JoeNotCharles
First Post
That's because you read it in an old version of the Compendium, which has since been corrected.
Like I said last page.
Proposal: Things to be nerfed
- Thread starter Atanatotatos
- Start date
That's because you read it in an old version of the Compendium, which has since been corrected.
Like I said last page.
Well, I think most everyone is in agreement that Rain of Blows is overpowered if it is four attacks. I don't see why people care what WotC originally intended - if it's broken, it's broken, and WotC hasn't and won't fix it or rule either way, so we are on our own to make an official L4W interpretation of the power.
Here are some options, in order from most to least nerfed:
1. Make 2 attacks, if both hit, make a single secondary attack.
2. Make 2 attacks, and if the first one hits, make a single secondary attack.
3. Make 2 attacks, if either hit, make a single secondary attack.
I'm new to D&D, but that seems like the best solution to me - stop worrying about whether WotC intended it to be 4, and start debating and deciding how L4W should interpret the power.
Here are some options, in order from most to least nerfed:
1. Make 2 attacks, if both hit, make a single secondary attack.
2. Make 2 attacks, and if the first one hits, make a single secondary attack.
3. Make 2 attacks, if either hit, make a single secondary attack.
I'm new to D&D, but that seems like the best solution to me - stop worrying about whether WotC intended it to be 4, and start debating and deciding how L4W should interpret the power.
renau1g
First Post
I think out of the options that number 3 seems to be the most fair if we're going to nerf any power, which as I've said before I don't think we need to.
Honestly, I am so new to D&D that I couldn't tell you if the power as WotC wrote it (which I am interpreting as 4 attacks) is overpowered or not. If it is game-breaking, then the solution is to nerf. If it's great but not game-breaking, my vote would be to keep it. Some of the threads I've googled seemed to indicate that it has been an annoyance for strikers, who feel rather useless when their defender cranks out more damage than they do. However, I can see how taking everything into account it might not be so powerful - after all, the actual probability of scoring all 4 attacks isn't great (if to-hit is .55, probability is like 9%). Also, you have to give up some defensive capabilities (Tempest fighters will be wearing chainmail instead of scale to get Tempest Technique, Con score won't be as high since they need 15 dex, etc.) so it seems to me like you're hampering your abilities as a defender to get a bitchin' cool striker move once an encounter. It doesn't seem particularly game-breaking to me, but I can certainly see how some really lucky dice rolls and a crit could totally emasculate the strikers in the group.
The place where it gets game-breaking is when a ranger MC's fighter and uses powerswap feats to pick up Rain of Blows, then uses a combination of class features and feats to recover RoB and reuse it multiple times in 1 encounter. With a warlord doing warlordy things, that ranger is going to drop RoB up to three times in one round. For extra brokenness, an epic-tier ranger activates a daily stance to allow a melee basic attack after every single hit he lands on a target.
renau1g
First Post
Just to settle the Rain of Blows debate:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4646316-post17.html
So yeah, it needs nerfing IMHO.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4646316-post17.html
So yeah, it needs nerfing IMHO.
Oni
First Post
JoeNotCharles
First Post
Yes, you've made your opinion known, thanks.
BTW, too late now, but when approving Forgotten Realms, how'd we let Righteous Rage of Tempus get past?
And I will continue to reiterate it.
The majority of the arguments against a particular power are based upon conjecture, rather than experience. It's like telling everyone to stop driving cars because there's a distinct mathematical possibility that they will get into a collision and die.
If you have multiple playtesters with actual data and results that validate a particular conclusion, I'm all for making a change.
However, all I've been reading amounts to...
"Oh, don't do that! He might be too powerful!"
"Oh, don't do that! It might break the game!"
"Oh, don't do that! On a Tuesday, when the moon is full, and a man with a righteous heart says his prayers, a character might instantly kill his target with that power."
It's like listening to a bunch of soccer moms talking about why they won't let their children go to playgrounds because of all the child-molesters and kidnappers.
There's a human element that's discounted when everyone starts talking about nerfing the rules: the DM. No set of rules is perfect, but the system has a built-in self-correcting element--that guy that makes up the world the players hang out in. Trust your DM's to have the sense and sensibility to 'fix' the rules when they're broken in a game.
Why can't we just say, "Shall we use PH2 in L4e?" and leave it at that? After we've put the book into play, once we discover through experience that a particular power is not working, then we can make a global fix. You might discover that the issue never comes up in actual play, and we won't have wasted all this time and effort discussing the issue, when we could have been doing something.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
