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.
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
Let's make the comparison a little more realistic...you're picking the ideal situation for you, which is unlikely to hold at even 1st level...and you're comparing apples and oranges, not what I was talking about, which is the benefit of a +1 to damage vs a -1 to hit. Not what the benefit of a +1 to hit is compared with a moving target dependent on stats.
Let's use a bastard sword (+3)(or WF, doesn't really matter which one as crits adjust automatically) and look at AC 20 and power attack, with a Holy Strike at +2 extra damage.
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.
Way ahead of you. My spreadsheet analyzes all types of criteria. That was just one simple example.
I was merely pointing out to you that Low Fort almost never happens, unlike your claim to the contrary.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
As far as I can tell, I posted, "sometimes Fort is lower than AC, even significantly lower."
What about that tells you that I'm comparing Fort to Ref or that I used your criteria to do so? That seems fairly clear that I was comparison Fort defense to AC defense, not Ref.
Let's make the comparison a little more realistic...you're picking the ideal situation for you, which is unlikely to hold at even 1st level...and you're comparing apples and oranges, not what I was talking about, which is the benefit of a +1 to damage vs a -1 to hit. Not what the benefit of a +1 to hit is compared with a moving target dependent on stats.
Let's use a bastard sword (+3)(or WF, doesn't really matter which one as crits adjust automatically) and look at AC 20 and power attack, with a Holy Strike at +2 extra damage.
Well I know it's hypothetical, but that's extremely unrealistic and, really unlike my example, certainly "picking the ideal situation for you." You're using Power Attack against a high AC opponent (why?) while using a one-handed weapon with power attack (uncommon), and you don't have Weapon Focus while do you have power attack? That's not happening in reality, because it's plainly not optimized. However, give that power attack guy a Maul (more realistic) and he would beat the non-PA guy even against a high AC.
We were definitely talking about +1 to damage versus +1 to hit, and as I pointed out, the +1 to damage is better against opponents realistic for your level, and almost never significantly bested by the +1 to hit (the AC has to be unrealistically high for +1 to hit to be significantly better).
The higher the opposing AC, the less you want to trade to-hit bonuses for damage bonuses, obviously. But against your high AC 20 example at first level, the +1 to damage is still nearly identical to the +1 to hit in the situation most common for a Paladin (18 STR and a longsword).
I also did not compare an apple and an orange, because I did compare +1 to damage vs +1 to hit. That's explicitly what we were talking about.
A -1/+1 or -2/+2 does increase your average DPR against opponents appropriate for your level. The example I gave was a realistic one. Using a longsword with 18 STR at level 1 and comparing +1 to hit vs +1 to damage. Even against the AC 20, they're almost perfectly identical in DPR. With AC lower than 20, +1 damage wins. At AC 20, they're really equal. Higher than AC 20, +1 to hit gets better.
Last edited by LittleElvis; 6th July 2008 at 10:36 PM..
Here's a situation a little more friendly to the +1 to hit argument. Level 1, 18 STR, Warhammer or Battleaxe. Let's make the opposing AC 18, which is still a bit to the high side high.
+1 Damage: [8 x 10.5] + 15 = 99/20 = 4.950
+1 To Hit: [9 x 9.5] + 14 = 99.5/20 = 4.975
Almost identical vs a high'ish AC. +1 damage being somewhat better vs. more common opponents.
For fun, compare that to a longsword:
+1 Damage: [9 x 9.5] + 13 = 98.5/20 = 4.925
+1 to hit: [10 x 8.5] + 12 = 97/20 = 4.850
And with a magical +1 Longsword ...
+1 Damage: [10 x 10.5] + 14 = 119/20 = 5.950
+1 to hit: [11 x 9.5] + 13 = 117.5/20 = 5.875
So of course it does depend on what kind of weapon you are using, Enhancement and feat bonuses, etc.
And of course it's true that once you get Weapon Focus (or if you use a higher DPR weapon), the benefit of the +1 to hit goes up somewhat vs the +1 to damage.
To go back to the original discussion, with a +2 or better WIS bonus from Holy Strike, it's still going to be your winner vs 1 opponent almost all of the time. Even with +1 WIS bonus, it's better a very, very healthy majority of the time at lower levels of play (except vs opponents with very low hp or insanely high AC).
Last edited by LittleElvis; 7th July 2008 at 09:31 AM..
As far as I can tell, I posted, "sometimes Fort is lower than AC, even significantly lower."
What about that tells you that I'm comparing Fort to Ref or that I used your criteria to do so? That seems fairly clear that I was comparison Fort defense to AC defense, not Ref.
In a discussion of Wizard At Will powers, AC doesn't matter. I assumed you had a typo in your message because you were talking about how wonderful Ray of Frost is.
Ray of Frost is not wonderful. We have the early part of this thread here on how subpar it is, even after throwing two feats at it.
So, if you were indeed talking about AC (which is not very productive in a discusion on Wizard At Will powers), most weapons get a +2 ranged (where the attacker is more safe) or +3 melee to hit (where the attacker is less safe) weapon proficiency bonus.
Wizard attacks do not get this bonus.
So yes, Fort can be lower than AC and often is.
But who cares unless one subtracts 3 from the AC in order to compare the AC to the Fort. At that point, one is comparing Defender (good attacker vs. AC) vs. Wizard (good attacker vs. Fort): AC vs. Fort.
At that point, the number of "Significantly Lower Fort (i.e. adjusted by 3 and 4 or more than that lower) vs. AC" creatures out of the first 182 is exactly 1. Even comparing AC-3 straight up vs. Fort yields 34 creatures (most of them 1 lower) out of 182.
One cannot just compare AC to Fort because PCs that use weapons get bonuses to hit. One has to adjust AC and then compare.
1 out of 182 significantly lower. Yup, that is "sometimes", but not too often.
Hardly an endorsement of what you were stating.
Fort is almost never significantly lower than any Defense one compares it to. One of the other Defenses is better than Fort for a Wizard (or any attacker) to target the vast majority of the time.
That is one reason (out of several) why Ray of Frost is suboptimal.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Well I know it's hypothetical, but that's extremely unrealistic and, really unlike my example, certainly "picking the ideal situation for you." You're using Power Attack against a high AC opponent (why?) while using a one-handed weapon with power attack (uncommon), and you don't have Weapon Focus while do you have power attack? That's not happening in reality, because it's plainly not optimized. However, give that power attack guy a Maul (more realistic) and he would beat the non-PA guy even against a high AC.
As I noted, they're the same thing, Bastard Sword/WF. I'm doing the -2 so it is obvious how the math works. When you insert a -1, you're still better off swinging at an AC 20 guy with the +1 to hit.
And no, Maul guy wouldn't. He ends up doing significantly worse damage against AC 20, even with the extra +1 damage.
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).
I'm not the person who said 'all level-appropriate opponents'
Guys, you can't do just a straight up comparison of average damage between holy strike and valiant strike, because in many situations all you care about is hitting.
For example, with the bloodied mechanic, I can tell when a guy is really hurt. And its easy to judge when a creature has just a few hitpoints left. In those situations, it doesn't matter that the average damage of holy strike is higher...I just care about hitting the creature because hit = death. In these situations, which are not uncommon in my experience, valiant strike is the clear choice.
I've got nothing against holy strike mind you, but remember that attack bonuses do a lot more than just bump up average damage.
If Sure Strike could be used for OA innately, it would even be a tolerable power because of combat superiority.
That said, the number of hits where you would have killed with either Valiant or Holy Strike is probably fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Bloodied tends to be a pretty large hp range if we're talking at-wills. Especially paladin at-wills.
As I noted, they're the same thing, Bastard Sword/WF. I'm doing the -2 so it is obvious how the math works. When you insert a -1, you're still better off swinging at an AC 20 guy with the +1 to hit.
And no, Maul guy wouldn't. He ends up doing significantly worse damage against AC 20, even with the extra +1 damage.
I'm not the person who said 'all level-appropriate opponents'
Well AC 20 is not a level-appropriate opponent for a 1st level character.
Regarding the Maul, I was saying to compare a Maul-wielder with Power Attack vs. the Bastard Sword guy without power attack vs 20 AC, because, that's actually a realistic comparison of two things that might happen in reality. And yes, even vs AC 20 and using power attack, the Maul is better in terms of DPR. Just trying to come up with something realistic.
You've also said twice now that Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus are the same, but they are not. Even at 1[W], the Bastard sword does better DPR as it does more damage on a crit. With 2[W] or higher[W] the Bastard sword also is obviously better than weapon focus.
Guys, you can't do just a straight up comparison of average damage between holy strike and valiant strike, because in many situations all you care about is hitting.
That's actually been said many times already above. Valiant is better, period, if you're attacking a minion or someone with a few hp. That's one of its selling points.
I still say a wizard's at will is heavily influenced by the tiers. I can expect them to retrain power right before jumping tiers so their at wills differ in power at different levels.
Cloud of Daggers B+/B/C
CoD is awesome at the heroic tier. Later on autokilling minions 1 at a time is too dangerous and insubstantials are rarer, usually low HP, and vulnerable to something other than force.
Magic Missile B-/B/B+
Like CoD but less minion kill and better range. Chances are when you are using this, your attack resources are low so you might as well be 15 squares away.
Ray of Frost C+/B+/B
RoF targets a bad defense so you'll need a boost to spam slow on non shrimisher/lurker. The 2 cold feats help, especially if you have an cold vs Ref encounter or daily.
Scorching Burst A/A-/A-
Kills 50-75% of the minions of a group without using an encounter or daily by turn 2? Where do I sign? Too bad by level 15, wizard should have so many AOEs.
Thunderwave A all around
Nice at heroic, range gets better at paragon. Chance are that you use this every time you get damaged.
Illusionary Ambush B/B+/A
Your only anti artillery at will power and the only one that hits Will. Not bad vs Solos either.
Creatures whose Fort defenses are lower than Ref defenses:
Astral Stalker
Phane
Fire Archon Emberguard
Fire Archon Ash Disciple
Banshrae Dartswarmer
Banshrae Warrior
Shadowhunter Bat
Fire Bat
Beholder Eye of Flame
Beholder Eye Tyrant
Berbalang
Bone Claw
Cambion Hellfire Magus
Dark Creeper
Dark Stalker
Chain Devil
Succubus
Displacer Beast
Dopplegangers
Black Dragons
Green Dragons
Spiretop Drake
Needlefang Drake Swarm
Pseudodragon
Spitting Drake
Drider Shadowspinner
Drow
Eladrin
...
...
I'm not bothering to finish the list.
There are a good number of monsters whose Ref defenses are higher than their Fort defenses. Thus, for these monsters, it's better to use a Ray of Frost than a Ref attack at-will.
There are a good number of monsters whose Ref defenses are higher than their Fort defenses. Thus, for these monsters, it's better to use a Ray of Frost than a Ref attack at-will.
Err, so?
The issue is:
1) There are more monsters (a lot more monsters) with higher Fort Defenses than Reflex Defenses then there are ones with higher Reflex Defenses than Fort Defenses.
2) Wizards only get 2 (or 3 if Human) At Will powers.
3) People who play Wizards want both single target and area At Will powers.
4) Unless a given DM is generous in handling out information (even with skill checks) as to whether a given monster is Brute, Soldier, Minion, etc., the players of Wizards will not have a strong idea as to the best attack to use in any given circumstance. The player might have an educated guess at best.
All bases cannot be covered. So, the best strategy is to use higher frequency At Will powers (such as vs. Will and vs. Reflex) and fill the vs. Fort powers out of Encounter and Daily powers. Doing it the other way is an option, but it is a suboptimal option, especially at lower levels. When a PC starts gaining more Encounter Powers and uses fewer At Will powers within encounters, it becomes less suboptimal to switch to a vs. Fort. At Will power.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
OK, I'm runnning a Warlord and I am not sure of the value of this power UNLESS you have a higher Int than Str AND if you have someone in the group that can hit & dish out more damage than you (and do you need to be in melee as well?). Am I missing something? Wolf pack can give you & an ally a +2 to hit (also helps rogues immensely), Furious Smash attacks Fort instead of AC which is very good against mobile/high int targets as they probably have a decent AC as well gives you some damage and a decent bonus to hit & damage, viper's strike allows a opportunity attack if the shifts which is pretty good in my opinion.
OK, I'm runnning a Warlord and I am not sure of the value of this power UNLESS you have a higher Int than Str AND if you have someone in the group that can hit & dish out more damage than you (and do you need to be in melee as well?).
I think it should be a lower grade as it's much more restrictive to be of use, only useful IF there is a high str ally to use it with. Also not nearly as good as Snake's Swiftness used to be. Snake's Swiftness allowed either any type of ranged or melee attack and was cast by a mage atrange so if you were up against something with SR this is a value add to any noncaster. Commander's Strike only allows an ally a basic melee attack and you have to be in melee as well(?) If this can be one at range then I can see value being added.
Snake's Swiftness didn't add bonus damage. Let's say you've got a longsword and board tactical warlord with Str 16, Int 18 in a group with a Str 18 greatsword fighter.
So, you get +2 attack and +6 damage. More if you add in bracer's of mighty striking - which you really should if you're grouped with a warlord doing this.
Last edited by keterys; 8th July 2008 at 04:23 AM..
Still seems restrictive & stat dependant. Also shouldn't the damage be +8? If even with the 16 Str you could be either the highest or tied as the highest for Str in which case you would want to use any other power w/ a bonus effect (Furious Smash gives you Str+Cha damage +cha to hit on his next attack which doesn't have to be a basic one). The one perk of this power I could see is if you are statused by something (weakened etc) where someone's basic attack is way better than your at wills
Also, thy sometimes carry riders (sneak attack, combat superiority, etc)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
