Do wizards suck? / multiple attacks

[Bleoberis De Ganis]

Well, two-weapon fighting isn't really awful, imho. If you pick up the feat, it's actually not bad at all - especially once you get two-weapon defense, as well.

No, it doesn't give you two attacks, but the rogue is probably one of the most reliable hitters in the game. They get crazy-high attack bonuses with daggers, and have an at-will that lets them attack Reflex with a weapon.

Now, with that said, a brutal rogue can very easily pick up a Ranger multiclass and start taking some of the two-weapon powers. (Or, a Fighter multiclass, and start taking the Tempest's two-weapon powers, if you prefer.) While they're not attacking twice every round, they can do it pretty often over the course of a fight. They're still limited to one sneak attack per round, but there are enough ways to get combat advantage that sneak attack is almost always better than Hunter's Quarry.

I don't think it would be game-breaking to give the rogue an at-will such as...

Two-Dagger Slice (At-Will, Weapon)
Special: Must be using two light blades
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One opponent
Attack: Dex vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W]

I think it's a kind of boring power, and kinda useless if you're not sneak attacking (or a Ruthless Ruffian with a mace), but I don't think it's broken. Functionally, I think targeting Reflex and getting your Dex bonus to damage (which you can already do) and buffing that with the two-weapon feats would usually be a better option.

-O

Two-Dagger Stab (At-Will, Weapon)
Special: Must be using two light blades
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One opponent
Attack: Dex vs. AC
Hit: 1[W]main + 1[W]offhand

 

[Obryn]

Two-Dagger Stab (At-Will, Weapon)
Special: Must be using two light blades
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One opponent
Attack: Dex vs. AC
Hit: 1[W]main + 1[W]offhand

That seems quite a bit weaker than either keterys or I suggested, and actually quite a bit weaker than every other rogue at-will...

I mean, compared to sly flourish, you're getting 2d4 damage (or maybe 2d6), instead of 1d4+Dex+Cha. Making it a single attack roll kinda hoses the power. I'd say you're better off just getting Two-Weapon Fighting and sticking with the other Rogue at-wills.

-O

 

[CovertOps]

As for my second point about multiple attacks, why exactly is this not possible? Or rather, why is it that all characters can only attack once, except perhaps for special encounter or daily powers? This is what I mean by 4ed having a heavily "gamist" tone: rules seemed to cater more towards game balance than towards realism (simulationism). For example, it is not realistic that an 18 DEX rogue with two daggers in hand and an 8 DEX wizard with a staff can both attack once per round. At the least it would seem that there should be a feat or something for the rogue to be allowed to attack twice if the second weapon is light.

To respond to this...basically everyone gets a 4e version of "full round attack" with every attack for only the cost of a standard action. The "multiple attacks" are simply rolled right into the damage that the attack does. Take for example the Rogue power "Sly Flourish" (or any other class at-will) which does 1[W] + Dex + Cha at 1st level and goes up to 2[W] + Dex + Cha at 21st level. You also see this in encounter and daily powers as well. Higher level powers (of the same type - encounter/daily - or at-wills at level 21) do more damage. The full round attack action IMO was reduced to a single attack roll that just does more damage the higher level you are (at-wills) or the higher level power (encounter/daily) you use.

This has 2 effects.
* First is that it reduces the amount of dice rolling you have to perform on your turn which in turn speeds play and keeps players on their toes (hey their turn might be any second now).
* Second it makes fights more mobile. You no longer have to choose between standing still to get your full attack and moving around in combat if it's needed (everyone just gets one standard, move, and minor action per turn). This effect makes combat more tactical (and some would argue more interesting).

About wielding two weapons: Everyone seems to be of the mindset (well engrained from 3e) that an extra weapon in your hand equals an extra attack. Who is to say that this should ever have been the case? In 1st edition when a combat round was a full minute long you still only got one attack roll in a full minute, but somewhere in the rules it said something about how you would attack/parry/counter many times in a single round, but the one roll you got represented the one clear open shot you got on your opponent. Somehow over the years a lot of people seem to think that a weapon in your off hand granting an extra attack = realism when in reality it was just a game mechanic.

About powers that grant two attack rolls: If you look at them closely you will find that they do less damage per attack than other powers of the same type (at-will / encounter / daily) at the same level. Example of Ranger twin-strike: If both swings hit it will do 2[W] damage. If you hit with one of the other Ranger at-wills you'll do 1[W] + Str so with an 18 Str you're looking at 2d8 for 2 longsword hits or 1d8 + 4 for a total average difference of .5 damage (9 vs 8.5).

IMO none of this makes 4e either more or less gamist, it just takes one game mechanic (multiple attacks) and replaces it with another game mechanic (more damage). If you feel the need you can narrate the effect of any attack that does more damage (such as 2[W]) as multiple attacks.

As for realism...if this is really what you are after there are many other games out there where a single attack can kill your character dead in one swing, but just exactly how much fun is that for the player with a dead PC? Frankly that is the whole reason that save or die type effects are gone (*mostly) from 4e. I won't disagree with you that 4e is more gamist than some other game systems, but I won't agree that it is more (or less) gamist than any other edition of the game....just different.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

Thanks, good arguments and I can accept the lack of two-weapon fighting, although it seems rangers still get it, which goes against everything you said...sure, it is a special power rangers get but why not rogues? Fighters? Is Drizzt Do'Urden's influence really that powerful?

I think so... rangers are also more squishy than fighters so we don't actually want them to have the same offense.

This is arguable, because the dagger guy could be out of reach from the pole arm guy by being too close--he wouldn't necessarily have to jump in and out of range but just stay close, and too close for the pole arm guy to attack effectively...you could argue that the dagger guy should be granted an OA every time the pole arm backed away to get a swing in.

The polearm guy would control the fight. He can cross check the dagger guy as well as butt end him. The concept of jumping in and out is pretty brutal. Unless you start on top of him you're massively disadvantaged and you would LIKELY never get into dagger range. Plus once inside dagger range and being cross checked you would still likely be only able to use one weapon effectively and the other would just tie up your free hand you should be using to defend or control his weapon to some degree.

Yes and no--I think a balance is possible between game balance considerations and simulation; it really depends upon the individuals playing the game, what they require for the game to be fun. Some like it to have a sense of realism, some balance, some just want a good story, some don't care, some a combination of all of the above and more. But to make a statement as you did--that "balance considerations are far more important than 'simulation' in a fantasy game"--already is taking a particular position or bias, what GNS theory would call "gamism"; nothing wrong with that, but it isn't necessarily how a fantasy game should be played...there are other approaches; everyone has their preferential mix.

balance is important to the game. The game is broken without balance and some classes become a lot less fun or effective. I'm not saying balance is the only consideration and I am biased towards play balance at the expense of most other considerations but balance is the foundation of any game. People disallow classes, powers, feats and races they feel are imbalanced. Drows can be cool story hooks but lets face it they were massively overpowered compared to other races and this was always a factor in allowing them in a campaign.

Now, with that said, a brutal rogue can very easily pick up a Ranger multiclass and start taking some of the two-weapon powers. (Or, a Fighter multiclass, and start taking the Tempest's two-weapon powers, if you prefer.) While they're not attacking twice every round, they can do it pretty often over the course of a fight. They're still limited to one sneak attack per round, but there are enough ways to get combat advantage that sneak attack is almost always better than Hunter's Quarry.

the combination of multiple attacks with sneak damage hurts game balance. a lot.

Two-Dagger Slice (At-Will, Weapon)
Special: Must be using two light blades
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One opponent
Attack: Dex vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W]

You're ignoring the increased percentage of sneak damage being applied.

I think it's a kind of boring power, and kinda useless if you're not sneak attacking (or a Ruthless Ruffian with a mace), but I don't think it's broken. Functionally, I think targeting Reflex and getting your Dex bonus to damage (which you can already do) and buffing that with the two-weapon feats would usually be a better option.

-O

No, definitely not if you're trying to get your sneak damage in getting a second attack makes this power more valuable than any other rogue at will. Is the rogue underpowered? It's arguably the best striker, adding more chance of sneak damage is not a good thing.

Eh, the double attacks are actually overpowered in general (Twin Strike and Dual Strike both)... if you were doing it, I'd almost rather something like:

...
Target: One creature
Attack: Dex vs. AC (main hand)
Hit: 1W and you gain +2 shield bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Miss: Make a secondary attack on the target.
Secondary Attack: Dex vs. AC (off hand)
Hit: 1W

Effectively you still only hit once per round no matter, but if you hit with the main your off hand is parrying, say.

much much better from a balance perspective.

I had acquired a +2 staff of ruin so my max damage for that was actually 47(+2 for each damage roll from the staffs item bonus, 17 int). I did still roll very well on my damages, but it wasn't quite that good as well 45 might have been an exaggeration, it was a while ago. It was just what I remembered it being at the time.

+2 staff, +3 Int, 15+2d10+d6 = 41 max. Are you taking some sort of weapon damage modifier on the staff used as an implement? I don't think this is allowed though this area has gotten a lot grayer since the sword mage arrived on scene.

If you also had weapon focus (staff), would've been even easier to do that damage. Anything that lets you roll multiple damages per round really gets up there fast.

does weapon focus add damage to an implement? if so that's not good.

That seems quite a bit weaker than either keterys or I suggested, and actually quite a bit weaker than every other rogue at-will...

I mean, compared to sly flourish, you're getting 2d4 damage (or maybe 2d6), instead of 1d4+Dex+Cha. Making it a single attack roll kinda hoses the power. I'd say you're better off just getting Two-Weapon Fighting and sticking with the other Rogue at-wills.

-O

making it two attack rolls is overpowered.

To respond to this...basically everyone gets a 4e version of "full round attack" with every attack for only the cost of a standard action. The "multiple attacks" are simply rolled right into the damage that the attack does. Take for example the Rogue power "Sly Flourish" (or any other class at-will) which does 1[W] + Dex + Cha at 1st level and goes up to 2[W] + Dex + Cha at 21st level. You also see this in encounter and daily powers as well. Higher level powers (of the same type - encounter/daily - or at-wills at level 21) do more damage. The full round attack action IMO was reduced to a single attack roll that just does more damage the higher level you are (at-wills) or the higher level power (encounter/daily) you use.

This has 2 effects.
* First is that it reduces the amount of dice rolling you have to perform on your turn which in turn speeds play and keeps players on their toes (hey their turn might be any second now).
* Second it makes fights more mobile. You no longer have to choose between standing still to get your full attack and moving around in combat if it's needed (everyone just gets one standard, move, and minor action per turn). This effect makes combat more tactical (and some would argue more interesting).

About wielding two weapons: Everyone seems to be of the mindset (well engrained from 3e) that an extra weapon in your hand equals an extra attack. Who is to say that this should ever have been the case? In 1st edition when a combat round was a full minute long you still only got one attack roll in a full minute, but somewhere in the rules it said something about how you would attack/parry/counter many times in a single round, but the one roll you got represented the one clear open shot you got on your opponent. Somehow over the years a lot of people seem to think that a weapon in your off hand granting an extra attack = realism when in reality it was just a game mechanic.

About powers that grant two attack rolls: If you look at them closely you will find that they do less damage per attack than other powers of the same type (at-will / encounter / daily) at the same level. Example of Ranger twin-strike: If both swings hit it will do 2[W] damage. If you hit with one of the other Ranger at-wills you'll do 1[W] + Str so with an 18 Str you're looking at 2d8 for 2 longsword hits or 1d8 + 4 for a total average difference of .5 damage (9 vs 8.5).

IMO none of this makes 4e either more or less gamist, it just takes one game mechanic (multiple attacks) and replaces it with another game mechanic (more damage). If you feel the need you can narrate the effect of any attack that does more damage (such as 2[W]) as multiple attacks.

As for realism...if this is really what you are after there are many other games out there where a single attack can kill your character dead in one swing, but just exactly how much fun is that for the player with a dead PC? Frankly that is the whole reason that save or die type effects are gone (*mostly) from 4e. I won't disagree with you that 4e is more gamist than some other game systems, but I won't agree that it is more (or less) gamist than any other edition of the game....just different.

good stuff.

 

[Obryn]

the combination of multiple attacks with sneak damage hurts game balance. a lot.

You're ignoring the increased percentage of sneak damage being applied.

No, definitely not if you're trying to get your sneak damage in getting a second attack makes this power more valuable than any other rogue at will. Is the rogue underpowered? It's arguably the best striker, adding more chance of sneak damage is not a good thing.

Well, you can only get 1 sneak attack damage per round no matter how many times you hit. But yes, a second chance of hitting helps very much. I don't feel like crunching the numbers tonight, but the basic question is whether the increased chance of a hit is outweighed by a very large increase in damage; or by a sizable increase in damage and an attack against Reflex.

(re: keterys's option) much much better from a balance perspective.

You know that keterys's option gives you two chances to land your sneak attack damage, too, right? If you hit with the first one, you get a +2 shield bonus to AC. If you miss with it, you get a second shot.

-O

 

[Saeviomagy]

Pretty much all of the multiple-attack-on-a-single-target attack powers are busted and busted good. With moderate optimization they suddenly blow every other power out of the water.

It would be a good thing for the game if they were all changed to attacks that simply did multiple [w] on a single hit roll OR allowed you to divide the [w] between foes.

 

[Mistwell]

Pssssst.... Thunderwave uses Wisdom.

I know, but that is not at all what he was referring to or I was responding to. The topic was the FEAT arcane reach, which is very good with the power thunderwave. The feat requires Dex.

 

[Goumindong]

heavily is a stretch. Pushing 2 squares instead of 3 isn't crippling, arcane reach is a tough feat to reach unless you're eladrin, then an initial 12 in dex means 15 at level 11 without any bumps on the 4/8 levels.

Pushing 2 instead of 3 isn't crippling but the wisdom push only works for orb wizards (who have an, imo sub-optimal choice and yes, i know about all the "omg stun orcus indefinitely" junk. You can only use the power sometimes, its only really strong when used against elites or solos, and the only powers that its valuable on are "Nova" powers that need to be stacked in difficult situtions rather than thrown out in pre-planned area defining powers to be as valuable as the area modification AoE's)

Thunderwave should probably be 1+wisdom or Secondary Stat of your Choice -1(or Choose between +Wisdom, Dex -1, Con -2)

Wizards are action challenged to some small degree and stuns and dazes can seriously hurt a wizards ability in an encounter. This doesn't make them less valuable than the fighter it just demonstrates that when they aren't stunned or dazed they're usually getting an action economy that allows them to gain attacks and damages with minors and moves. This is an upside not a downside.

The reason its a weakness is because without their sustianable powers they are not nearly as strong they would be otherwise. Sustainable powers need to be brought out early to be most effective. Stuns therefore don't just hamper your ability in this round(as it would for a fighter), but also hampers your ability in subsequent rounds as you are not able to sustain your power and it ends if you don't get a save before the end of your next turn. Dazes when compared to single action players(rogues/already marked strikers etc) either end the wizards ability to sustian their power(sans action point), or acts nearly like a stun(where most other players will still be able to attack and keep after their primary purpose)

Save ends powers are awesome. You can couple them with an orb wizard and seriously hinder one creature per encounter. You can simply get lucky and have a creature or two struggle for rounds to shrug off a condition that robs them of actions or defenses or mobility or all three. It can also mean free damage for rounds to come If you get 3-4 hits with fire shroud there's a better than even chance you'll get 30-40 extra damage and with a little luck you might be accumulating damage even 4-5 rounds later.

Save ends powers really aren't. You usually get 2 rounds total, which is only twice the effect of your encounter powers... The problem is first that they're competing with the more effective sustainable powers and second that their real strength can only be activated once per encounter(orb wizard), but their strength is being coupled with zones that deal damage. Now, zones that deal damage AND inflict save ends are great, but that is just icing on the cake and not a primary reason for those powers.

what's amazing about wall of fog? the -5 of stinking cloud works in both directions and wall of fog usually only is advantageous for one round.

The -5 is effective so long as there are ranged enemies. You can furthermore do nasty things by double moving a stinking cloud (you move it on your turn, then ready an action to move it again). You move it over your group for an enemies turn then move it back after they have taken damage and had a -5 penatly to their attack(preferably you then move it on top of other enemies or away from your group so that they take no penalties

Re: Wall of Fog. You stick the wall of Fog on your own party. Wall of fog blocks line of sight, so no enemies can see you. But concealment rules say that you, if you're in the wall, can see out, because you can draw a line from one of your corners to theirs while they cannot draw a line from one of yours to theirs.

Similarly you can use it to restrict movement and make ranged attackers close.

I know, but that is not at all what he was referring to or I was responding to. The topic was the FEAT arcane reach, which is very good with the power thunderwave. The feat requires Dex.

The Feat requires dex and the feat is good with thunderwave so you need DEX and Wisdom and Int to use the feat with thunderwave which with wisdom is pretty easily one of the better at wills in the game.

Multiple Attribute Dependency...

Now, you could say that "you don't need thunderwave to be a good wizard" and you would pretty much be wrong. At-wills are essential to any optimal build and Thunderwave is easily the best with the others all being fairly lacklustre in the control department.(except maybe ray of frost) Unless you're content with not being a wizard for the majority of most fights you need thunderwave

The ability to add range on top of it(and extend its area to 4 and give you bonuses to defense for using it) are almost essential to its strength.(and its not like you don't get benefits from those feats when using other powers)

Case in Point: I am playing a level 6 dwarven wizard (18 Con, 14 wis, 16 int) and i regret not being able to push as far with thunderwave and my very low to-hit numbers.

The Wizard in my game is a level 9 Tiefling (22 int, 16 dex, 11 wisdom) and he regrets his inability to push anything with Thunderwave without Gauntlets of the Ram


Re:

Total of 41.

Yes, Staff of Ruin: d10 crit die, +enhancement item bonus to damage rolls

 

[Regicide]

To respond to this...basically everyone gets a 4e version of "full round attack" with every attack for only the cost of a standard action. The "multiple attacks" are simply rolled right into the damage that the attack does.

Nope. In 3E the 1st attack was usually hitting on anything but a 1, 2nd attack usually hit, 3rd may hit, 4th probably missed. This is not what 4E is doing at all. Had they wished to simplify the rolling but keep the same type of results, almost all attacks would do partial damage on a miss.

 

[BlockyPS]

Hi All,

I agree with what CovertOps’s has said above and it brings up an interesting point, that trying to turn a ‘game’ into a realistic simulation is not only folly it can also distort our perception of what is realistic. I know it certainly did for me when I was a kid playing D&D.

Most significantly, the idea of hit points representing how much ‘damage’ a person could take before falling unconscious made me believe that you need to do some sort of terrible crushing blow or deeply piercing thrust to kill a person – where in reality this couldn’t be further from the truth.

A relatively light blow to the temple can easily kill a person or a gentle brush against your neck opening up the carotid artery with a razor sharp sword would see you dead in seconds. So as an earlier poster said, if you want realism you would have to accept that your character can be killed in one strike. No fun at all imho.

Now having been a martial artist for over a decade and trained extensively in weapons I have to say that my favourite weapon combination is two knives/daggers. Imo I think this combination is the hardest to beat and in fact has the advantage over pretty much any weapon.

I don’t know what combat experience you have AngryPurpleCyclops but I suspect it has more to do with theory than experience and training. Of course I maybe wrong J

Your analogy of hitting two tennis balls with two rackets is quite correct, however, this is not how you use two weapons in a fight. Most of the time one is used to parry while one is used to attack. The greatest strength of using 2 knives/daggers is that you can switch between which attacks and which parries in an eye blink.

Movies are certainly to blame for the lack of understanding how weapons are really used. The need to stretch a fight out into an epic 5 minute struggle means that you get a lot of useless clanging and knocking of weapons away. Someone who knows how to use weapons will parry the first attack and not knock it away but keep it and the attacker close. The off-hand then goes on the offensive either attacking the arm/hand holding the weapon or your opponent’s body. A fight is over in less than 2 seconds with someone who knows what they’re doing.

Polearms are large unwieldy weapons, used to great effect in large bodies of men on the battlefield when defending against a charge but much less useful in a one on one encounter. The polearm user will want their first big strike to land home or else the more nimble opponent will be inside and then it’s all over. A Bo (6 foot pole) or a Spear is much more practical in this situation as it is faster to wield and can keep an opponent at bay, however, once inside they’re also pretty harmless.

A sword is much more dangerous, however, the same rules apply. In the same moment one knife parries the other strikes. It’s not a matter of ‘swinging’ a weapon and having to recover it, the two blades work in harmony with each other.

Anyway, hope I haven’t over stepped the mark with this little rant for my first post here. Been lurking for ages. Love the site and love the D&D game J

Cheers
BlockyPS