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.
I think it does. 2d8 scaling to 5d8 is a lot of added damage.
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
oops, I was covering a lot of ground I thought keterys option was the one with [W]main hand+[W]offhand anything allowing a second try to get sneak damage is really not good for the game.
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.
great point!
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.
Why? I'm confused. I'm playing a staff wizard, my initial stat array was 16,14,13,13,12,8. Eladrin makes this 18Int, 14Con, 13Cha, 13Wis, 14Dex, 8Str. At 4th level I took +1 Int, +1Wis, at 8th I'll take +1Int and +1Con so that at 11th I'll get my staff up to +3 but the rest of my pumps will likely be to Wis and I'll eventually take orb as a second implement. I haven't been using thunderwave (I have a magic item with 1 use of psychic wave/encounter which is basically the same.) My at-wills are ray of frost and scorching burst. Thunderwave is very good and I frequently think about swapping out ray for it but ray has some serious utility in certain situations and scorching goes with my "fire wizard" concept. Scorching also frequently allows you to target more enemies since it's range allows a wide variety of placements. I do love thunderwave but I disagree you can simply say it's the best at-will. Depends on the situation.
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)
I'm not in the "orb wizards dominate" camp but I do think you're undervaluing it.
Thunderwave should probably be 1+wisdom or Secondary Stat of your Choice -1(or Choose between +Wisdom, Dex -1, Con -2)
This waters down the build differentiation and really doesn't make a lot of sense. Not every wizard needs to have t-wave. This seems more like a "I wish it was this way so I could get better effect with my build" argument. You can't really argue it's the best at-will and then say "lets make it better".
The reason its a weakness is because without their sustianable powers they are not nearly as strong they would be otherwise.
still not a "weakness". Wizards have nice encounter powers and they can also use other dailies if a stun forces them to drop their sustainable. Rather than call this a weakness lets call it an offsetting factor when considering just how amazingly good wizard dailies are. I've been dazed with a sustained power in effect, I definitely hated the stun like position this put me in but I'm hardly ineffective if I have to drop my cloud. Losing cloud to stun isn't a weakness, having cloud in the first place is a bonus.
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)
I agree with all of this but still think that the reason that wizards are hurt more by daze and stun is because they're getting a lot of value out of minors and moves that other classes can't replicate. It's good there's some ways to hamper wizards because contrary to the OP, I sort of think they're the most powerful class in the game (clerics are probably equally valuable in my estimation but not as "powerful") and so some things that hamper ongoing automatic damage actually help keep the wizards power in check.
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.
2 rounds is still 2 rounds. I'm a big fan of the sustainable powers but arguing that save ends stuff doesn't have a significant impact on a combat is a little misleading. If the BBEG is immobilized for 3 rounds and can't attack while the party pounds his minions it's pretty darn strong. I guess if you're strictly comparing trading out a sustainable daily for a save ends daily I'm in your camp thinking the sustainable powers are better but there are a lot of orb wizard fanatics who think differently. My point is that I wasn't comparing web to stinking cloud I was just saying web is a pretty strong power.
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
My DM would not like this use of readying at all. This also means your init is falling through the init order and next round all those creatures you waited on act before you which can be a significant penalty. The biggest problem with this tactic is that it's clearly not RAI. If you put the cloud on a group that group should all take an attack. I think we would house rule this away if anyone used it. It clearly makes no sense that the good guys and bad guys are in the cloud for the same amount of time but only the bad guys take the damage. You also must be specific when readying or else you lose your turn, I don't think my dm would let you say I'm reading my action until after monster xxx takes his turn. Lastly if you try this in our campaigns the monsters will use similar tactics.
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.
so by extension if you're in the corner of a stinking cloud, attacks against you are at -2 for melee and -5 for ranged and monsters in melee with you under the cloud only get -2.
Similarly you can use it to restrict movement and make ranged attackers close.
I get that it's just rarely a huge benefit and i can use the cloud for the same purpose while doing damage with it.
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.
How much wisdom do you need? Clearly you can't argue arcane reach is mandatory? is there really a point here other than getting every feat and power with the right stats is difficult with wizards... this is a good thing not all wizards need to be the same.
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
This is pretty subjective. I don't have it and I dominate a lot of encounters. I'm definitely pulling my share of the load and I'm sure a lot of other wizards without it are as well. this is pretty subjective but if you feel twave is so good you definitely can't make any case for making it easier to use.
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)
hardly the only viable build for a wizard.
Yes, Staff of Ruin: d10 crit die, +enhancement item bonus to damage rolls
ahhh. thanks.
trying to turn a ‘game’ into a realistic simulation is not only folly it can also distort our perception of what is realistic.
great point.
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.
the human body is amazingly tough when it comes down to it and though anecdotally you're correct about the possibility of death from a relatively light blow to a particularly vulnerable location this is far from normal and not easy to achieve.
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.
this is simply untrue. You're clearly sparring with the wrong people if you've found two daggers to be superior to any form of sword.
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
Not this is the proper forum for this but I think you might be surprised at who you find playing DnD. Besides over 200 bar fights, up to and including, broken bottles, knives and firearms. I've been inside a full contact kickboxing ring 18 times and I'm 17-1. I also spent 6 years in the military and after going through SEAL training I went to Somalia and the Gulf. I'm 6'5" 250lbs and I'm not only well trained but I'm well experienced. I've had 350 stitches and more than 20 broken bones. I was in a fight with 3 marines in Hong Kong and two of them had to be returned to the states instead of continuing on to the gulf. I've punished a lot of people physically in my 44 years and I hit pretty hard. I've caved in cheeks and eye sockets, fractured jaws, and knocked numerous people unconscious, and I have yet to see a single person killed by a blow to the temple.
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.
None the less you achieve a single attack with a relatively weak weapon when one considers the fact your targets are frequently armored/scaled/trained/armed. Reach is a very large deciding factor in melee combat. So is focus. I have a good friend who owns a dojo and he was hired by the FBI and Secret Service because inside 15 ft he's nearly unhitable with a firearm. Even in the 15-22' range he's hit by less than one in three shooters and we're talking about some of the best trained shooters in the world. He's 5'9" and even though he can take a firearm from me before I can shoot him 4 times out of 5 (even though I know his exact technique) he still doesn't like the impact my reach has on him when we spar. two daggers will not be able to fend off significant blows from a weapon with some heft. You'll simply wind up with a broken wrist or shattered forearm. They practice kendo in my friends dojo and there is no way I would try and approach one of them with a pair of daggers. Even the rattan strips leave large dents on the fencing helmets. If two daggers was a strong concept in combat it would have seen use on the battle field. A spiked buckler will get you a lot further than a second dagger. Why would anyone use a bayonet if knives were good? Reach.
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.
Not if the opponent is equally skilled. A lot of combats end quickly because weapons are intended to do serious harm but trained fighters look for an opening and try not to expose themselves. Armies of 10's of thousands have met on battlefields and fought for hours and yet the dead number less than 20%. If all the encounters ended fatally in a few seconds in under a minute you might suffer 50 or 75% casualties. Give me a roman gladiator with a buckler and short sword and he'll have the guy with two daggers for lunch 9 times out of 10.
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.
I'm aware of the problems with long hafted weapons in terms of recovery time. None the less they're a lot more formidable than a dagger. The best combo is clearly sword and shield or else it would not have gotten so much use. You don't really want a large shield for single combat (this goes back to fighting in ranks) but reach is still a factor and a shield can often be used MUCH more effectively as a second weapon than a second weapon can. The point of all this is that you can't make a simulationist argument for multiple attacks for the dagger wielder because it's the less effective system.
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.
This is semi ninja fantasy. parrying large weapons with small weapons is tricky business. You can't parry a baseball bat with a dagger most of the time and a broadsword is significantly more dangerous than a bat. Before we engage in more ninja fantasy dodging blows and giving glancing parries that redirect rather than blocked lets remember this is DnD. You might be immobilized when you're trying your dagger parry. You also might be surrounded.
As far as harmony goes, if I bump/push/nudge you with the shield and impede your balance for just a second I might easily lop off your lead foot with a blow you couldn't see until the blade whistled out from under the shield. There's a lot of things that work in "harmony" many of them much more effectively than a pair of daggers. There's no way you can make an argument that 2 daggers is always better than other armament and in fact most often it's simply worse. beyond the "realism" there is a game here and unbalancing it in the name of "fantasy realism" o the detriment of balance makes practically no sense.
Remind me never to disagree with you again 
