Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kordeth" data-source="post: 4492263" data-attributes="member: 5036">Yes. This is entirely the point. The two powers are so inextricably similar that no matter what you do, you can crunch the numbers and see that one will always be better than the other. The problem isn't that Careful Strike sucks, it's that as written, Careful Strike is a &quot;player trap.&quot; It looks like a good power choice until you dig into the probability, at which point you realize it's a waste of a power. If you make Careful Attack better than Twin Strike, you have the exact same problem except that now Twin Strike is the sucker's bet. At the absolute best you might find the perfect number at which Twin Strike and Careful Attack are perfectly balanced, but that's extremely unlikely given the relative coarseness of D&amp;D's math.As has been stated numerous times, the only way to really fix the problem is to make one of the powers removed in some way from the &quot;hit and inflict damage better&quot; model.Depends--in your version, do you still lose the ability bonus to damage? If so, that might be on the upper-end of balanced, if not, it's probably way too good.As stated before, the reason Careful Attack is so bad is not (entirely) because it's flat-out worse than Twin Strike, it's because Sure Strike looks like a good choice on paper. It's deceptive--heck, the first time I played an archer ranger, I didn't do the math and assumed that Sure Strike + Hunter's Quarry (to make up for the lost Dex bonus) was the winning combo. Granted, it didn't help that the character was a pregen who didn't have Twin Strike, but still--if a lot of playtesters are using Careful Attack excessively because it looks good, it's easy to think, as a designer, &quot;hmm, everybody's using this power all the time, it's probably too good) and nerf it without realizing it's not as good as people think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kordeth, post: 4492263, member: 5036"] Yes. This is [i]entirely the point.[/i] The two powers are so inextricably similar that no matter what you do, you can crunch the numbers and see that one will [i]always[/i] be better than the other. The problem isn't that Careful Strike sucks, it's that as written, Careful Strike is a "player trap." It looks like a good power choice until you dig into the probability, at which point you realize it's a waste of a power. If you make Careful Attack better than Twin Strike, [i]you have the exact same problem[/i] except that now Twin Strike is the sucker's bet. At the absolute best you might find the perfect number at which Twin Strike and Careful Attack are perfectly balanced, but that's extremely unlikely given the relative coarseness of D&D's math. As has been stated numerous times, the only way to really fix the problem is to make one of the powers removed in some way from the "hit and inflict damage better" model. Depends--in your version, do you still lose the ability bonus to damage? If so, that might be on the upper-end of balanced, if not, it's probably way too good. As stated before, the reason Careful Attack is so bad is not (entirely) because it's flat-out worse than Twin Strike, it's because Sure Strike [i]looks[/i] like a good choice on paper. It's deceptive--heck, the first time I played an archer ranger, I didn't do the math and assumed that Sure Strike + Hunter's Quarry (to make up for the lost Dex bonus) was [i]the[/i] winning combo. Granted, it didn't help that the character was a pregen who didn't have Twin Strike, but still--if a lot of playtesters are using Careful Attack excessively because it looks good, it's easy to think, as a designer, "hmm, everybody's using this power all the time, it's probably too good) and nerf it without realizing it's not as good as people think. [/QUOTE]

Verification