Phb1 v phb2/2

[Istar]

Anyone know why they made PHB 2/3 classes stronger than PHB1, then kept nerfing PHB class's like Rogue and Cleric.

We have 2 campaigns and just gone back to the first which was PHB1 class's.
The Rogue's Blinding Barrage, Daggermaster crits with melee basic attacks, all nerfed.
Comparing Rogue dailys to Warden dailys its just dismal.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Some of the new classes (like bard) seem pretty weak while others (like psion) seem very strong. I don't think it's a case of new classes being always stronger.

 

[Larrin]

I have to disagree. Any list of the BEST classes is still almost always topped by PHB1's (paladins and warlocks are the only ones that sometimes don't make the list). They've 'nerfed' phb1 powers the most because they were the most out of line, power-wise. For example: Blinding barrage is an ally friendly, BLIND, blast 3, that means a creature grants combat advantage, takes a -5 to hit, can't make OA. It's near daze in the level of crap it puts an enemy in. And then you want to do that AND daily amounts of weapon damage? It was very powerful, overshadowing the other level 1 dailies. Now, its a good power IF you want to give out status effects, if you want damage, you should take something else. Almost like it's balanced now.

Comparing Warden and Rogue dailies is a bizzare thing to do: they're different roles, different play styles, different types of dailies entirely. Warden dailies last an encounter and are designed for a defender, Rogues have fire and forget dailies. They do different things, and have a different level of importance to the class. Wardens are a great class with great survivability and great dailies, Rogues are a great class with great damage and great at-wills.

I've seen wardens played at the same time as phb1 fighters (a more comparable set, in my mind) and they stand up great next to each other. Rouges need to worry about keeping up with barbarians (tough call, but close), avengers (definitely), sorcerers (well enough), and monks (in my experience, easily). The phb1 Ranger leaves them all in the dust, in many ways (damage), but its play style isn't always as interesting as another classes.

The phb2/3 have interesting classes, some stand up quite well to the PHB 1, some do not (in my opinion/experience: bard, seeker, avenger), but in general its a close race.

Different builds, of course, can really make a difference. If a rogue was hit hard by the nerfed powers, then he was probably over powered before, and now isn't doing what you want him to do. He probably isn't the character you intended to make anymore, and that's tough to swallow, and some DMs aren't keen on letting you just rebuild to remove the parts that no longer function the same....but ask, and look over the rouge list for powers/features that still do what you want. As long as its not "Everything", you will still find it, I think.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Best DPR Class: Ranger. No question at all. Source: PHB1
Most powerful Defender: Fighter. Source: PHB1
Most powerful Controller: Wizard (although that took a few books). Source: PHB1
Best leader: Warlord (damage buffing), Cleric (healing). Source: PHB1 for both.

I don't see the problem here. The Warden isn't that sticky (it doesn't stop shifts). Rogues are very good at what they are good at - which is single target damage/control. Wardens can't touch them.

Being fair daggermaster was nerfed not because of it being overpowered when working as intended. It was nerfed because of half elf twin striking avenger daggermasters going crit-fishing. And most rogues don't use MBAs much (except for thieves of course).

 

[Droogie128]

Bard is considered to be the 2nd best leader in 4e, due to enabling (which has shown to be the most important aspect of leaders).

However, the top classes for every role are from the PHB1. Not seeing where your argument comes from.

I agree that the Blinding Barrage nerf was uncalled for. However, Rogues are still a top tier striker with excellent nova capability and control.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sly Flourish went into a bit of detail about why they didn't like the PH1 rogue, in that they play too much like controllers. A close blast blinding effect (that doesn't hurt allies) is way too "controlly" an effect, IMO.

 

[the Jester]

Anyone know why they made PHB 2/3 classes stronger than PHB1, then kept nerfing PHB class's like Rogue and Cleric.

We have 2 campaigns and just gone back to the first which was PHB1 class's.
The Rogue's Blinding Barrage, Daggermaster crits with melee basic attacks, all nerfed.
Comparing Rogue dailys to Warden dailys its just dismal.

Basically, I disagree with this assessment.

 

[Droogie128]

Sly Flourish went into a bit of detail about why they didn't like the PH1 rogue, in that they play too much like controllers. A close blast blinding effect (that doesn't hurt allies) is way too "controlly" an effect, IMO.

So, because it has one power with good control, it needs to be nerfed? I suppose every Fighter power that is good for strikers needs a nerf (Fighter is the most common MC for most of the top tier striker builds). Every defender ability in the Pathfinder PP for rangers needs to be nerfed, too. They aren't 100% striker abilities.

 

[Larrin]

The problem wasn't (or at least, shouldn't be) that it was too controllery, it was full control AND Full striker level damage. So you got to be a striker (2[W]+dex vs many foes(+sneak attack on one) )AND an amazing controller, AND you hit a swarm of enemies with no chance of hitting allies. It was really, really good, with little downside and no competition. Check out other level 1 dailies for a rogue. None of them come close to the un-errattaed blinding barrage, most of them are single target 2W with single target minor control, or single target 3w with no real secondary effect (maybe a 'target ref').

A blast 3 for 2W and NO effect would be a pretty good in that group. Add blind, a better effect than any of the other powers, even though its 'just' until the end of your next turn (ie, they can't save against it before your next turn, they will still be blind on your next turn, and for a full turn of your allies, guaranteed) and not save ends....It was not a balanced selection.

As I've said before, Rogue dailies are not their most impressive feature, they shine elsewhere. The question to consider is "What do you do with a power much more powerful, useful, controllery, and strikery than its same-level siblings?" Do you increase the others so all rogue dailies are ZOMG control and darn good damage? Do you destroy the one that doesn't belong? Are the other powers too weak? Is the nice one too powerful? What power level should rogue dailies be?

In the end, the designers-that-be decided that it was okay for rogues to have control powers, but not control powers that dealt enough damage that without the control it was still competing for best level 1 daily. You can argue I'm wrong about how much damage a 3x3 2W burst really is (or anything else I've said, I guess), but I really think its more than any other level one blinding (or equivalent control, like daze) power does. *shrug*

So thats what (I think) happened. The problem wasn't that you can't blur the role lines, its that you shouldn't have one power to rule them all. Effects within a power (especially blind) need to be paid for, even by controllers, and for strikers the currency they buy other options with is reduced damage. It's still great control.

 

[Droogie128]

The problem wasn't (or at least, shouldn't be) that it was too controllery, it was full control AND Full striker level damage. So you got to be a striker (2[W]+dex vs many foes(+sneak attack on one) )AND an amazing controller, AND you hit a swarm of enemies with no chance of hitting allies. It was really, really good, with little downside and no competition. Check out other level 1 dailies for a rogue. None of them come close to the un-errattaed blinding barrage, most of them are single target 2W with single target minor control, or single target 3w with no real secondary effect (maybe a 'target ref').

A blast 3 for 2W and NO effect would be a pretty good in that group. Add blind, a better effect than any of the other powers, even though its 'just' until the end of your next turn (ie, they can't save against it before your next turn, they will still be blind on your next turn, and for a full turn of your allies, guaranteed) and not save ends....It was not a balanced selection.

As I've said before, Rogue dailies are not their most impressive feature, they shine elsewhere. The question to consider is "What do you do with a power much more powerful, useful, controllery, and strikery than its same-level siblings?" Do you increase the others so all rogue dailies are ZOMG control and darn good damage? Do you destroy the one that doesn't belong? Are the other powers too weak? Is the nice one too powerful? What power level should rogue dailies be?

In the end, the designers-that-be decided that it was okay for rogues to have control powers, but not control powers that dealt enough damage that without the control it was still competing for best level 1 daily. You can argue I'm wrong about how much damage a 3x3 2W burst really is (or anything else I've said, I guess), but I really think its more than any other level one blinding (or equivalent control, like daze) power does. *shrug*

So thats what (I think) happened. The problem wasn't that you can't blur the role lines, its that you shouldn't have one power to rule them all. Effects within a power (especially blind) need to be paid for, even by controllers, and for strikers the currency they buy other options with is reduced damage. It's still great control.

It still wasn't a problem. As a daily, it was about on par with most other dailies.