Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5514766" data-attributes="member: 78116">Yes and on all attacks without needing to hit - that's sort of the inherent point. If you need CA, you can get it all the time and without needing to rely on hitting with a power. Instead you can have CA + Good At-Will (or just flat out start with an encounter power, why bother with the at-will anyway when you're easily generating CA) without any issue. Especially when you can combine that with a charge, getting an additional bonus if needed.If you hit. If you need CA in the first place, having to rely on an unreliable power instead of an entirely reliable and simple feat is just being silly.Yeah, but grants you [effectively] +5 damage and CA as well: More than worth two feat slots for any striker. Also the key point you missed is that you can use this combo on every single one of your powers: You don't have to care what you're attacking with. So you can attack with an at-will with an actually good effect and still get your CA (plus +5 damage). Especially when you have a cold+necrotic encounter as well, which really helps with many resistance problems. Plus if something lets you get a bit of adding vulnerable necrotic you can get really in business very fast. Again, cunning stalker can let you get the initial CA - all without wasting an at-will slot on a terrible power <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Why not get a feat that will do it all the time in a wide variety of circumstances and then take a much better at-will? If the blackguard needs CA (and we've heard he does) getting CA all the time is far better than getting CA on having to rely on hitting an enemy: Then making another attack (or needing to spend an action point).Also taking a feat that grants you CA easily in a huge number of circumstances is not wasting a feat: Especially if you rely on getting CA!No, I actually do get that it's just completely irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact you actually have to *hit* something in the first place. Then you gain CA - against all targets minding (effectively). But this doesn't really help when you want CA on the first attack - which is why there are numerous far superior options (that can then maintain CA all day long easier).Personally when I compare it with other conditional at-wills, this power comes off as just plain awful.In fairness this is a decent point, but ignores that what you're doing is ripping that target to pieces very quickly (+5 damage bonus!). Not to mention that this isn't just you who can exploit it: Anyone else with a cold at-will or power can equally get some benefit out of it. So not only is this a better combination, but it makes you a better team player while still being more destructive than your regular paladin. While an at-will that gives you CA, if you happen to hit is extremely meh.No there isn't, but it doesn't really change the fact there are tons of powers that are!It isn't easy CA when you have to hit something first and then make a second attack. That's kind of the point <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> By the time you get your second turn, the situation may have changed that the CA bonus you have gained may be pointless or you would have been able to get CA anyway. It is an extremely weak benefit compared to other options. But again, I have a distinct feeling blackguards might end up stuck with it!Absolutely agree, but many of the more conditional at-wills - like Valiant Strike are amazing in their niche. Again compare this to Valiant Strike: what would YOU rather have as a power that is going to be useful only some of the time?</blockquote>

Verification