Are Multiattacks a Problem?

[MrMyth]

Why do people bring up Twin Strike when the Scout's Dual Weapon Attack is just as bad?

Well, likely because Twin Strike is the 'classic' problem power, and is more common. And, arguably, worse in most situations - the Scout's Dual Weapon Attack requires the first attack to hit. With Twin Strike, you are always guaranteed both attacks.

For a character who has supremely stacked both attack and damage bonuses - which the Scout can do - Dual Weapon Attack generally comes out ahead. But with Twin Strike, even a moderate amount of optimization starts to be problematic... and the Ranger comes with all manner of other double attacks and free attacks which can make the issue worse. The Scout doesn't quite get into such territory (and, instead, can stack up on charging bonuses and that area of issues.)

Anyway, I don't think anyone is saying Twin Strike is the only example of this issue - it just happens to be the poster child for it.

 

[Gorgoroth]

.

"Twin Strike should have been to only effect two different targets."

So, rangers are defenders now? And when we fight enemies one on one, we do less damage than a fighter. Hmmm, no. Dual Strike at least lets fighters with scale and a heavy fighting shield mark two enemies, hit or miss. What benefit would rangers have for dual-wielding?

It is much, MUCH better to kill off one enemy faster than to spread damage around. The are already AOE strikers out there, we don't need to nerf the ranger to change his role from striker to defender, or to Aoe striker.

I'm all for giving Twin Strike a -2, -2 to hit, but for x sake, why do you people KEEP wanting combats to take forever? Are you going to remove Pit Fighters Extra Damage Action too? Make Lasting Frost 1/turn, fine, but you cannot get around the fact that static bonuses, such as weapon enhancements, armbands, and so on, are here to stay.

They cannot nerf armbands for the sake of bringing rangers lower than they are (they already are not the highest at-will DPR characters), without nerfing every other class out there. Action Point for your Warden with armbands? Whoops, sorry mate, you now have a disincentive to use action points, because you're costing yourself damage. Making stuff once per turn will only force rangers to use their minor action attacks on their turn and ready their twin strike for the enemies' turn. This is the kind of runaround fox/rabbit game you nerf-mongers want.

You cannot fix the stacking of this game without ruining several classes, and punishing every class. Grind is still a problem for many groups, who have DMs who do not hand out armbands or frost weapons willy nilly. They are uncommon items, the rule is already out there : Do not introduce all these vanguard and horned helms if you find them to be a problem in your game.

 

[chitzk0i]

Why do people bring up Twin Strike when the Scout's Dual Weapon Attack is just as bad?

Because Dual Weapon Attack is the Scout's striker mechanic. Their only striker mechanic. Rangers get Twin Strike as well as Hunter's Quarry and they can load up on minor and immediate action attack for even more DPR. Now that they've printed a class whose only striker feature is Twin Strike, that means they can't deny that Twin Strike is a serious problem in the hands of a ranger.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because Dual Weapon Attack is the Scout's striker mechanic. Their only striker mechanic. Rangers get Twin Strike as well as Hunter's Quarry and they can load up on minor and immediate action attack for even more DPR. Now that they've printed a class whose only striker feature is Twin Strike, that means they can't deny that Twin Strike is a serious problem in the hands of a ranger.

And it just so happens we're supposed to get a revamped writeup on Ranger real soon now... hehe. I will not at all be surprised to see some push to reduce the off-turn attack stuff at the very least. Not sure if they CAN really fix TS at this point, and doing that might not really be worth it.