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.
Alternatively, just have the secondary attacks of rain of blows deal Strength modifier damage. That means all the bonuses you normally get to damage rolls don't apply to the secondary attacks.
My fix is to have Rain of Blows be a single primary attack that does 2W, with a single secondary attack that does 2W if it hits. (Although I haven't implemented it yet, I'm not running a home game at the moment and I can't change the power in any LFR games I run.)
Can't agree with Unicorn's touch on this list. Yes it breaks a basic tenet of 4e, but its effect isn't that effective. I rarely have players run out of surges. I'm sure there is a far worse power we can put on the list.
It means you can't die from starvation and could live forever without eating or drinking, among other things. It may not have a big impact on your games, but it's pretty game breaking for some.
Honestly, who take's Unicorn's Horn over Armathor's Step or one of the movement powers anyway unless you are running leaderless? Leaders' encounter heals "recharge" at the same rate and are much more efficient. Surge allocation is basic resource allocation and if you've waited an hour and a half already, you might as well extend it to get dailies back too.
So if the designer that wrote the power were to come on to the board an unequivocally state that 2-4 attacks WAS his intention....you would still deny that is the intention of the power?
One can argue the power is badly worded or formatted, one can argue the power is badly designed and too powerful, and will be banned or modified for your game. All of these are completely valid.
You must be capable of casting higher (De)illusion spells than I can, because I can not read a clarification of a power given by a WOTC designer and exclaim that the "intention is not the intention".
Calling the power as intended misguided,or stupid is fine. Stating the power as written does not live up to the intention and will be ran as written...fine. Denying what does not fit into your world view....scary...and not really helpful to the rest of us that want to discuss.
Of course that first statement was tongue in cheek, it makes no sense.
But I dare you to find me another power that can do 4d10 + 4 X str mod. I understand its underpowered for using a dagger. But seriously? Any dagger wielding non tempest fighter is going to be underpowered.
At the end of the day its blatantly retarded to say that rain of blows is supposed to be 4 attacks (all with your str mod added to damage). So while "God" can say it was supposed to be so, that doesn't mean that "God" isn't wrong in this situation.
"Break the game" is overused. It means the game overall isn't fun with that rule, as opposed to simply an overpowered element. I've seen no reports of such broken games.
I read a tale on another board about how a table almost came to blows over Rain of Blows - apparently a Tempest fighter with a Bloodclaw weapon using Rain of Blows was obliterating enemies every single combat and it was frustrating the rest of the group and people were asking the player to tone down RoB, but he refused and things got heated.
It was a bit shocking to me, but I'd say that it's fair to apply the "broken game" moniker in that instance.
I read a tale on another board about how a table almost came to blows over Rain of Blows - apparently a Tempest fighter with a Bloodclaw weapon using Rain of Blows was obliterating enemies every single combat and it was frustrating the rest of the group and people were asking the player to tone down RoB, but he refused and things got heated.
It was a bit shocking to me, but I'd say that it's fair to apply the "broken game" moniker in that instance.
He should have just started hitting somebody four times right in a row and yell "see?! It works! Now shut up or I'll get you next encounter!" That would have rocked.
PS
__________________ You can clean up vomit, but data is always messy. - Storm's Law
I don't care if you light his face on fire and put it out with an anvil... - A. Taylor
Honestly, who take's Unicorn's Horn over Armathor's Step or one of the movement powers anyway unless you are running leaderless? Leaders' encounter heals "recharge" at the same rate and are much more efficient. Surge allocation is basic resource allocation and if you've waited an hour and a half already, you might as well extend it to get dailies back too.
1) Note that Leader's encounter heals cost a Surge. Removing the primary cost component - surges - makes it vastly more efficient than Healing Word or anything else. Now, this assumes you have the time available to make use of it - but in many, many situations you do, and it throws off the dynamics of the system.
2) You only get one extended rest a day. If you get into a fight at noon, and spend an hour using Unicorn's Horn to heal up after it, you'd have to wait another 18 or so hours to get in your Extended Rest. Finding an hour of rest time is a lot easier than simply wasting the entire day after every fight.
It might not be the end of the world, but I think your counterpoints against it aren't really valid ones within the actual mechanics of the game.
1) Note that Leader's encounter heals cost a Surge. Removing the primary cost component - surges - makes it vastly more efficient than Healing Word or anything else. Now, this assumes you have the time available to make use of it - but in many, many situations you do, and it throws off the dynamics of the system.
2) You only get one extended rest a day. If you get into a fight at noon, and spend an hour using Unicorn's Horn to heal up after it, you'd have to wait another 18 or so hours to get in your Extended Rest. Finding an hour of rest time is a lot easier than simply wasting the entire day after every fight.
It might not be the end of the world, but I think your counterpoints against it aren't really valid ones within the actual mechanics of the game.
You miss the point. Yeah, leader abilities cost a surge, but while you're waiting around you might as well get the whole shebang back. If I'm DMing, I just attack the party and force them to hole up if it becomes an issue, which it logically shouldn't. If your defender or front-liner is out of surges, one "round" of HP isn't much good. Heck, even if you back-liner is out it can be tough.
If you're out of surges, you need to stop very soon and GTFO of there. If this happens after an extended rest, go regroup and re-examine your tactics or the enemy because something is wrong.
There are quite simply MUCH better power choices for that slot and the power really doesn't give you much of an out-of-combat advantage, if any. I'd argue it's a waste of time for Out-of-combat.
The intent is likely as a "top-up" for those last few missing hits, without wasting a surge. No one likes to go into combat when you're already in the hole.
1. Rain of Blows isn't four attacks per se, since some of them are contingent on other, previous attacks hitting. Its really more like 3 attacks, since you figure that you'll hit around 50% of the time, maybe slightly better, meaning that one of your original two attacks will probably miss and deny you the follow up attack.
2. I still think Rain of Blows is too good. Three attacks for a level 3 encounter power is too much compared to other powers that grant multiple attacks.
3. The dagger issue isn't a balancing point. No one takes that power because they intend to use a dagger. They take it to use with a Greatspear (+3 proficiency, 1d10 reach weapon).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flipguarder
At the end of the day its blatantly retarded to say that rain of blows is supposed to be 4 attacks (all with your str mod added to damage). So while "God" can say it was supposed to be so, that doesn't mean that "God" isn't wrong in this situation.
This doesn't make any sense. Designer intent is designer intent. You can't argue that the designer's intent was other than what the designer stated his intent to be by pointing out that his intention wasn't wise. There's some serious confusion about textual interpretation going on here.
This doesn't make any sense. Designer intent is designer intent. You can't argue that the designer's intent was other than what the designer stated his intent to be by pointing out that his intention wasn't wise. There's some serious confusion about textual interpretation going on here.
What I meant to say is:
The intent is irrelevant to me. I feel its too powerful no matter what the intent is. Im not trying to say its not their intent, that was a joke. I just don't agree their intent is reasonable for that level a power, just as you do.
It's because of the stupid Bloodclaw weapon, honestly. If you have enough healing in your party, you can basically get unlimited extra damage with that thing.
Say we're munchkined out half orc with a 20 str, 15 dex, and a heavy flail, and we get lucky and land the level 6 +2 heavy flail from the treasure parcel. It's only 8d6 + 28 damage...lol. Problem there is you have 10 Con, your dex mod doesn't apply to your AC, and you only get that much damage if you can manage to hit with all 4 attacks (not an automatic feature by any means).
So...it's really powerful with the right build, probably too powerful...but it's not THAT bad.
__________________ Every time I see the word Pavlov, I salivate. =(
#3 righteous rage. read the power again, it is not an auto crit. It works 'on your next attack, if it hits, before the end of your next turn' If you're very next attack doesn't hit, you are out of luck, (even if you use rain of blows), and have spent a feat, a minor, your attack power, and your channel divinity for that encounter. It is awesome if it works, but it's not a sure thing. Granted the player will pick his shot for when he's sure he'll hit, but still, once invoked, he has until the end of his next turn. Awesome damage power, but not broken even for a striker.
I'm reasonably sure everyone here is aware that it works only when you hit. But even you recognize that it will be used when "he's sure he'll hit". See how it works when the human Paladin from Chauntea with Action Surge, a Lance of Faith power bonus, combat advantage and a Tactical Warlord ally crits in 4 of 5 encounters. Let's just say it isn't all that difficult to pull off.
Saying that it uses up channel divinity doesn't mean much. If there are no undead, a Cleric is only giving up +1 on their next attack. A Paladin gives up allowing an ally to make a save with their CHA bonus. An Avenger gives up giving an ally a reroll (which IS rather good).
Saying it uses up a minor action doesn't mean all that much either. Even though all the classes that make use of RRoT actually do use minor actions, in many cases swapping out a move action or not healing/challenging/oath targetting that round isn't too difficult.
Saying it uses up an attack power is meaningless. What ELSE are you doing with your standard action???
As for using a feat, so what? A feat to get a good chance of a once per encounter crit is the issue here.
You can certainly see that it dwarfs to oblivion the Divine Strength Channel Divinity Paladin feature, right? I'm surprised RRoT isn't higher on the list.
It means you can't die from starvation and could live forever without eating or drinking, among other things. It may not have a big impact on your games, but it's pretty game breaking for some.
It would not prevent thirst or starvation, as in past edditions, these and other conditions cannot be cured without ending the cause first. Just as drowning cannot be healed without getting the victim out of the water.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
