D&D 4E Careful Shot vs Twin Strike....No Contest (4e spoilers)

[mattdm]

Huh. Strikes me as pretty wacky, but at least now I know.

It basically means that Rapid Shot is covered by the same power, and since you get so few, it makes sense to double 'em up.

 

[mattdm]

There are two separate problems. Sure Strike are Careful Attack are terrible. Twin Strike is too good. I'd add back Str/Dex Damage into Sure Strike and Careful Attack and give either a -1 or -2 penalty to the attacks on Twin Strike. Twin Strike is still the best Ranger at will, but with the changes it doesn't outclass Careful Attack as much.

I don't like adding back the damage bonus to Careful Attack because it sort of negates the intended meaning of the power. Putting it to +4 seems like a better choice.

 

[phil500]

A ranger can use 2 one handed weapons with no penalty if he takes the 2 wep fighting class feature. You can attacks with either weapon as a basic attack, but can only attack with both if an exploit (power) says so.

Can he use 2 bastard swords?

 

[Quartz]

Is Careful Shot balanced by being a prerequisite for a much niftier power later on?

 

[Cirex]

Can he use 2 bastard swords?

Yep.

 

[mattdm]

Is Careful Shot balanced by being a prerequisite for a much niftier power later on?

That's always a questionable way to balance things, and I hope we see less of this in 4E. ("I know this option really sucks and basically eats up a feat slot for nothing, but haha, you have to take it so you can be cool later.")

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Careful Attack originally gave double ability bonus, instead of Ability +2. I wonder if that got changed because it was too powerful at high levels? Certainly, with an optimal build, it would initially provide the +4/+5 that people in this thread are suggesting is necessary.

 

[Cirex]

I'm sure I read somewhere that Careful Attack originally gave double ability bonus, instead of Ability +2. I wonder if that got changed because it was too powerful at high levels? Certainly, with an optimal build, it would initially provide the +4/+5 that people in this thread are suggesting is necessary.

First "public" game reports said +4 to attack, dex mod to damage. Then, for the DDXP I think it was +4 to attack, no dex to damage. Now it's +2 and no dex to damage.

It's very weak. I'll be considering pumping it back to +4 and no stat on damage.

 

[mattdm]

First "public" game reports said +4 to attack, dex mod to damage. Then, for the DDXP I think it was +4 to attack, no dex to damage. Now it's +2 and no dex to damage.

It's very weak. I'll be considering pumping it back to +4 and no stat on damage.

This is the strangest part to me (along with the fact that twin strike surely must have been tested at the 3.5 base of -2 to-hit).

Assuming the playtesters and developers didn't just accidentally get a bad batch of mushrooms, they can do this math as well as we can, and they seem to have deliberately come to this power level over time. What made them do it?

 

[Plane Sailing]

the Bow Ranger being a prime case that needs some lovin'.

I'm not seeing that... from what I know so far (c'mon Monday!) Bow rangers seem to rule the roost as it stands.

(c.f. the thread about rangers vs warlocks)