More to the point, it seriously cuts into your character's ability to be awesome, and having characters that can be awesome from time to time is a big part of the point of the game. Note that your game is soon to have only two players - and that your DM is making *both* of his remaining players unhappy with his houserules.
To borrow a quote from someone's sig... "What the DM says, goes... and if he says enough stupid %$#@, his players go, too."
A better comparison might be another racial feat, Warforged Tactics, which gives +1 attack vs adjacent foes when an ally is also adjacent to the target.
Fair enough. I suppose that the focus feat is one of the most useful feats, since it's nearly always in effect. There are plenty of other feats though that only give a +1 bonus under pretty specific circumstances, and those are what he's probably comparing it against. In those cases, tactics are needed to really get the use out of the feats.
Another against argument, would be that I'd pretty much try to only use action surge while I'm using a daily or encounter power, whereas weapon focus, is applied to any attack. So all those extra hits with action surge are hits with a daily/encounter, whereas the extra hits with weapon focus will include at-wills.
Gah, it's too easy to see the other side of the argument. This is the type of clunky system thinking I'd rather trust to WotC, and hope they got it right to begin with. I just had fun applying my feat the way it was written.
Honestly, with only 2 players I'm not sure why your DM would be doing anything to reduce player power. You're already at only 40% of your expected power (less, if you reasonably conclude that synergy is intended to make a party more effective than the sum of its parts). Why he'd try to further cramp his XP budget is beyond me.
2. He shouldn't have to debate it with you. The DM retains creative control of his campaign world, including the allowed feats, classes, etc. When you run the campaign you would have the right to allow or disallow what you want as well. Now of course, having the right to do something does not make it the right decision, but that is a seperate argument.
Ah, I missed the two players part. You're right, 75% is a pretty high estimate in a 2-player game (unless both are melee characters, in which case it might actually be low).
No, it's currently a 4 person campaign, with 3 people, one of whom is moving after next week. It started off as a 7 person campaign ;) We'll be taking time off until we can recruit new players with the new university year in September.
He shouldn't have to debate it with you.
No, but it would be nice to be in agreement over changes to the game, especially when they come after a year's use. If it really bothers me, I can always leave the game, but I'd rather not.
So: two things I'd like to ask you guys.
1) Is Action Surge really that overpowered?
2) What's the best way to convince the GM that he shouldn't just make houserules without discussing it with us first?
Thanks!
additional damage (such as from shadowfell gloves) is also against only one enemy , even if multiple enemies are hit by the attack (from the char op Q&A); so a saying that action surge would also only apply to one target doesn't seem to strange from my point of view
2) What's the best way to convince the GM that he shouldn't just make houserules without discussing it with us first?
you could ask if you may change your character
(as DM I always say that when I apply a houserule, the players are free to change their characters so the houserule does/doesn't apply to their characters. In this senario, after I houserul action surge, anyone with action surge would be free to swap it for something else ...)
I'd suggest you ask him how he'd like having only one player.PtM
What's wrong with Action Surge? Its not like humans are OP with it.
Elves racial feat: 1/encounter: +2 to a single attack (when they use elfen reroll)
Halfling racial feat: 1/encounter: -2 to a single attack (when they use their racial power)
Human racial feat: 1/2encounters: +3 to all attacks of a single action (when using action point)
Compared to action surge, the elff or halfling feat is weaker; which goes against the thought of 4e.
Elves racial feat: 1/encounter: +2 to a single attack (when they use elfen reroll)
Halfling racial feat: 1/encounter: -2 to a single attack (when they use their racial power)
Human racial feat: 1/2encounters: +3 to all attacks of a single action (when using action point)
Compared to action surge, the elf or halfling feat is weaker; which goes against the thought of 4e.
So now we've got that Action Surge is stronger than the other racial feats, but on par with feats like Warforged Tactics, and weaker than Implement focus. Not a great reason to remove it.
I will point out that a reroll is worth on average +5 to an attack, so the other racial abilities are already pretty powerful abilities, and multiple re-rolls can slow down play quite a bit (and I'm aware that these are abilities that the elf and halfling already have, and don't need to spend a feat on).
...also worth noting that yes, some racial feats are stronger, and some are weaker, and this is intentional. Racial feats are not balanced against one another. Races are balanced against one another. Nerfing one of the strong racial feats nerfs the race.
-What is the issue with the orriginal rule
-How is the orriginal rule impacting the game
-Why does it need changing?
-What does he want to acomplish by changing the rule
-How will the change effect the game and the PCs in particular
-What options are available.
-What suggestions the players have to address the issue.
After this discusion he has the input he needs to make a proper houserule that can be implimented. Afterwards there should be a trial period before it becomes official to see how it really impacts the game and if needed another discusion after this period to get impact on how the new rule is actually working out. He shoudl take into consideration that the official rules in the book were play-tested before publishing, so he shouldn't expect that his house rules shouldn't go through the same process. The rule should only become an official house rule after it is properly play tested, discussed and ammended if needed.
Elves racial feat: 1/encounter: +2 to a single attack (when they use elfen reroll)
Halfling racial feat: 1/encounter: -2 to a single attack (when they use their racial power)
Human racial feat: 1/2encounters: +3 to all attacks of a single action (when using action point)
Compared to action surge, the elff or halfling feat is weaker; which goes against the thought of 4e.
Only for multiple attacks. Suppose that you have a 50% chance to hit. With human action surge, this goes to 65%. With elven accuracy, you need to look at the inverse of the chance of missing both rolls, which is 100%-(50%*40%) = 80%. (So you have a 50% of hitting to start with, and if you miss, you have a 60% of turning the miss into a hit.)
Against two opponents, the human action surge has the following probabilities (assuming base chance is 50%):
Hit both targets: 42.25%
Hit one target: 55.5%
Hit no targets: 12.25%
Average is 1.895 targets hit.
With elven accuracy, you have the following:
Hit both targets: 55% (you have a 25% of hitting both without a reroll, and if you miss exactly one a 60% of hitting it on the reroll)
Hit one target: 35%
Hit no targets: 10%
Average is 1.45 targets hit.
Not much worse, and you have a 25% of not having needed to use the feat, unlike Human Action Surge which can only be used once per combat (until you get the ability to use multiple action points.)
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dusg/20080721
If only there was a way to suggest it without sounding condescending or arrogant, or as if you have an ulterior motive.
Elves racial feat: 1/encounter: +2 to a single attack (when they use elfen reroll)
Halfling racial feat: 1/encounter: -2 to a single attack (when they use their racial power)
Human racial feat: 1/2encounters: +3 to all attacks of a single action (when using action point)
Compared to action surge, the elff or halfling feat is weaker; which goes against the thought of 4e.
You're neglecting the fact that you choose to apply the elf & halfling feats after the initial roll, which increases their chances of making a difference. You have to choose to apply the human feat before you make the roll.
Note also that the elf & halfling feats modify the racial ability, whereas the human feat has nothing to do with the racial ability.
This gm doesnt sound "overzealous", he instead sounds to be accurately spotting rules problems and making reasonable corrections to them.
So long as the scenarios he runs are enjoyable, i`d probably stick with his decisions.
Problem:
The mechanical/balance problem of DM's or Players feeling underpowered leads to nerfing from the DM or cheese from the players.
Solution:
A largely roleplay/fluff based discussion about reflavouring and describing monsters and rewarding creative skill use.
I mean, I agree with his solution to the problem he never posed...saying yes is a good roleplaying technique that will result in more imaginative, fun games. However, I don't think that this rationalisation for saying yes could be applied to balance problems which started the article.
If a combination is found which makes one character much more powerful than the others, causing the well described "How to challenge the optimised without killing the unoptimised?" balance problem, I'm not sure that saying yes is always the best answer.
More on topic: I don't think action surge is overpowered. But, what the DM says goes. There's nothing worse than endless arguements that leave both people feeling bad, no matter what way the decision swings. The buck has to stop somewhere, to prevent this happening. I think nerfing it would be the wrong decision, but as a player in his group I'd just have to deal with it. It's absence isn't going to drastically alter my fun.
And your DM should list out the House Rules first before coming up with them in the middle of gameplay.
Also ask him if he enjoys having no players at his table. He needs to get the stick out of his behind and get a grip.
Before the campaign even starts he should have a list of house rules written (typed) out for all the players to see. Those would be the rules supplementing the current 4E rules referring to character creation, powers, feats and other mechanics.
If he nerfs your character(s) mid-game without good justification, tell him to find some new players. Since this has been happening for a while I'm assuming you're getting annoyed and not enjoying the game as much.
Before the campaign even starts he should have a list of house rules written (typed) out for all the players to see. Those would be the rules supplementing the current 4E rules referring to character creation, powers, feats and other mechanics.
In fairness, 4E had only just come out when we started, and I don't think anyone could come up with a complete written list of house rules without even playing the game (at that point I think his only house rule was that there was no alignment system). I would expect something like that now though.
If he nerfs your character(s) mid-game without good justification, tell him to find some new players. Since this has been happening for a while I'm assuming you're getting annoyed and not enjoying the game as much.
I do feel justified in asking for a free change in feat if he's going to nerf the old one. I don't want to walk out, but it is frustrating, especially since I'm worried it will happen again.
Even with the example I came up with, it is hardly game-blowing because you still have to spend an action point to do it. There are some builds I have seen where the character does insane damage and effects every single turn or entire clears the boards of minions because it seems the designers hadn't really considered a particular combination of powers when writing the rules (and since there are just so many, who can fault them for overlooking things now and again) or there seems to have been a typo or unclear text that makes things work in ways they really shouldn't (for instance, powers that are broken because they say 'every time you attack effect X happens' were instead written as 'every time you make an attack action effect X happens' they'd be properly in-line).
So-- certainly I can see the need for house rules or, perhaps better stated, house errata for particular things. This is more true in 4E where they are hundreds of mutable factors moving around and causing potentially game-altering effects.
And it isn't as though one can expect the DM to necessarily catch all of these problems before the players who are more than willing to abuse the rules to gain an edge will try using them-- the later is far more devoted to ferreting them out.
However, any time the DM is going to rule something in need of errata or a patch or whatever-- he should be offering a free retrain offer on the spot too. Even if he doesn't, 4E DOES have an in-built retraining mechanic for you to use to cast aside those feats if you feel the edge to them has been blunted enough that other options are more appealing.
HOWEVER, if when the change is made the alternate options are still not as appealing as the "nerfed" feat, then there is plenty of reason to suspect that the feat was in need of blunting and now lies more in-line with where it should be.
I suspect that in this case other options would now be better, but those who are going to complain about a feat being changed by the DM because it was too powerful and claim it was not broken-- yet cannot find any other feat available at the same level they'd replace it with are nothing but hot air who were knowingly trying to implement an over-the-top power combination.
And to nerf it?!
If the DM is going to arbitrarily change the rules in a way that negatively affects player characters, with or without the consent of the players, the player absolutely has the right to immediately rework their entire character.
- You don't have to ask to make any changes, because the DM didn't ask if it was OK to nerf your character.
- Don't simply settle for changing the feat in question. Take it as an opportunity to completely respec your character. You may have taken that feat to work in conjunction with other aspects of your character. Now that the feat has been changed, those other parts of your character have also been affected.
Do not waver. If the DM thinks it is OK to control your character's build, then you must take a stand in your compromise to that control.
"If you, DM, wish to make changes that affect my choices, then you must not object when I also change my character, becasue you are forcing me to."
If it ever did come up in my game, it would have to get past the following:
- If the house-rule slows the game down in any way, it will be rejected.
- If the house-rule is made with the attempt to improve a player character, it will be rejected.
- If the house-rule does not add anything worthwhile to the game, it will be rejected.
I think 4E runs very well, without the need for them. 4E is extremely well-balanced. As such, a house-rule has a greater ripple effect in 4E than other games... Change one thing, and it affects two others. Change those two things to compensate, and more aspects of the game will be affected.
Did I mention that I run a completely house-rule free game? I think it has helped us focus more on story and ultimately, having fun.
In fact, they should do the opposite of ban it, they should give it to you for free (that's what I do).
for instance, my dragonborn warrior, (who has godlike stats thnx to rolling the dice
) has a cold breath weapon. he decided to give it the chance to freeze my target. I had expected something like, 20% with a 5% increase every now and then.
instead, he said, 65% chance to freeze for 1d4 rounds.
and 5% to freeze creatures that are cold based.
he made the attack twice as powerful, because now, I use it on a group of enemies, and I can wreak havoc on them with my broadsword.
also, while frozen, I get a +1 to hit them. so you couple that with my base Thac0 of 19, then my +2 bonus for str, then the +1 bonus for weapon specialization. the whole thing is unstoppable. I had never heard of a level 2 warrior, of any kind, taking out 3 level 5 warriors.
the only thing is, sometimes, it takes a bit of the fun out because I'm so over powered by houserules. well I'm done rambling now. ;)
(P.S. we play the 2nd edition, we simply down-convert any thing we want from 4th.)
In fairness, 4E had only just come out when we started, and I don't think anyone could come up with a complete written list of house rules without even playing the game (at that point I think his only house rule was that there was no alignment system). I would expect something like that now though.
I do feel justified in asking for a free change in feat if he's going to nerf the old one. I don't want to walk out, but it is frustrating, especially since I'm worried it will happen again.
Nerfing action surge is intentionally nerfing Wizards specifically, moreso than melee classes who don't use quite as many burst, area, or whatever attacks (I DID SAY "QUITE AS MANY" and "MELEE" FOR ALL YOU TROLLS WHO ARE GOING TO SAY THAT OTHER CLASSES HAVE AREA ATTACKS).
A fighter, ranger, avenger, barbarian, etc. only need the one +3 to their attack, and it helps them hit to do massive damage. A wizard doesn't deal as much damage, they do control. How do they do control? They hit. If you take away the bonus from the other attacks, you are ruining the balance of the game. Wizards getting it to all their attacks is important because that's their class/controller advantage. The Melee people (potentially ranged for Rangers or Rogues) only need the one time bonus.
Doing it now, though, is just an unnecessary nerf to you. It doesn't serve to augment fun. Perhaps suggest to the DM that he let you use Action Surge as written in the books, and save his houserule for the next campaign he runs? Or, as many other posters have suggested, retrain at the very least that feat.