Begging to be errata'd: Archer Ranger At-Wills

[Nifft]

Guessing on that 85%; I'm no statistician. Should be close enough though.

Quick statistics lesson: it's often easier to calculate the odds of something not happening and then just invert that. For example, if you want to see how likely it is that at least one shot hits, it's easier to consider the case of zero shots hitting (= the chance of two misses):

33% * 33% = .33 * .33 = ~.11

So the chance that at least one shot hits is (1.00 - 0.11) = .89 = 89%.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lamoni]

As for Careful Strike, I agree it needs errata. I believe it was originally supposed to be +4, and a last minute decision was made to make it +2 because it was deemed too powerful. I think that was an error. It should be +3, or even put back to +4.

Your comment prompted me to run some numbers...
At +2, careful strike is only better than a basic attack if you need an 18 or higher to hit. It is never better than twin strike.
At +4, it becomes a better option than a basic attack if you need a 14-15 or higher. It is still never better than twin strike (due to max damage on crits).

So I believe it should be errata'd to +4. It would then be a useful power to use in certain circumstances, but still not trump other powers. Right now, it is just a power to be avoided altogether.

 

[mattdm]

Your comment prompted me to run some numbers...
At +2, careful strike is only better than a basic attack if you need an 18 or higher to hit. It is never better than twin strike.
At +4, it becomes a better option than a basic attack if you need a 14-15 or higher. It is still never better than twin strike (due to max damage on crits).

So I believe it should be errata'd to +4. It would then be a useful power to use in certain circumstances, but still not trump other powers. Right now, it is just a power to be avoided altogether.

Yeah. The math seems so straightforward on this that I can't believe something hasn't been done. As pointed out in many of the other threads, making careful strike do more damage is another option, but either way, it really needs something — especially given the stated "it's not a card game, so there are no hidden bad choices" 4E design goal.

Do we need a letter-writing campaign or something?

 

[Slaved]

Your comment prompted me to run some numbers...
At +2, careful strike is only better than a basic attack if you need an 18 or higher to hit. It is never better than twin strike.
At +4, it becomes a better option than a basic attack if you need a 14-15 or higher. It is still never better than twin strike (due to max damage on crits).

So I believe it should be errata'd to +4. It would then be a useful power to use in certain circumstances, but still not trump other powers. Right now, it is just a power to be avoided altogether.

Careful Attack could also be changed to have the Attacker Roll 2d20 and keep the Better of the Two Rolls and then Add +2 to that Roll. Just Rolling 3d20 and keeping the Best of the Bunch could also work.

 

[brehobit]

I think careful strike should be +2 and let it do [w]+Stat damage. I think that makes them fairly comparable.

 

[Staffan]

I think careful strike should be +2 and let it do [w]+Stat damage. I think that makes them fairly comparable.

That's my house rule as well (and it also applies to the Fighter power Sure Strike). At-will powers are supposed to be better than basic attacks, not worse.

 

[Mad Hamish]

One of my players is contemplating switching away from ranger because of the stiff "penalties" the at-will attacks seem to impose. Let's look at a few items off this 4th level Elf Archer-Ranger's character sheet.

1) Ranged Basic Attack (Longbow). +10 vs. AC for 1d10+7 damage.
2) Careful Attack (Longbow). +12 vs. AC for 1d10+2 damage.
3) Twin Strike (Longbow). +10 vs. AC for 1d10+2 damage, twice.

Average damage with attack 1 is 5.5 + 7 = 12.5

Average damage with attack 2 is (5.5 + 2) * 1.1 (hits 10% more than 1) = 8.25

Average damage with attack 3 is (5.5 + 2) * 1.5 (assume he hits 66% of the time) = 12.45

Ultimately, niether class at-will attack is better than a basic attack. This is not the case with any other class. These at-wills have any other effect than damage, either, so there's also no benefit there.

Was this really by design? It seems so gimped.

As others have pointed out your maths needs to take better account of chance to hit in all cases.
True strike does more damage than a basic attack in all circumstances unless you get a very high dex or additional damage on basic attacks from items.

ignoring hunters quarry
With a 50% chance to hit and +2 from sources other than dex
twin strike does 7.5 damage/round
a basic attack passes that with +8 from dex or other sources that only affect basic attacks (e.g. the bracers that give +2)
That seems to hold for any chance to hit.

Of course if you get another +1 from magic that changes things again and you need +9 from dex etc for a basic attack to average more damage.

Including hunters quarry (at d6) with a 50% chance to hit, +5 from dex and +2 from other sources
twin strike does an average of 10.125 hp/round, a basic attack does 8.
Twin strike maintains the lead until you get +9 from dex.
if you take the feat to give +d8 from HQ then you need +10 from dex to get the lead back.

Even when the basic attack does more damage (and I suspect that changes in the higher tiers with more damage from HQ makes a difference there) twin strike looks worth it as a chance to take out 2 minions a round.

Note that I'd recommend picking the at will that lets you shift a space and then shoot instead of careful attack but twin strike is a given.

 

[Falling Icicle]

We have two Rangers in our group, and both took Twin Strike. One is an archer, the other uses two bastard swords. They both consistently far out damage the rest of the party, including our Warlock. I dare say Twin Strike borders on overpowered.

Careful Strike, on the other hand, is so awful nobody in our group would touch it with a 10 foot pole. It would be decent if you added your ability modifier to damage, but a measly +2 hit is not worth giving that up. I can't really think of any situation where I'd use Careful Strike over Twin Strike, or even a basic attack, for that matter!

 

[Hammerhead]

Of course they outdamage the rest of the party. That's the point of the ranger; he's a Striker who hits with almost pure damage, very little tricks. The Warlock, OTOH, has a lot of tricks but ranks pretty low in terms of damage; the Rogue hides somewhere in between.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

As for Careful Strike, I agree it needs errata. I believe it was originally supposed to be +4, and a last minute decision was made to make it +2 because it was deemed too powerful. I think that was an error. It should be +3, or even put back to +4.

So I believe it should be errata'd to +4.

Please read this thread to see why boosting the attack bonus of Careful Attack/Sure Strike is a bad idea.