D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I'm mainly into Paladins thus far, and I have to disagree a bit with some of the rankings I've seen on these.
A-/9 for Holy Strike
B+/8 for Valiant Strike
(when you have both Holy and Valiant, then Valiant's value goes up to A-/9)
B-/6 for Enfeebling Strike
B-/6 for Bolstering Strike
First, I think the STR-based at-will are, per se, far better than the CHA-based ones. I've playtested with both types and the STR based ones are more effective and definitely more fun.
Holy Strike is the King. It gives Paladins a way to become effective DPR dealers, and only gets better with age; you can still benefit from it at high levels. It benefits from either Weapon Focus or Astral Fire feat and your WIS (at Epic level that's +3 and +WIS), and critters vulnerable to radiant take more damage. And you can make a critter vulnerable to Radiant 5 with a 5th level Daily power. Basically, if you want to feel like you're helping the party deal damage, you really need this one.
However, Valiant Strike is about equal to Holy Strike, especially in Heroic before you've pumped your WIS.
Basically, Holy Strike is almost always better than Valiant Strike against one adjacent opponent as long as you have at least +1 from WIS and as long as the opponent isn't either a Minion or real low on hp (do the math, and you will find this). Yes, the +1 to damage is mathematically better than the +1 to hit at low levels in DPR against all level-appropriate opponents (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless). With a WIS mod of +2 or higher, Holy Strike really tends to outpace Valiant against 1.
Valiant Strike is almost always better against 3 or more adjacent opponents, until maybe later with a high WIS mod to go with Holy. Holy can be roughly equivalent to Valiant vs 3 if you maximize your Holy Strike potential, though; in that case, the DPR might be about equal, but the +15% to hit is more attractive. Against 4 or more opponents, it's always advantage Valiant. However, Holy would obviously best Valiant against 3+ if the target is vulnerable to Radiant and your Holy bonus damage is decent, or if you have a Holy Avenger.
Against 2 adjacent opponents, Holy and Valiant are about equal. It depends on the weapon type, magic enhancement, WIS bonus, if you have Weapon Focus or Astral Fire, etc. The closer your two attacks are in damage dealt, and the higher the damage dealt by the two, the better Valiant is vs. Holy Strike vs 2 adj opponents. And the reverse is true for Holy being better than Valiant vs. 2. It depends. If you don't want to do the math, flip a coin. If you maximize the Holy Strike potential, it is probably better vs 2, though.
So they are about equal, but Holy Strike has a very nice potential to give you much better DPR, and thus it shines a little brighter (wah, wah). They make a great team, though, as you can pick and choose which one fits the situation and your stats and items.
Bolstering is okay if your WIS mod is at least +3, and in some cases it can even be a life-saver. But offensively it has no special value at all. If you're surrounded by strikers (and without much in the way of healing from the rest of the party) and you are THE party's tank, then Bolstering's value goes way up. But you can still be a tank without it. And its value really drops as you gain in levels and hp.
Enfeebling ... oh man, that is a boring one. But it can help keep you or an ally from getting hit, and thus has some value. Again, no particular offensive value whatsoever, so Holy/Valiant are better overall. It's okay. It's best against a controller who is about to AoE your party, or an opponent with a really nasty effect to its attacks that you want to avoid at all costs. It can be useful. But I feel sorry for anyone playing a CHA-Paladin that has to use it all the time until you get a bunch of Encounter and Daily powers that you can replace it with. Unless it's an attack that you really want to avoid or you desperately need to stall your death, you would've been better off getting the extra damage of Holy Strike or the + to hit from Valiant Strike against most opponents. But it's not bad at all against a really tough opponent.
Last edited by LittleElvis; 6th July 2008 at 08:53 PM..
And, I agree that this is fine for the most part in many circumstances.
I just find that if it happens every time, I'm playing a MMORPG.
It's the way 4E is designed.
1) The designers assume that dungeon doors are typically closed.
2) The designers assume that nearby encounters (i.e. monsters) are typically stone cold deaf. When I drop a fireball, every monster within this section of the dungeon should be alerted.
3) The designers assume that every PC wants to loot bodies immediately every time. No. I want to move on.
4) The designers assume that every PC wants to search areas immediately every time. No. I want to move on.
5) The designers assume that every PC wants to rest after each fight. No. I want to move on unless someone is seriously hurt.
6) The designers assume that every player wants to use up every Encounter Power in every single encounter.
Personally, I want to kick the snot out of every monster within range as fast as possible. Then come back and loot bodies and search walls.
That way, I know I am mostly safe when I get around to those tasks. Seriously, who is going to come along and steal the loot behind us most of the time?
Sure, I have no problem stopping if the group used up a lot of encounter powers and resources, or needs healing and wants to do so. But, I don't want to be doing this every single time.
That is no different then earlier editions where the Thief stopped to search every single wall and door and room and floor and ceiling time after time after time. Boring. Let's cut to the chase people.
The problem with the "Rest every time" mentality is that it assumes that all players want to play their PCs that way.
That's a poor assumption, but one which drills directly into the ruleset and one which is Pavlo Dog training the entire 4E DND gaming community that this is the one and only way the game should be played (and like Lemmings, the DND 4E community is going "yup, yup. that's the way to play DND"). If people do not use up all of their Encounter Power each encounter and do not rest between encounters, they are playing wrong.
Yikes!
And this is the key to the problem. This is not always the case. It is not always forced by circumstances.
Sometimes, people do just want to press on.
I don't want to give the monster in the next room over 5 minutes so that he can get his armor on.
I want to be a Navy Seals team: hit fast and hit hard, sort it all out later. Not the Bobbsey Twins on vacation strolling through the dungeon.
The game is designed to discourage this perfectly reasonable in character decision (which in 3E, was a perfectly reasonable in character decision and done quite often by some groups).
If this were the case then why are player's rewarded with action points and magic item daily uses when they do not stop to rest. Why does shadowfell keep have multiple situations where monsters run to get help or pull patrols and allies from other rooms and corridors.
D&D 4e wants players to keep moving and play the game heroically.
I like to add I disagree that magic missile is subpar compared to cloak of daggers and the other wizard at-wills.
Magic missile has the highest average damage due to its bell curve from 2d4 + int mod. It's range allows the wizard to remove himself from danger and not become a liability for the group. It doesn't create an area of threat to the players (like scorching burst or cloak of daggers). When the wizard is being chased or ran down, magic missle is going to give the wizard more turns of casting spells since the distance between them and their enemy is double that of the other at-wills. .
All of the wizard's at-wills are good. Magic missile rock
If this were the case then why are player's rewarded with action points and magic item daily uses when they do not stop to rest. Why does shadowfell keep have multiple situations where monsters run to get help or pull patrols and allies from other rooms and corridors.
D&D 4e wants players to keep moving and play the game heroically.
You can still use a short rest and gain milestones. The DMG specifically states you gain them for every two encounters between an extended rest on page 123.
And KotSF has running monsters to provide an incentive for characters to actually get into the dangerous fray so the characters can intercept them or kill them quicker instead of just hanging back to shoot them from safety.
As you level up, I don't think you should keep Cloud of Daggers. Its value as a minion killer is virtually meaningless once you hit mid-Paragon levels. Those are the levels wherein you get large-area autodamage from SpellStorm Mage and Blood Mage, and your area effects are so widespread, you'll probably wipe out the minions by accident, just by doing your thing.
I rate Thunderwave highly because it does something you can't normally do with your Encounter powers - push away a bunch of guys attacking you. That's a pretty important function, and I like having it for that purpose.
Likewise, I rate Magic Missile highly because it does more single target damage than any other power without any particular attribute investment (just some cheap item), it's got huge range for kiting, and it boosts the damage Warlords do with extra-action powers. That's what I need for a power I'll rarely be using anyway.
After some consideration, I think I rate Ray of Frost well. Certainly, it's a strong option if you already have Burning Blizzard and Wintertouched and Lasting Frost for other reasons (like if you're majoring in cold spells anyway). I reviewed the Monster Manual for Fort defenses, and while they were sometimes higher than AC, sometimes they were also lower - even significantly lower. You won't want to target Brutes and Soldiers with this because they have good defenses against it. You want to target those with Ref defense spells. You use a Fort defense spell against Lurkers, Skirmishers, and Artillery, against which they are very, very good (in general, not RoF specifically). It also helps that Ray of Frost specifically targets lower HP enemies when it targets lower Fort defense enemies, and in those enemies, Will and Ref are sometimes concurrently high.
If you include extra damage from Vulnerability: Frost, Burning Blizzard, and such like, then you're doing an extra 8 damage at Epic, and even an extra 7 starting Paragon, which isn't such a bad deal for what are essentially rider benefits (you got those feats for other powers).
A-/9 for Holy Strike
B+/8 for Valiant Strike
(when you have both Holy and Valiant, then Valiant's value goes up to A-/9)
B-/6 for Enfeebling Strike
B-/6 for Bolstering Strike
However, Valiant Strike is about equal to Holy Strike, especially in Heroic before you've pumped your WIS and perhaps gotten Astral Fire.
I'd imagine paladins are going to want to just use weapon focus instead of astral fire, honestly.
Looking at whether to upgrade Valiant:
It's always at least a +1 to hit, which is definitely solid. If it's more than a +2 to hit, you're probably attacking a minion, or only getting the bonus for like a round. At which point I'd wonder how much better it was than Cleave, and I'd say Cleave is better than it for minion killing. So how does it compare for attack bonus... I'd say that Piercing is more reliable for hitting. Valiant has no other benefits than the attack bonus and doesn't hit for that much so I don't think it will ever compare to Holy Strike, especially not against undead or with items like a holy avenger. I could upgrade it to a B though.
Quote:
if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless
It's not worthless, it's just pretty lackluster.
Quote:
Valiant Strike is almost always better against 3 or more adjacent opponents
I'd contend that the paladin is not fighting 3 or more opponents at once while using at-wills all that often outside Heroic tier. Most of the chaff tends to go away in the early rounds.
That said, assuming you're fighting 3 non-undead opponents, ignoring extra crit damage:
6th: 1d8 + 4 Str + 2 Enh + 1 Focus base, +3 Dmg for Holy, 60% hit with Holy, 75% hit with Valiant - Holy: 8.7 avg, Valiant: 8.625 avg
16th: 1d8 + 5 Str + 4 Enh + 2 Focus base, +4 Dmg for Holy, Same hit %s - Holy: 11.7, Valiant: 11.625
26th: 1d8 + 7 Str + 6 Enh + 3 Focus base, +5 Dmg for Holy and +1d10 for Holy Avenger, Same hit %s - Holy: 18.6, Valiant: 15.375
And yeah, radiant vulnerability really makes Holy shine.
Quote:
Bolstering is okay if your WIS mod is at least +3, and in some cases it can even be a life-saver. But offensively it has no special value at all. If you're surrounded by strikers (and without much in the way of healing from the rest of the party) and you are THE party's tank, then Bolstering's value goes way up. But you can still be a tank without it. And its value really drops as you gain in levels and hp.
Agree that its value decreases, but it is a strong contender at low level especially for races with a Wis bonus.
Quote:
Enfeebling ... oh man, that is a boring one. But it can help keep you or an ally from getting hit, and thus has some value.
Yep, it is the most defender-ish of the bunch.
Quote:
Again, no particular offensive value whatsoever, so Holy/Valiant are better overall.
As a defender, the paladin's job is not necessarily offense, of course.
After some consideration, I think I rate Ray of Frost well. Certainly, it's a strong option if you already have Burning Blizzard and Wintertouched and Lasting Frost for other reasons (like if you're majoring in cold spells anyway). I reviewed the Monster Manual for Fort defenses, and while they were sometimes higher than AC, sometimes they were also lower - even significantly lower.
I am still working on my spreadsheet with all of the monsters in it (I only have 182 at the moment, it takes a while to add them), but I have 6 columns in it: Low Fort, Low Reflex, Low Will, High Fort, High Reflex, and High Will. When I set the definition of that to be Low is 4 or more less than the other two or High is 4 or more greater than the other two, it comes out:
2 Low Fort
7 Low Reflex
7 Low Will
32 High Fort
3 High Reflex
0 High Will
Low Fort almost never happens, just like High Will almost never happens.
Note: one creature shows up as two of these (e.g. Low Will and High Fort), in this case, the Tarrasque (which I think is dumb to have a 17 delta on a D20 system between Fort and Will).
High Fort happens a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxlimn
You won't want to target Brutes and Soldiers with this because they have good defenses against it. You want to target those with Ref defense spells. You use a Fort defense spell against Lurkers, Skirmishers, and Artillery, against which they are very, very good (in general, not RoF specifically). It also helps that Ray of Frost specifically targets lower HP enemies when it targets lower Fort defense enemies, and in those enemies, Will and Ref are sometimes concurrently high.
The problem is that I for one do not often know what type of creature I am fighting. Is it a Brute that ran into melee, or a Skirmisher, or a Soldier, or a Minion? Is it an Artillery in the back there, or a Lurker, or even a Controller?'
Are any of them Elite? Is it a Solo, or did we just accidentally alert two groups?
Don't know. So, deciding on which Defense to attack is a bit of quesswork unless I make some type of skill roll.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Magic missile has the highest average damage due to its bell curve from 2d4 + int mod.
Magic missile can do decent damage due to bracers of perfect shot, not due to its bell curve. Cloud of Daggers will do more damage than it, even with bracers of perfect shot, even with getting the occasional extra hit from a warlord. It's certainly the wizard's #2 damage dealer, and it almost does as much damage as a longbow in anyone's hands at all who pumps Dex. Anyone with proficiency at least. Without using an at-will.
Quote:
All of the wizard's at-wills are good. Magic missile rock
Magic Missile is a solid option for many wizards who want the extra range and are willing to use an item slot to empower it. It is, however, a basic "baseline" at-will that can be disparagingly compared to making basic attacks with a longbow, but with magic missile suffering from not being able to get weapon focus. Some of the other at-wills offer slightly more once you factor in feats or appropriate builds, but may not be for everyone.
I do think magic missile + scorching burst will be the 'old reliable' mage build.
So how does it compare for attack bonus... I'd say that Piercing is more reliable for hitting. Valiant has no other benefits than the attack bonus and doesn't hit for that much so I don't think it will ever compare to Holy Strike, especially not against undead or with items like a holy avenger. I could upgrade it to a B though.
Piercing Strike probably IS more reliable for hitting, but I think this outlines a flaw in your project. Piercing Strike is in the possession of a different character class with a different role. Rating Valiant Strike with reference to the usefulness of Piercing Strike is like rating Cleave down because it compares unfavorably to Thunderwave.
Anyways, in my experience Valiant Strike can be worked to give you about a +2 attack most of the time. And if it isn't giving you at least that, you have other at will powers. I rate it highly.
Some day we'll have more powers to compare against, but especially for at-wills it is very trivial to set them all on the same scale. Thunderwave is indeed better than Cleave and if presented with that as an option for an at-will, a fighter should take it.
Hopefully it never is offered to fighters, though. That would be... disappointing. That said, the swordmage may well have a similar option - I believe we've already seen that it gets a close burst 1 option.
Your opinion is noted, Cadfan, as it was before, but if doing things your way, there would simply be a list from 1-4 (or 1-3, etc) for each class with the theoretical order for each power. What you want is not pertinent to this particular exercise and really only helps for choosing at-wills for a player, not for design or DM. I'd contend that for a player you'd be better off making a list of builds and optimal choices for each type... and that may well be worth doing, but is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do
I will say that I'd not be surprised if a significant number of DMs allow people to take 'cross-class' at-wills until we see more power options. Like Valiant Strike for a fighter or Priest's Shield of a paladin, that kind of thing.
Last edited by keterys; 6th July 2008 at 04:18 PM..
Your criteria for evaluating the spreadsheets are flawed. The at-will choices on consideration in the PHB only target Ref, and the illusionary at-will is considered on its Will targeting alone (that being unique).
Thus, if you want to weigh Ref vs. Fort, you only have to count whether a monster either has better Ref than Fort or better Fort than Ref. Extremely high counts of Fort relative to Ref don't count because as long as Fort is higher, you aren't going to be using that power anyway, regardless of how high the Fort happens to be. That's the only criterion.
If you use this more practical measure, you'll come up with better numbers and that will reflect itself in play.
Quote:
The problem is that I for one do not often know what type of creature I am fighting. Is it a Brute that ran into melee, or a Skirmisher, or a Soldier, or a Minion? Is it an Artillery in the back there, or a Lurker, or even a Controller?'
Are any of them Elite? Is it a Solo, or did we just accidentally alert two groups?
Don't know. So, deciding on which Defense to attack is a bit of quesswork unless I make some type of skill roll.
That's probably why you should be taking a bunch of skills.
Holy Strike is the King. It gives Paladins a way to become effective DPR dealers, and only gets better with age; you can still benefit from it at high levels. It benefits from Astral Fire feat and your WIS (at Epic level that's +3 and +WIS), and critters vulnerable to radiant take more damage. And you can make a critter vulnerable to Radiant 5 with a 5th level Daily power. Basically, if you want to feel like you're helping the party deal damage, you really need this one.
The benefit of Astral Fire is generally the same as Weapon Focus and they don't stack - they both give a feat bonus to damage. Astral Fire is nice in that it works on all your radiant powers, but it won't work on your other at-will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleElvis
Yes, the +1 to damage is mathematically better than the +1 to hit at low levels in DPR against all level-appropriate opponents (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless).
It depends on the hit/damage that you do. If you're attacking an AC 16, sure. If you're attacking an AC 20 Hobgoblin Soldier, not so much. Most characters will hit it on a 13 for 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleElvis
Enfeebling ... oh man, that is a boring one. But it can help keep you or an ally from getting hit, and thus has some value. Again, no particular offensive value whatsoever, so Holy/Valiant are better overall. It's okay. It's best against a controller who is about to AoE your party, or an opponent with a really nasty effect to its attacks that you want to avoid at all costs. It can be useful. But I feel sorry for anyone playing a CHA-Paladin that has to use it all the time until you get a bunch of Encounter and Daily powers that you can replace it with.
The advantage of Enfeebling Strike is that with your mark, that's a -4 to hit anyone but you. You're taking them out of the combat by forcing them to attack the high defenses Paladin at a penalty of -2. As an example, against a Berserker Human, you hitting them means that they'll only hit you about 30-35% of the time instead of 40-45%.
And nothing like a party setup of Paladin Enfeebling, Cleric Sacred Flaming, and Wizard Illusory Ambushing to really grind a solo into ineffectiveness in the late rounds. (Yawn)
It depends on the hit/damage that you do. If you're attacking an AC 16, sure. If you're attacking an AC 20 Hobgoblin Soldier, not so much. Most characters will hit it on a 13 for 9
Actually the +1 damage and -1 to hit is almost perfectly identical vs AC 20.
Let's use a longsword (+3) and give STR of 18 (+4) and WIS of 12 (+1). In reality, you'd probably have a better WIS if you're a STR-Pal, making this comparison a bit unrealistic. But just for the sake comparing ...
Now let's make it a WIS of +2
Holy Strike [7 x 10.5] + 14(crit) = 87.5; 86.5/20=4.375
Now WIS of +3
Holy Strike [7 x 11.5] + 15(crit) = 95.5; 95.5/20= 4.775
So yeah, Holy Strike is pretty much always better against one level-appropriate opponent at lower levels if you're getting at least +1 to damage from WIS. Chances are you're getting more than +1 to damage, though, leaving it a no contest of Holy > Valiant vs 1. You shouldn't be facing many AC 20s at level 1 anyway, and even then it's almost certainly better (because you're almost certainly getting more than +1 from WIS if you're a STR-Pal).
Last edited by LittleElvis; 6th July 2008 at 08:38 PM..
The advantage of Enfeebling Strike is that with your mark, that's a -4 to hit anyone but you. You're taking them out of the combat by forcing them to attack the high defenses Paladin at a penalty of -2. As an example, against a Berserker Human, you hitting them means that they'll only hit you about 30-35% of the time instead of 40-45%.
I agree, it has some value against a big nasty. But just with Divine Challenge, you're probably forcing it to attack you anyway. Does it want -2 vs your high AC or -4 vs someone else's lower AC and DC damage? Even without Enfeebling, it's going to attack you the vast majority of the time. And if it doesn't, it's taking -2 to hit and taking DC damage. That's not a bad deal for you either.
Last edited by LittleElvis; 6th July 2008 at 11:43 PM..
A rather important advantage of Valiant Strike is that you don't have to be attacking your Marked target. This way you keep one target busy with your mark, and one by pounding on it continually. I can see a more damage focused Paladin going for Holy Strike more often, but I think the powers are very close in usefulness.
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
That said, assuming you're fighting 3 non-undead opponents, ignoring extra crit damage:
6th: 1d8 + 4 Str + 2 Enh + 1 Focus base, +3 Dmg for Holy, 60% hit with Holy, 75% hit with Valiant - Holy: 8.7 avg, Valiant: 8.625 avg
16th: 1d8 + 5 Str + 4 Enh + 2 Focus base, +4 Dmg for Holy, Same hit %s - Holy: 11.7, Valiant: 11.625
26th: 1d8 + 7 Str + 6 Enh + 3 Focus base, +5 Dmg for Holy and +1d10 for Holy Avenger, Same hit %s - Holy: 18.6, Valiant: 15.375
Let's look at the level 6 scenario.
You're definitely using at least a 1d10 weapon by that point. Let's make it a bastard sword. We're assuming a +3 WIS modifier, which you may not have (and if you only have +2, Valiant clearly wins). Let's give Holy the advantage of the +3 WIS, though.
60% hits with Holy and 75% hits with Valiant is about right. That's an AC of 21 at Level-6.
6th level average damage per non-critical hit in the above scenario using a Bastard Sword is 15.5 vs. 12.5.
Actual DPR is ...
Valiant: [12.5 x 14] + [17 + 7 for crit] = 199/20 = 9.95
Holy: [15.5 x 11] + [20 + 7 for crit] = 197.5/20 = 9.875
Valiant by a nose. Against 4+ opponents not vulnerable to Radiant, obviously Valiant wins there. If your WIS bonus is only +2, then it's 9.95 for Valiant vs. 9.325 for Holy.
I would also argue that if you're surrounded by three opponents, you not only take the higher DPR in Valiant, but you also are less likely to 'roll the dice' and you'd rather take the more reliable damage (75% vs 60% chance to hit), especially if one of them is a minion or bloodied because you want to take him out. Then after you wipe out one of them, you go back to Holy Strike vs 2 in this scenario, unless one of them is again knocking on death's door and you want the more reliable hit.
Valiant is also slightly better at the level 16 scenario using the Bastard sword (or perhaps something better than 1d10), and hits more reliably.
DPR:
Valiant: [16.5 x 14] + [21 + 14 for crit] = 266/20 = 13.3
Holy: [20.5 x 11] + [25 + 14 for crit] = 264.5/20 = 13.225
If you've got a Holy Avenger at 26, you're certainly going to be using Holy Strike over Valiant.
Last edited by LittleElvis; 6th July 2008 at 08:37 PM..
A rather important advantage of Valiant Strike is that you don't have to be attacking your Marked target. This way you keep one target busy with your mark, and one by pounding on it continually. I can see a more damage focused Paladin going for Holy Strike more often, but I think the powers are very close in usefulness.
I think you actually made the math less correct . I included the possibility of a critical hit in the DPR.
Great point about Valiant, though. A maximized Holy Strike is still probably useful more often, because if you've got a good WIS bonus it's probably better vs 2, and almost always better vs 1, while being roughly equivalent to vs 3, and gets synergy with 'Sign of Vulnerability' once/day and deals Radiant damage.
If you have both Holy and Valiant, then I think they are about equal as they give you good options as a team (choosing which one fits each situation). If you can only have one or the other, then I think Holy is just a bit better per se. But not by a lot, and of course in many cases Valiant edges it out.
I will say that I'd not be surprised if a significant number of DMs allow people to take 'cross-class' at-wills until we see more power options. Like Valiant Strike for a fighter or Priest's Shield of a paladin, that kind of thing.
Although Paragon Multi-Classing does allow that option at level 11, of course. I'm playing two Pals right now. One is a Human STR-Pal whose goal in life is to get Righteous Brand from Cleric as an at-will power (to go with Holy and Valiant) at level 11.
That would great to play with a DM who allowed that to happen more easily, though. If I was DM'ing, I might create a feat available at level 11 or 12 for swapping an at-will power with that of your multi-class. Or if I was feeling more generous, I'd let the feat available at level 8 or 10 allow that.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
