Just as with the core races, we also talked about the Classes in the new 4E PHB. Of course, we ended up going on a few tangents about the system in general. The panel this time consisted of myself (TheGame), Bartoneus, TheMainEvent, and Shakespear (who subbed in for his roommate joshx0rfz.)
WARLORD
Bartoneus: Warlord doesn’t have any ranged (okay very few) powers, what the hell? The Cleric has ranged powers but I’d imagined the Warlord would be a battle master covered in all kinds of weapons….it looks like it’ll have to be just melee weapons.
Shakespear: The Warlord can make the rest of your party much more powerful. Giving extra attacks to your beefy fighter extra attacks is pretty friggin’ sweet. However, I think the real power in the warlord comes in the healing option. The slight bonus to hit while important, doesn’t seem like it will have a major effect in the long run. As AC’s approach 30, how much of a difference is a +2 or 3 going to make?
Also, the Warlords own attack powers appear to be fairly weak. Giving up your own attack to allow someone else to attack is fine, as their going to be an awesome damage dealer, but wouldn’t it just be better if that player was playing a striker?
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
FIGHTER
Shakespear: As I see it, the primary advantage that the fighter gets over the Paladin is the numerous ways it has to punish things that try to move away from it. I don’t see a major difference between the different type of Fighters. Using a shield or not seems to simply be a choice between having higher defense vs higher damage. (Of course it’s slightly more complicated than this, but when it all boils down, that’s my read on it.)
TheGame: Fighters get my “Most Improved Class” award. They’re straightforward, do what they’re supposed to do, and provide plenty of options. I’ve always enjoyed the Fighter concept, but options were limited previously (and usually I got around that by multiclassing). Now, Fighters are exactly what I want them to be. Bravo. Being that Dwarf and Fighter are the two most improved in my book, the Dwarven Fighter pregens have been my favorite characters to play.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
PALADIN
Shakespear: The primary thing that seems to differentiate the Paladin is that the Paladin seems to be more versatile than the Fighter. They can heal, the can do ranged attacks and they can do melee attacks. All this being said, this also leads to the Paladin being a little less powerful in the role of defender. I like the Divine Challenge ability, but, I suspect it might not be powerful enough to keep agro on a big monster. Anything with the “elite” or “solo” tag just isn’t scared by 3-4 damage. Honestly, I’m also interested in seeing if the -2 to hit makes much of a difference at the late levels. When Defense is in the 30’s (as per the PHB example) does a -2 really make a difference?
Bartoneus: From what I’ve seen of a few players using the Paladin, if you’re in the right mindset and get up into it with the Fighter / Warlord / Rogue, then it is a very effective class that can pick up some healing if needed, some damage dealing, or some soaking. I think it pretty accurately represents the versatility of the role and a divine oriented defender quite well, but there are some things lacking as far as player freedom when it comes to ranged attacks (which seems like a common problem as with the Warlord).
TheGame: Interesting that you say that about ranged attacks. It seems to me that the Paladin class inadvertently encourages ranged attacks by virtue of its mark. I think the Paladin should be locked into close quarters fighting (and have the ability to challenge things to make them come to him), but challenge/run/shoot seems to be an emerging popular tactic.
Shakespear: Hmm, really? Paladins would use their ranged attacks? See that seems odd to me. Why? I thought their mark went away if they didn’t engage in hand-to-hand by the end of the turn?
Bartoneus: It goes away if they don’t attack the target or end their turn next to it. So a javelin attack counts and keeps the mark, and should then encourage the monster to engage the Paladin. The problem there is if it’s used on a ranged creature, then you have to spend another turn getting up to the monster (or chasing it, as will usually be the case). The only time I’ve really seen the Paladin use ranged attacks is the time that the player didn’t particularly enjoy it, so I’m going off of that impression.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
ROGUE
Shakespear: Highest damage in the game while backstabbing, but gets outclassed by the warlock if the rogue is unable to set up backstabs. However, depending on which style the rogue is, it can be exceptionally easy to always have a backstab. The primary weakness of the Rogue is that it has to be in or near combat to be most effective, and it’s few hitpoints could make that a bit of a challenge. Very strong striker.
TheGame: Rogues were all about the Sneak Attack before, and they’re all about it now. At least it doesn’t go up as much as it did before. I’m not excited about them, but it at least seems like they have plenty of options for the type of Rogue you want to play.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
WARLOCK
Shakespear: This may well be my favorite class so far. It’s damage is very high, and the three different warlock paths are all extremely different. Each variant actually changes how the warlock will play and the paths are each unique (which is more than I can say about some of the other classes).
TheGame: Warlocks look great. I hope to see more of the “three flavor” concept in future classes. Star pact are my favorite, both in terms of flavor and the kind of abilities they get. Infernal is the classic Warlock, so that’s fine. Fey pact is probably going to be the least used, unless the game happens to feature some strong, uhh, feyness?
Shakespear: Actually, I was thinking that fey pact might be my favorite. Here’s how I see fey pact working: R1, Curse, Shoot, R2, Curse another, Shoot, Teleport, R3, Curse Another, Shoot, Teleport for free, Use the Switch power (which allows you to swap with another char, allowing you to move the fighter into position) Etc. They’re the weakest of the damage dealers, but they appear to be almost impossible to hit if the Warlock is playing tactically. Honestly, I think one could take a Warlock instead of a leader and still get some good control of the board if they’re fey pact. Also, the Tiefling has the exact right stat bumps to be this class.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
RANGER
Shakespear: As far as I can tell the Ranger has the weakest damage of all the strikers. Its primary shtick is that it gets multiple attacks in a round. I’ll have to see a Ranger in action before I can make a final decision, but purely for damage potential, I think it’s a little weak. I’d also like to see some powers that are not just damage on the Ranger. As its damage potential is lower, it could be compensated by having alternative abilities.
TheGame: Rangers may not be the best damage dealers out of the bunch of strikers, but they get more attacks, and they have some extra stuff to get bonuses to hit. Sounds good to me. And come on… Split the Tree!
Shakespear: Okay, so after bitching about the Ranger class, I’ve finally found something about them, that both makes them unique and equal to the other classes: The have 4 “immediate” abilities. Which means that for each of those, that’s an extra attack they are getting to make. That makes them cool and I can get over that their basic at-will abilities are weaker than the other strikers. In particular the Battlefield Archer is made of awesome. It gets a 1/encounter ability that gives an extra action die AND a 1/encounter reaction ability that allows for another free shot. With the ability to annoy the DM every time he tries to attack you, the Ranger has just now risen to a Hit! in my book.
Bartoneus: I really hope the Ranger ends up being good, because it looks like I’ll have at least two of them in my game.
It was almost hands-down the most fun class of the six we played in the Dungeon Delve. I haven’t experienced one using the full PHB rules yet, so I can’t say if much has changed.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
CLERIC
Shakespear: The Cleric gets a ranged component to the leader class that the Warlord is lacking. Where the warlord focuses on hand to hand, and giving hand to hand strikes to your allies, the Cleric focuses on ranged attacks and healing. It has some hand to hand strikes, but it’s ranged option is quite strong. The Cleric’s bumps are much more minor than the Warlord, usually doing 2 things, hitting the opponent AND giving your allies a minor effect, rather than the Warlords more serious, I do nothing other than giving allies a benefit.
TheMainEvent: Now, practically, even though the Cleric seems to be the master of creating tons of minor benefits (the very same ones I sang the praises of), I think that class looks dull (not bad). It’s a lot of irritating DM/Player reminder work (“remember that +1 you got from me!”) rather than cool changes, like the Warlord’s skew towards more tactical movement based assistance.
TheGame: Cleric gives a lot of little bonuses, which is OK but not terribly exciting. They also have some healing that happens on hits… but they’re not very good at hitting. They have the best healing powers, which once again relegates them to healbots (at least their main healing power is only a minor action.) The thing that bugs me most is Lance of Faith being their primary attack power. Why was Cleric associated with blasting? Just seemed to come from nowhere.
TheMainEvent: I didn’t see Cleric as as bad, just unfun. Unlike 3E where Cleric was the best class (again only slightly fun) you have them balanced and unfun. Just play a Warlord.
TheGame: I’d rather play a Warlord than a Cleric, hands down.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
WIZARD
Shakespear: Obviously, they will be releasing other controller classes, but for the time being, this is the only one we’ve got. Really, there seem to be 2 ways to play the Wizard. As an Area of Effect Damage machine. As a single target damager (although, the wizard doesn’t do this nearly as well as the Strikers do) or as a tactical combat character. Because there are so many spells with persistent effects, it is possible that a control Wizard could all but lock down an entire side of the combat. On the other hand. By forcing your opponents to not group up, it would also be possible for a Wizard to control a board just by keeping enemies that work better as a unit split up.
TheGame: Wizards, at low levels at least, don’t seem to be all that fun. Yes, you can Magic Missile all day long (a change I highly approve of) but Wizards spend a lot of time missing. Even if you manage to get a bunch of enemies in a clump to use their controller powers, you’re still missing a lot of the time. It seems pretty frustrating. And as we pointed out with the races, it takes a long time for Wizards to get Daily spells that stack up to racial abilities.
Shakespear: So, as for Wizards, it’s funny that you say that, because I was thinking they’d be my #3 class. Now, this may just be because I love Tactics, but I find that I like the Wizard. The damage pot may not be that high, at least, not against a single target, but the ability to block off half the battle field, I think will be a huge advantage.
TheMainEvent: Wizard does seem frustrating. I like the idea raiding the Wizard controller aspect from classes with decent Int as a secondary (Warlord is probably the only choice.) I feel like controller Wizard is the way to go, and that it may possibly be one of the classes I’d suck it up and pay for an 18 and then race raise it to 20 (they’re that bad at hitting.) You’re not going to match up to a striker, so you may as well knock down minions and grunts.
TheGame: Bartoneus: Shakespear: TheMainEvent:
TO-HIT BONUSES
TheMainEvent: I’d like to discuss one underlying assumption made: the triviality of to hit bonuses. In my mind these are far from irrelevant. The sources of ‘to hit’ bonuses are sorely limited in 4E v. 3E. Few feats increase it, buff spells (as we knew them in 3E) are virtually gone, and all classes get the same flat 1/2 level progression. You’re limited to a stat, a class feature (like Rogue’s +1 dagger use), character level, and single magic item increase (with a few exception for feats and paragon stuff). So, in my mind, most combats are not going to involve “hit on anything but a 1” situations. Therefore, these bonuses to hit become crucial as each one represents a 5% greater chance of likelihood of hitting. Factoring that in with the fact that many powers are one shot affairs (you miss tough noogie save for the few Reliable powers out there) then these bonuses get even more important.
Now, practically, even though the Cleric seems to be the master of creating tons of minor benefits (the very same ones I just sang the praises of), I think that class looks dull (not bad). Its a lot of irritating DM/Player reminder work (remember that +1 you got from me!) rather than cool changes, like the Warlord’s skew towards more tactical movement based assistance.
Shakespear: I actually quite agree with you, and I’m really not certain how that will play out when everything’s said and done. I guess I’m just skeptical about those small bonuses, but perhaps they are what will make the difference. Certainly at low lvls they seem to be important.
So, just to show some of the math I’ve been looking at: I made a sample level 1 Rogue. He’s got either a +7 or +8 to hit, depending on whether I’m using a dagger, or a short sword. His AC is a 16. That means on a regular hit, he’d hit himself 55 or 60% of the time. With combat advantage, that pushes to 65 or 70% of the time. His damage is, d6+7+2d6 (avg 17.5) with a short sword, or d4+7+2d6(16.5) w/dagger, on his basic at will ability. Now, he could be d6+7+3d8(24) if I maxed his damage potential, but he wouldn’t have the same reliability with getting combat advantage. He’s also got 22 HP.
That means, that the highest DPS route, he could kill himself 65% of the time, if he gets combat advantage. So, all that being said, to reinforce your point, hitting becomes critical, because the opportunity cost of missing is just so high. Really, I think to truly optimize your damage, you’d have to look at the party that you’re building. If one has a Warlord, the higher DPS but less maneuverable Rogue could be quite attractive. As the Warlord could move you around to get combat advantage, it’s not as important that you be able to move into position yourself. Where as, if you’ve got a Cleric, it’s much more important that you be able to make sure you get yourself into position, and just rely on those little bonuses to buff you up.
On another point, something I can’t see (because I haven’t played) is what effect the higher availability of magic items (according to the guidelines laid out in the DMG) is going to have on the upper level stuff. When one is getting 4 new magic items every 5 levels, it means that players are going to have a lot more to play with in the world of their gear. I also wonder about the increase in stats. Because each class really only needs 2 stats to be good, it seems very easy for them to just min max those particular stats, have 2 good defenses and 1 week one. So, I guess the question is, are we just going to see a ton of specialized characters, where everything they’ve got just adds to what their good at? Or do you think people will use things that shore up weaknesses?
TheGame: I know considerable effort has been done to scale To-Hits vs. ACs (and presumably other defenses) so as to avoid many of the situations that crop up in 3.5. The part I don’t like about the small bonuses is that they’re annoying to track, and I was hoping that this aspect would be minimized. The Cleric and Paladin (divine characters) seem to be the largest culprits of this so far. The Warlord’s tend to be straightforward: move characters around immediately, grant an attack immediately, etc. It’s only the core ability that is a bonus tracking situation (and higher level powers, I’m sure.)
Bartoneus: I’m hoping that this won’t be so much of a problem because it appears to just be the Cleric and Paladin that are doing it. As opposed to 3rd Ed. where many more things created situations where all of the small bonuses became way too annoying. I would also imagine that they will steer away from this aspect in future additions to 4th Ed.
Let’s take a look at a hypothetical situation to try and better understand late game numbers: A level 1 Fighter’s attack we can assume will be around:
1/2 level = 0 Abil = Str 18 = +4 Class = +1 Prof = +2 Level 1 Fighter Attack = +7
And if we look at level 1 Kobold Skirmisher:
AC: 15 Fort: 11 Reflex: 14 Will: 13
Or a Goblin Blackblade, a level 1 Lurker:
AC: 16 Fort: 12 Reflex: 14 Will: 11
So you can say that a very strong fighter (Str 18) using his preferred weapon is going to hit the typical level 1 creature on a roll of 8-9+.
Now let’s look at a higher level:
Astral Stalker – Lvl 22 Elite Lurker
AC: 38 Fort: 32 Reflex: 38 Will: 32
From what I saw, the avg. AC for a level 22 creature is about 34-38.
Now let’s look at a level 22 Fighter’s attack:
1/2 level = +11 Str ~22 = +6 Class = +1 Prof = +2 Approx. Level 22 attack = +20 to hit
So a reasonably strong level 22 fighter will hit on a roll of 14+ I’ve also assumed low for the Str, I think, and I’m assuming no magical weapon, no additional feat bonuses, etc. I have to say, from looking at this, it really looks like the numbers part of the game is golden all the way up.
TheMainEvent: Numbers look good, a fighter of that level would almost certainly have a +3 or +4 weapon.
STATS AND CLASSES
Shakespear: I tried to create a sample Paladin last night, and I found something that is a big negative. If you want to do a Cha based Paladin, first off, there is no race that gets Cha and Wis bonuses (for that matter, there is no race that gets Wis and Str either). Secondly, Cha and Wis are from the same defense trait, so if you go Cha and Wis as your two main stats, you’ll only have 1 good defense instead of 2. I consider this to be a major negative for both the Paladin and Cleric classes and I suspect this means that “style” of character will see little to no play time. I don’t see this flaw in any of the other characters, and I have to wonder why it was put in. As this flaw is inherent in either healing path, perhaps they thought they needed to make the healers a little more squishy?
Bartoneus: Am I the only one who doesn’t consider race based on stat bonuses and how they relate to the classes?
Shakespear: It’s one of the first things I consider. It’s not a make or break thing, but I’m not going to play a Dragonborn Wizard because they just aren’t designed for it, and ultimately I’m reducing the effectiveness of my class.
Bartoneus: I think it could be really fun to play a Dragonborn Wizard. I think a big issue that has come up is that if we are reviewing a roleplaying system, how do we consider things to “not be designed” like that. Clearly the designers intended you to be able to play a Dragonborn Wizard, if it weren’t designed to be played then the rules would not allow it. I think there is a huge difference between not being designed to be played and not being numerically optimized / min-maxed. We should definitely have both sides of the opinion in a review, but I think giving a race a bad rating because it’s stat boosts don’t apply to any one class with maximum effectiveness is an unfair consideration. Should the races really be designed to only work nicely with the classes, or should they be designed based upon a racial concept that applies to every class in some way?
TheGame: I agree with Bartoneus. I think nearly any class/race combo in the core books is reasonable. Because there are only bonuses, you don’t run into the situation where you can’t play a certain class because their primary stat gets a penalty. Plus, you also don’t have “minimum required ability scores” for spells and whatnot. We’re generally talking about an extra +1 to hit because of +2 to a stat. I know we talked about the importance of every bonus to hit, but at the same time, you are getting some kind of stat bonus and ability that could also work with your class in a less direct way.
Shakespear: Of course people WILL end up playing off class for a race. A Dragonborn Wizard is certainly playable, but it’s just not optimized. As I’d rather have Con than Str on a Wizard (because at least the Con does something other than just Fort Def) I think a Dwarven Wizard to be much more likely but any race could be any class.
Bartoneus: “Each race has similar stat bonuses and has a class that it has been optimized for.” I don’t know if i could hate or disagree with this statement more than I do. I could certainly be proven wrong, and perhaps I’ll have to ask the designers if I ever get another chance to.
Shakespear: So are you disagreeing that there is a class that is optimized for each race? Or are you disagreeing with the concept of doing so?
Bartoneus: I don’t much mind with the idea of a CLASS being designed to work well with one specific RACE – ie: illusionists being designed to take advantage of what Gnomes are good at. But the idea of the races being designed for one specific class is what urks me terribly. Even just you saying that you wouldn’t play a Dragonborn Wizard urks me deeply. Making huge and sweeping decisions in games like this simply because it’s not “optimized” is bad play, in my opinion. Life is no where near optimized, and i suppose that’s why I like my D&D to be the same way. In answer to your question, both. From what I’ve heard from the designers, they didn’t design the races or their bonuses to work with any one class or vice versa.
Shakespear: I actually think the designers favor your idea over mine. As they specifically tell you to choose your race before your class, I think they wanted it to work that you could play any class with any race. However, as a min/maxer, that is the wrong way to do it. As the class is the core of your abilities, and the race really only provides benefits, the class is the first choice to make, and then you modify it with a race that will help it. Unless I have a specific concept in mind before I start making the character, what race they are makes very little difference to me and I will end up designing the “RP character” around it after I’ve made the sheet.
Graham says
Why was Cleric associated with blasting? Just seemed to come from nowhere.
I had this discussion elsewhere, recently. Lance of Faith is essentially the 4e version of Searing Light. Flame Strike, as well, was the classic blasting cleric spell. The elemental domains added more, too.
The Game says
Yeah, there’s some precedent for the blasty, but I still dislike it being a primary at-will power (all the pre-gens have started with it.)
Bartoneus says
It’s interesting to me that the Wizard inspired our first combination of one person rating a Hit! and another person rating a Miss! on the same thing. I’m also very happy to see several classes recieved all Hits from us.
I suppose with the Cleric blasting issue it’s the feeling that a power is automatically more useful than just a basic attack, which discourages the Cleric from ever melee attacking but may not really be true.
Kameron says
“I don’t much mind with the idea of a CLASS being designed to work well with one specific RACE – ie: illusionists being designed to take advantage of what Gnomes are good at. But the idea of the races being designed for one specific class is what urks me terribly.”
Isn’t that just semantics? The fact that the one of the “you’d like to play X race” bullet points included 3 class suggestions points toward the designers having built races to favor certain classes over others: Dragonborn make the best paladins, elves excel as rangers, etc.
Doug says
I’m glad someone brought out the race/ability bonus issue. I guess I’m the sort of person who will play non-optimized race-class combinations because I think they’re more interesting a lot of the time.
I’m also surprised that you guys gave the Warlord four “Hit!”s. I would give that class a resounding “Miss!”. I thought it had mild potential based on information available before the release. Reading the PhB I expected it to be a crappy class. Seeing one in action on Worldwide D&D Day, and talking to a couple other players who have one in their game seems to have reinforced my early suspicion. Its possible that they’ll suck less at higher levels, and I’ll just have to wait and see if someone in my group plays one to find out. As it is, though, I’d say they’re by far my least favorite class.
I also really lament the loss of the Cleric option of standing back and casting (anything but Lance of Faith that is). With Clerics and Fighters and Warlords all using At-Will powers that are rooted in hitting in melee combat, I’ve really seen a kind of traffic-jam effect in play. We’ll see if becoming savvier 4E players will help mitigate this.
Dougs last blog post..4th Edition D&D – Reviews – Tell Me What You Think
The Game says
We had some good experiences playing the pre-gen Warlord in Keep on the Shadowfell, especially in concert with the Rogue. I think it’ll be a while since we know how any of the classes do in the long-term, though. I didn’t see a lack of power in the Warlord, and they definitely passed the “fun test” to me, so that’s why I gave them a Hit.
Bartoneus says
Kameron: “Isn’t that just semantics? The fact that the one of the “you’d like to play X race” bullet points included 3 class suggestions points toward the designers having built races to favor certain classes over others: Dragonborn make the best paladins, elves excel as rangers, etc.”
You definitely have a good point with that part of the Race blocks in the PHB. However, my argument was not simply one of semantics, it could have a deep effect on how Races are designed if they consider the classes beforehand. Say they game Tieflings a bonus to Dex and Cha becauase they figured most people who played them would be rogues, and they wanted to optimize that option. The may have done this, but they did it with 2-3 classes (as you mentioned) and that greatly reduces the issue. I was talking specifically towards a single class, ie – if Dragonborn were only good as Paladins, and were designed as such. They might make excellent paladins, but I wouldn’t go so far to say that they are ONLY good as Paladins or that the only good Paladins have to be Dragonborn.
Hopefully that clarifies the difference, and how it’s not entirely semantics.
Doug: I love the Warlord, I feel that a lot of the initial dislike by people is that it is very different from the typical D&D class and from most of the others. I think that will go away as people play them. They are the Bards of 4E.
Kameron says
Perhaps the Bard will be the Arcane Leader class in the PHB2. 😉
@Bart: I’ll have to go back and do a deeper analysis, but even with the 2-3 suggested combos that they included in both the Races and Classes descriptions, I got the feeling that there was definitely one combo that had more synergy than the other two. However, of those “most optimized” race/class combos, some fit better than others.
The real question, though, is whether the optimization was a deliberate design decision or happy coincidence? Only the designers can answer that.
The Game says
Or the optimization is an emergent property of the ruleset, which is somewhere between the two options.
Kameron says
One thing I forgot to add was that the build options favor Bart’s argument. A halfling rogue is better as the trickster rogue, while another race excels as the brute build. (I don’t have the books in front of me, so I’m guessing.)
Kamerons last blog post..Maiden of Pain goes out of print
Graham says
@Doug –
The Warlord is a hell of a good time to play, especially if you’re tactically-minded. We had 2 different ones being played in 2 games on Friday, and they both were tons of fun.
And the Cleric has lots of non-melee options. Almost half of the Cleric powers are non-melee. Seriously, I’m not sure where you’re coming from here.
Grahams last blog post..Final thoughts after marathon 4e release day events
Bartoneus says
“One thing I forgot to add was that the build options favor Bart’s argument.”
Damn right, it’s peanut butter jelly time!!!
Satin says
It was interesting seeing the Warlock get 4 Hits from you guys.
I’ve just started playing a first-level warlock and have yet to get the hang of playing this class properly. So far she is the weakest contributor to the party, but hopefully that should change once I get more familiar with warlock tactics!
James says
Our party has alot of non optimized characters, I am playing a Dragonborn Cleric, non mele type for the most part but he isn’t afriad to mix it up to get in close, with having Divine Glow and Dragon Breath he gets a good shot a clearing out minions and mixing it up in mele as well. We have a Elven Wizard, we all know that an Eldarin would have been a better stat pick for the class but it is the flavor he was going for.
Bottom line, chosing none optimized races seems to change your role somewhat because you tend to be good a multiple things and not as specalized. I constantly feel like I am part defender and part controller with my powers because with a 16 con I have the highest healing surge value and can heal myself better then even our fighter.