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.
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?
It depends a bit on party makeup.
Basic Attack damage for a Defender might be quite high.
And, Int does not need to be greater than Str. If the ally does better average damage and has a better change to hit then than Warlord, giving him another attack plus Int damage can often be better than the Warlord +2 to hit of Wolf Pack.
If an enemy doesn't shift, Viper's Strike is pretty weak too (also, VS might incentivize an enemy to attack the Warlord because a Marked foe might figure he'll get attacked in either case).
And Furious Strike is Meh damage.
Commander's Strike can be the best of the lot depending on party makeup.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
I don't understand the logic of saying giving a defender/high str pc a basic attack (commander's strike which bonus damage = 16 Int 3 for example & losing yours) instead of giving anyone in melee a bonus to hit & dam = 16 cha 3 to any melee attack of theirs + you also do your 16 str 3 damage as well. 1 is useful only when giving a high str melee PC a +3 to damage against AC, while the other (using same stats) is giving a +3 to hit & damage to possibly any defense (more odds of hitting if against a low defense) using any melee power and you also get to add in your str damage from your attack
I don't understand the logic of saying giving a defender/high str pc a basic attack (commander's strike which bonus damage = 16 Int 3 for example & losing yours) instead of giving anyone in melee a bonus to hit & dam = 16 cha 3 to any melee attack of theirs + you also do your 16 str 3 damage as well. 1 is useful only when giving a high str melee PC a +3 to damage against AC, while the other (using same stats) is giving a +3 to hit & damage to possibly any defense (more odds of hitting if against a low defense) using any melee power and you also get to add in your str damage from your attack
Yes, but Commanders Strike just works, and requires no action on the part of the other character, Furious Smash requires you to hit fort and then on their turn the other character has to make an attack to get the bonuses
They're actually used in different situations, Commanders Strike is just a good useful at will, whereas Furious Smash is what you use to set up another character's daily.
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
Should be +6 = +4 from Int, +1 from him having higher Str, +1 from him using a 2h weapon. The +2 attack is +1 from fighter and +1 from str. The gap widens if the fighter also has weapon focus and such and the warlord doesn't, but I wasn't going to count on that. Feel free to add the +2 from the bracers, though, to get +8.
Furious Smash doesn't have a damage die, which is particularly important at later level when it means you don't get weapon focus, enhancement bonus, power bonus to damage, etc. It ends up being a lot less damage. Its main strength is giving an attack bonus for someone else's important powers.
Well AC 20 is not a level-appropriate opponent for a 1st level character.
Encounter level 1 for 5 PCs is 500 xp of monsters. A perfectly reasonable encounter would be a Hobgoblin Soldier + 2 Hobgoblin Minions + 2 goblin skirmishers + 2 Goblin Cutters(minions) = 501 XP.
As a 1st level character, you're expected to be able to fight n+2 monsters who are not solos in standard fights - heck, you're supposed to be able to fight n+5 monsters in hard fights.
Perhaps that's the reason you're so enthralled by damage vs to hit - you've been softballing during your playtests...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleElvis
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.
Effectively...
If you're doing say 10 more hit points on average per 20 swings with a bastard sword because you used Power Attack, you're doing the same 10 more hit points on average with a longsword. The difference in average damage per round is the same. i.e. 101-91 = 10. 100-90 = 10. 10 = 10.
When we start talking about 2[W] or higher, it is an entirely different set of numbers, because you're doing so much more damage on average as a base and therefore the value of a +1 to hit goes up.
I don't understand the logic of saying giving a defender/high str pc a basic attack (commander's strike which bonus damage = 16 Int 3 for example & losing yours) instead of giving anyone in melee a bonus to hit & dam = 16 cha 3 to any melee attack of theirs + you also do your 16 str 3 damage as well. 1 is useful only when giving a high str melee PC a +3 to damage against AC, while the other (using same stats) is giving a +3 to hit & damage to possibly any defense (more odds of hitting if against a low defense) using any melee power and you also get to add in your str damage from your attack
With Commander's Strike , the ally gets an extra attack on the Warlord's turn. The ally still get his normal actions on his normal turn. The ally does not lose his normal turn.
That Commander's Strike attack is typically better to hit than what the Warlord himself can do.
That attack has +Int damage.
Take an example of the Warlord at 16 Int, +6 to hit for ~8 damage and a Fighter is +7 to hit for ~10 damage, the Fighter gets an extra attack at +7 to hit for ~13 damage.
+7 ~13 is greater than +6 ~8.
If the Warlord used Wolf Pack Tactics, he would be +8 ~8 damage (vs. +7 ~13) and Commander's Strike is still often better (there is no guarantee that the Fighter still gets the flank, or would not have had the flank anyway).
If the Warlord used Viper Strike, he would be +6 ~8 damage (vs. +7 ~13) and Commander's Strike is still often better (there is no guarantee that the Fighter would get an opportunity attack or a flank).
And Furious Smash is hardly helpful at all. Two attacks by the Fighter (one of them with a boost to damage) is typically a lot better than a boost to hit and damage IF the Warlord hits for a minor amount of damage.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Encounter level 1 for 5 PCs is 500 xp of monsters. A perfectly reasonable encounter would be a Hobgoblin Soldier + 2 Hobgoblin Minions + 2 goblin skirmishers + 2 Goblin Cutters(minions) = 501 XP.
As a 1st level character, you're expected to be able to fight n+2 monsters who are not solos in standard fights - heck, you're supposed to be able to fight n+5 monsters in hard fights.
Perhaps that's the reason you're so enthralled by damage vs to hit - you've been softballing during your playtests...
Considering that I'm playing in two campaigns, observing a third, playtesting against different sorts of opponents, and obviously calculating things like DPR, no that's actually not the case.
Actually one of the main tests I ran were different level 1 Paladins against a level 6 Cave Bear with an AC of 20. The STR Pals were able to do a lot more damage to them before getting killed than the CHA Pals, fwiw, although that's a different topic.
You are of course right that a 1st level character can face AC of 20 (or a bit higher) if the DM wants him to, and there are fair opponents that will be at that level. It's not a common opponent, though. There will be a lot more cases where the +1 to damage at first level is better than the +1 to hit (for a Paladin, at least, which is what the original discussion revolved around). Granted, to be clearer and more correct, I should have said "the overwhelming majority of level-appropriate opponents," rather than "all."
Of course, it's situational, though. Something like power attack is better against lower AC opponents than higher AC opponents, which was close to your original point--obviously true.
However, you incorrectly implied that vs an AC 20 Hobgoblin soldier, +1 to hit is better than +1 to damage, and you implied that this was clearly the case. In reality, it's about equal, depending on all of your stats, weapons, etc. I also overstated my case a bit to begin with.
However, you incorrectly implied that vs an AC 20 Hobgoblin soldier, +1 to hit is better than +1 to damage, and you implied that this was clearly the case. In reality, it's about equal, depending on all of your stats, weapons, etc. I also overstated my case a bit to begin with.
I haven't ran any simulations or extensive playtests but I find this hard to believe. We've played 4e something like three sessions, so my experience is limited, but so far about 80% of the enemies we've encountered have been minions, against whom the damage is irrelevant.
The more bad-ass enemies have been on the receiving end of our encounter- and daily abilities, which are only cool if they hit, and often have other effects besides simple damage.
At very low levels, damage has more impact - so to speak - than chance to hit, but the margin becomes narrower the higher the target's AC gets. Attack bonuses increase slower, if I have understood correctly, than enemy defenses, so sooner or later attack bonuses will trump damage bonuses. (Plus nobody wants to miss with their dailies or encounter-powers...)
Last edited by NorthSaber; 8th July 2008 at 09:50 AM..
KD,
For losing the turn I was referring to the Warlord not attacking & still leaving myself open to being hit. Also in my case I have the higher Str than our fighter (he's con higher than I). While his fighter is probably close to equal terms as me for hitting things, against certain foes my attack vs Fort is easier to hit with (yes I know I need to hit) could give his 1st lvl daily a +10 to hit & damage of 25 plus me doing my 3 damage originally for 28 against the target. That's +3 to hit AC & 8 extra damage on average for a 1st level daily, 1st lvl encounter powers work to be about the same damage but gain the +3 anyhow. I would upgrade this power (CS) if you could use it at range or if any melee at will could be used with it (opening its usefulness to non high str PC's as well).
Commander's strike is somewhat situational. It's better if your party's defender is a fighter, for the extra mark. It's better if your party's striker is melee based, rather then ranged, letting you give them a 2nd chance at their bonus damage if they missed on their turn. It's better if your 5th member is another defender or melee striker. It's better if you have a reach weapon (which is in turn better if your party has two or more high AC heroes in it, to make up for your lower AC from lack of a shield, and to give you someone to hide behind).
That said, it's usually great for a tactical warlord, unless you're playing in a group where you're the only leader, your defender is a Str-dumping Chaladin, and you've got multiple ranged strikers.
In a normal group, with at least one Str-based defender or melee striker, Commander's attack nets a high int taclord a decent damage boost, and gives you another chance to take advantage of your several short duration attack boosts.
IE: at first level your average eladrin taclord drops warlords favor once an encounter. Provided it hits, you'll be giving one ally +4 to hit until the end of your next turn. They attack with the bonus on their turn, and then on your next turn you can follow up with commander's strike for another attack benefiting from that +4 to hit. There are multiple short duration ally attack boost powers to take advantage of throughout a Taclord's progression, and the Battle Captain Paragon Path provides an extra two to three of these per encounter.
As a Taclord, this is hard to pass up. It's not as obvious a choice as Furious Smash is for a Chalord. Of course, that's something of a false comparison. If you're a tactical warlord, furious smash is rather terrible for you, just as commander's strike is rather lame for an inspiring warlord. Thunderwave isn't a terrible power just because it's lackluster for Wis-Dumping staff wizards, is it?
Commander's strike isn't amazing like the ranger's doublestrike power, or the cleric's righteous brand, or most of the wizard at-wills, but is still rather good. And sure, it's rather situational depending on your party make-up... But your a warlord. If any class should be taking the other party memebers into account when selecting powers, it's you. If it doesn't fit your party, or if your party composition changes, just retrain it. NBD.
Last edited by Malisteen; 8th July 2008 at 04:03 PM..
Here are some observations. Pardon the use of game terms, but really, the Paladin is an MMORPG tank, and so tanking terminology ("peeling," etc.) is the most precise.
1. Paladin At-Wills are highly situational. Rather than rating them overall, I think it's useful to note the situations in which each is superior.
a. Bolstering Strike: Against multiple opponents, if tanking.
b. Enfeebling Strike: Against a single opponent, or if peeling. (Enfeebling Strike + Divine Challenge is a pretty good peel).
c. Holy Strike: Against a single opponent, if solo (or striker is down). Holy Strike especially if undead.
d. Valiant Strike: I suppose this is best for clearing minions. I have not found much use. Yes, you connect. Yes, Paladins have a problem connecting because of their multiple hit stats. But the side effects of Bolstering / Enfeebling are better if you have strikers available.
2. Certain moves become much better in combination. Furious Smash, for example, has been maligned. But in our group, the Furious Smash / Piercing Smite has been a killer opener for our Warlord / Paladin. Every critter in the tangle is now marked, and all minions must be on the Paladin or die.
Commanders' Strike -> (Paladin drops a minion) -> Raven Queen's Blessing has also been a very, very effective combo.
So I think that, in general, it is best to rate Warlord at-wills in conjunction with their potential for combination play.
best,
Carpe
__________________ The mind is its own place, and in itself, can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. Visit Arva, where moral compasses go to die. www.arva.wetpaint.com
Last edited by Carpe DM; 8th July 2008 at 04:56 PM..
That's a matter of strategic opinion. There are a fair number of creatures in the MM whose Fort is defenses are lower than Ref defenses. With Knowledge skills, you can discern proper targeting.
Lower Ref defenses are more common. That much is true. So you take a primary at-will that targets Ref. After that, you hedge your bets and get an at-will that targets Fort.
It makes no sense to devote limited Encounter slots to Fort attacks unless they're THAT good, and even then it still makes sense to cover bases with the at-wills.
That's a matter of strategic opinion. There are a fair number of creatures in the MM whose Fort is defenses are lower than Ref defenses. With Knowledge skills, you can discern proper targeting.
Yes. There are ~30% of the creatures with a Fort lower than Reflex. But, there are only about 10% where Fort is the lowest of Fort, Reflex, and Will. Hence, taking an At Will vs. Fort doesn't make a lot of sense when the other two Defenses tend to be lower.
And yes, with Knowledge skills, you can (sometimes) discern proper targeting.
DC 25 Heroic Tier creature
DC 30 Paragon Tier creature
DC 35 Epic Tier creature
It's quite doable, but not guaranteed. The majority of the time, such a roll will fail except at Epic level (unless the Wizard devotes extra bonuses to his skills such as Skill Focus). For example, the chances at first level for an 18 Int Wizard even with Skill Training is only 25%. At 10th level against a Heroic Tier creature, it is 50%. But, at 10th level, PCs will often be going against Paragon Tier creatures and it will again drop to 25%.
And, the chance for success is only semi-decent against creatures that correspond to the knowledge skills the Wizard actually has Skill Training in. If the Wizard does not have the skill, the chance of success is slim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxlimn
Lower Ref defenses are more common. That much is true. So you take a primary at-will that targets Ref. After that, you hedge your bets and get an at-will that targets Fort.
The problem is that the only Fort At Will in the game totally sucks (to hit vs. most creatures, and damage) until Paragon level that it doesn't make sense to gimp yourself against most creatures in order to gain a slight edge against a few. It's not always possible to target an enemy with an AoE power without targetting allies as well.
A Human could take Ray of Frost along with two other At Wills. This is terribly suboptimal for Heroic non-Humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxlimn
It makes no sense to devote limited Encounter slots to Fort attacks unless they're THAT good, and even then it still makes sense to cover bases with the at-wills.
It does make sense to devote an Encounter power to Fort once the Wizard has 3 Encounter Attack powers. Before that, I agree that it does not. The difference between At Will and Encounter powers is that the Wizard only get 2 or 3 At Will whereas he can get 5 or 6 Encounter Attack powers. Hence, it makes more sense to devote 1 (or even 2) Encounter powers instead of 1 At Will to anti-Fort.
At lower levels, the difference between Fort and Reflex is typically 3 or less. It doesn't make sense to worry about low Fort creatures too much until much higher levels when the difference between can be really significant (like 4 or 6 where it really makes a huge difference to pick the proper power). But even then, it is a very very low percentage of the creatures (like < 2%). Who cares about that?
Hence, a Wizard can ignore having a way to attack low Fort creatures until nearly Paragon level and it will make little difference in the game. At that point, he can either retrain an At Will to Ray of Frost, or use up an Encounter Power. It makes little difference, especially considering that he has typically at best a 50% chance of figuring out the weakness of a foe anyway.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Last edited by KarinsDad; 9th July 2008 at 04:20 PM..
What's the justification behind grading Hit And Run at D? It does what it says on the box: it hits an enemy and lets you bail out. Certainly you'll usually want to use Twin Strike instead, but it's not a bad power at all - I've ended up using it a couple times when the battlefield situation has unexpectedly changed due to controllers or lurkers mixing it up.
I grant that Nimble Strike is better, but it's a ranged power. If you're in melee when it hits the fan, you're going to have a lot more difficulty using Nimble Strike to bail out than Hit And Run. Hit And Run I would mark a C at worst - it's nothing spectacular, it's going to spend most of its time sitting in your toolbox, but occasionally you'll be glad you have it and when you need it it'll perform admirably.
It only works on a single target for one square, is strictly worse than nimble strike, and has little to offer for it above taking a basic attack (which can gain from bracers of mighty striking, +1 charge, etc).
It may see occasional use, but the most likely reason is because melee rangers have no other option. When the Martial Power book comes out with a couple more options, its use will probably be extremely low.
It's possible it should move up from D, though. Anyone else agree?
P.S. Totally think Nimble Strike should have just worke on both melee and ranged.
Last edited by keterys; 14th July 2008 at 09:20 PM..
If Nimble Strike did work on both melee and ranged, then yes, Hit and Run would be a clunker. As it is, it's not a great at-will power but I wouldn't rate it "barely passable".
If one existed that was just like Nimble Strike, but melee only instead, would that change your opinion? *curious*
I feel that if Hit And Run were wholly redundant, it would merit a downgrade. As it is, it serves a function that the melee ranger doesn't otherwise get, and it's a useful function. I fully agree that Nimble Strike does the same thing except better - so does Eyebite. The melee ranger doesn't get either of those.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
