-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E Careful Shot vs Twin Strike....No Contest (4e spoilers)
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
I had a quick look at this myself and did some basic math.
This is about the difference between careful attack and twin strike.
Where
x=basic damage for the weapon
a=the chance to hit
HQ=hunter quarry
I have assumed that both the main and off hand weapon are the same with the same enchantment bonuses
For Twin strike you do:
a(x+HQ)+ax=ax+aHQ+ax=2ax+aHQ
For precise strike you do (assuming a d20 to hit
)
(a+2/20)x+(a+2/20)HQ=ax+0,1x+aHQ+0,1HQ
So if we balance these to to find out at what to hit they give the same benefit.
2ax+aHQ==ax+aHQ+0,1x+0,1HQ
ax==0,1x+0,1HQ
Say (to make this really easy) that both the swords are longswords and everything has the same enchantment bonus and that we have the lethal hunter feat that make HQ d8's.
a==0,2 which means that is you hit on 17-20 they give the same benefit, if our to hit is worse we should use careful attack and otherwise twin strike.
If you find anything wrong please tell me
The thing about this little exercise is that this favors twin strike quite a bit. Both the weapons have a the same enchantment bonus and both weapons are longswords instead of having one offhand weapon.
And about the issue of reaping strike vs sure strike the thing is that that is not even a contest. Not because sure strike is so bad but because reaping strike is so fantastically good.
This is about the difference between careful attack and twin strike.
Where
x=basic damage for the weapon
a=the chance to hit
HQ=hunter quarry
I have assumed that both the main and off hand weapon are the same with the same enchantment bonuses
For Twin strike you do:
a(x+HQ)+ax=ax+aHQ+ax=2ax+aHQ
For precise strike you do (assuming a d20 to hit
)(a+2/20)x+(a+2/20)HQ=ax+0,1x+aHQ+0,1HQ
So if we balance these to to find out at what to hit they give the same benefit.
2ax+aHQ==ax+aHQ+0,1x+0,1HQ
ax==0,1x+0,1HQ
Say (to make this really easy) that both the swords are longswords and everything has the same enchantment bonus and that we have the lethal hunter feat that make HQ d8's.
a==0,2 which means that is you hit on 17-20 they give the same benefit, if our to hit is worse we should use careful attack and otherwise twin strike.
If you find anything wrong please tell me
The thing about this little exercise is that this favors twin strike quite a bit. Both the weapons have a the same enchantment bonus and both weapons are longswords instead of having one offhand weapon.
And about the issue of reaping strike vs sure strike the thing is that that is not even a contest. Not because sure strike is so bad but because reaping strike is so fantastically good.
ironchefzod
First Post
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.
Zurai
First Post
Note that there are other problems with Ranger (and I assume other classes', as well) powers. For example, there's a level 1 Encounter power that allows you to shift several squares and make an attack that does 2W+stat damage, and a level 3 Encounter power that allows you to make an attack that does 2W+stat damage... with no other bonus. Both have the same attack type (Str/Dex vs AC) and both do exactly the same damage (2W+Str/Dex). Both only fire a single attack. But the level 1 power has the additional benefit of letting you shift several squares before or after the attack, and the level 3 power has nothing special.
Oh, actually, wait... the level 3 power can only be used on your Hunter's Quarry, too. So not only is it weaker, it's got more restrictive targetting, too.
It's not just an editing problem, either, because the level 1 power is recommended for the Archer Ranger path, which means WotC honestly thought that it should be level 1 and the other power should be level 3.
The powers in question are Evasive Strike vs Shadow Wasp Strike.
The only reason to ever take SWS is because you want a second encounter power that does 2W damage; if you didn't take Evasive Strike at level 1, you can still pick it up at level 3 instead of one of the level 3 Encounter powers.
Oh, actually, wait... the level 3 power can only be used on your Hunter's Quarry, too. So not only is it weaker, it's got more restrictive targetting, too.
It's not just an editing problem, either, because the level 1 power is recommended for the Archer Ranger path, which means WotC honestly thought that it should be level 1 and the other power should be level 3.
The powers in question are Evasive Strike vs Shadow Wasp Strike.
The only reason to ever take SWS is because you want a second encounter power that does 2W damage; if you didn't take Evasive Strike at level 1, you can still pick it up at level 3 instead of one of the level 3 Encounter powers.
Otterscrubber
First Post
theNater said:
Holding a ranged weapon in either hand didn't strike you as wacky? Daggers perhaps, but ranger are pretty bow focussed and I think it would be wacky to expect that or even hand xbows.
Otterscrubber
First Post
Ya, shadow wasp strike seemed kinda redundant to me. Also the lv 1 power, evasive strike, can be used either melee or ranged as well. It appears all around better thanks SWS.
I totally think Careful Attack should have damage bonus included, otherwise it is pretty lame. Or a higher bonus to hit, something, but as written it is useless. Or close to.
I totally think Careful Attack should have damage bonus included, otherwise it is pretty lame. Or a higher bonus to hit, something, but as written it is useless. Or close to.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
It seems to me that the bow should be restricted from taking twin attack for the following reasons:
a) you get your funky magic bow bonus on both your attacks (unless there is something that outlaws that?)
b) you get a 1d10 damage weapon on both attacks for free (won't the ranger have to spend a feat to get two 1d10 damage attacks?)
c) you are less at risk anyway because you're shooting people from range rather than getting up close and personal, thus you are at much less risk in the combat generally.
Archers do so well from the combination of less risk + one big weapon for free, that I really think they shouldn't get the superior benefits of twin attack too. Otherwise you'll not be seeing that many TWF rangers!
Cheers
a) you get your funky magic bow bonus on both your attacks (unless there is something that outlaws that?)
b) you get a 1d10 damage weapon on both attacks for free (won't the ranger have to spend a feat to get two 1d10 damage attacks?)
c) you are less at risk anyway because you're shooting people from range rather than getting up close and personal, thus you are at much less risk in the combat generally.
Archers do so well from the combination of less risk + one big weapon for free, that I really think they shouldn't get the superior benefits of twin attack too. Otherwise you'll not be seeing that many TWF rangers!
Cheers
Planar Sailing is absolutely right. The big problem is archers taking twin strike. Is we look at the twin strike vs. careful attack when the TWF has a +0 short sword and both of them have a +3 longsword the numbers aren't very impressive for twin strike at all
Or [tohit offhand]*[offhand damage] == 0,1*[mainhand damage] + 0,1*HQ
This gives that if your tohit with your main hand is worse then 11 then careful strike does more damage then twin strike.
Archers however do in absolute terms a lot more damage with the at wills then the TWF rangers.
Or [tohit offhand]*[offhand damage] == 0,1*[mainhand damage] + 0,1*HQ
This gives that if your tohit with your main hand is worse then 11 then careful strike does more damage then twin strike.
Archers however do in absolute terms a lot more damage with the at wills then the TWF rangers.
Holding a ranged weapon in each hand is pretty wacky, but there are a few weapons you could manage it with. Daggers, shuriken, hand crossbows, and slings, off the top of my head. And I've seen enough examples of two-gun users from westerns and action flicks to think that some folks might try to model that into D&D.Otterscrubber said:
However, I didn't find it wacky from a character activity standpoint, but from a mechanical standpoint. If the Twin Strike requires a weapon in each hand, that's a nice balancing factor against the Careful Shot. In melee, the Twin Strike could reign supreme and be balanced by much less powerful than Careful Shot at range. Then we have a situation where a two-weapon ranger can, when he can't close with the enemy, fire two crossbows, and the archery ranger can, when he can't get room for a shot, use his accuracy practice for a stab.
If each build has an optimal power that is very good in its proper usage, and not too horrible when applied to the other ability's proper usage, they have been artistically designed. But if the two abilities work exactly the same way relative to each other regardless of the positioning on the battlefield, the design appears less beautiful.
ObsidianCrane
First Post
People seem to be missing that both Careful Strike and TWS are "Melee or Ranged weapon"
Also you can dual wield Battleaxe, Flail or Warhammer for +2 Prof and 1d10 dmg, the same as a Longbow. Which with Two Weapon Fighting, or Dwarven Weapon Training both providing additional damage for your melee weapons. Which just makes Ranged Attacks even sadder as their only damage benefit is Weapon Focus, which works fine for the melee weapons as well. The one benefit for RAs seems to be the cost of magic items at higher levels (you only need 1 bow to get the bonus as a flat gain) and the ability to attack at range. The latter is negated by the fact most Ranger powers work either way - Melee or Ranged.
In essence the only reason to take the "Careful" powers is for RP, similarly with being bow based (except perhaps Elves with the built in re-roll option) - which I guess is not a bad thing.
Its pretty clear when looked at from an entirely game mechanics perspective that the Martial Powers book has a lot to do to sort out the balance of Martial Powers and their effectiveness, the Bow Ranger being a prime case that needs some lovin'.
Though from an RP perspective I'm pretty happy with everything all around.
Also you can dual wield Battleaxe, Flail or Warhammer for +2 Prof and 1d10 dmg, the same as a Longbow. Which with Two Weapon Fighting, or Dwarven Weapon Training both providing additional damage for your melee weapons. Which just makes Ranged Attacks even sadder as their only damage benefit is Weapon Focus, which works fine for the melee weapons as well. The one benefit for RAs seems to be the cost of magic items at higher levels (you only need 1 bow to get the bonus as a flat gain) and the ability to attack at range. The latter is negated by the fact most Ranger powers work either way - Melee or Ranged.
In essence the only reason to take the "Careful" powers is for RP, similarly with being bow based (except perhaps Elves with the built in re-roll option) - which I guess is not a bad thing.
Its pretty clear when looked at from an entirely game mechanics perspective that the Martial Powers book has a lot to do to sort out the balance of Martial Powers and their effectiveness, the Bow Ranger being a prime case that needs some lovin'.
Though from an RP perspective I'm pretty happy with everything all around.
