Do wizards suck? / multiple attacks

[Regicide]

Well, on battlefields we pretty much do see reach weapons dominating, don't we? For hunting too.

We see RANGED weapons dominating. Reach weapons didn't dominate and there is a really simple reason for that, shields. Shield effectiveness is seriously under represented in DnD.

 

[keterys]

Well, possibly.

I'd suspect shields are less effective against attacks that could completely pierce, shred, or envelop them, as are pretty typical for D&D.

 

[Nytmare]

We see RANGED weapons dominating.

I always hate these kinds of arguments.

The history of warfare is has been a continuous escalation of one type of weapon or armor dominating another. The best weapon gets dominated by a better weapon, which gets dominated by a better suit of armor, which gets bested by a better tactic, which gets trounced by a bunch of guys on horseback, who get beaten by a better weapon... The only innovation you can honestly say dominates is whichever one is on top at the end of the period of time you're looking at.

Polearms are a damn good weapons that have been around for about as long as people have been killing each other, and there were several points in history where the people who were using them were unstoppable. In the end however, they lost out to firearms, just like every other medieval weapon out there.

For those keeping track, the firearms that beat the polearms got dominated by better firearms, which were bested by better armor, which were beaten by better tactics, which got trounced by guys in tanks, who got beaten by better weapons...

 

[CovertOps]

OK, then why have the Ranger Twin Strike at all? I mean, on one hand you are saying that 4e takes multiple attacks and replaces them with a single roll but more damage, then you have the Ranger Twin Strike going back to multiple attacks. I totally get the abstract nature of HP and other aspects of the D&D rules, but what becomes confusing is the slippery nature of different rules having different degrees of abstraction vs. literalism. So in the example above, on one hand you have an abstract (or representational) system of HP, attack rolls, and damage, then you have a literal at-will power of Twin Strike. It seems inconsistent, as if WotC wants it one way (as you described) but doesn't want to give up the sacred cow of the Drizzt-style ranger.

I can even live with that; what I am looking for, however, is one of two things: 1) A way to justify not allowing the rogue in my group to make two attacks with his daggers, and/or 2) A balanced at-will power the rogue can use to make two attacks. At this point I'm thinking of adding something like:

Double Dagger Strike (Rogue At-Will)
Special: Must be using two light blades
Range: Melee weapon
Target: One opponent
Attack: Dex vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W] + 1 [W] ; no STR bonus; sneak attack still applies

I like the choice of either one attack with STR bonus or two without (and didn't know that Ranger Twin Strike didn't include STR), but I also think sneak attack damage should still apply, at least to one weapon: Imagine the rogue jumping onto someone's back from behind and stabbing them with two daggers...at least one should have that extra damage effect.

Does that at-will seem unbalanced or workable?

Let me just start with the obvious. If you give the Rogue a "twin-strike" like power then what is the point of playing a 2-weapon Ranger. It's his shtick. By doing so you are stepping into someone else's pool. Every class should have it's own unique features. For the Ranger they get a special way (mechanically) of performing their attack with 2 attack rolls and modified damage. Also (mechanically) the 2 attack rolls that the Ranger gets increases his odds of being able to apply his Hunter's Quarry damage (d6 or d8 with feat) to the target. If the Rogue had such a power then assuming the Rogue had CA he would pretty much get SA damage every round. I'm not going to crunch numbers and figure out what this does to average DPR (damage per round) for the Rogue, but I view this as a bad idea just from the standpoint of niche protection.

If your Rogue really wants twin strike then just use your paragon path to do a full multiclass into ranger and take it with retraining. Oh wait....then your Rogue will need STR to use the attack. Such are the choices required when creating a character.

<sarcasm>Perhaps next we should allow the Rogue to use Magic Missle...after all he's trained for years doing that too.</sarcasm>

Finally...why in the world do you need "A way to justify not allowing the rogue in my group to make two attacks with his daggers". EVERYONE in the game is allowed to fight with 2 weapons. It just does NOT give you an extra attack. Reference Two-Weapon fighting and Two-Weapon Defense feats if he wants a bonus for using 2 weapons. EVERYONE gets one attack per standard action (reference use of Action Points). Some powers specify that you get to make 2 attack rolls (1 per target for AOE powers) as the game mechanic. These powers are balanced for the classes that get them. Granting these powers to other classes without any sacrifice on their part is bad mojo.

Broken:
Rogue
Feat1: Superior weapon Rapier (d8 damage - light blade)
Feat2: Backstabber(increase SA damage to d8s)
vs
Ranger with 2-weapon fighting option
Feat1: Superior weapon Bastard Sword (d10 damage)
Feat2: Lethal Hunter(increase hunter's quarry damage to d8s)

Using your new Rogue "twin-strike" power at level 1 your Rogue will be doing 2d8 + 2d6 SA per round compared to a ranger doing 2d10 + 1d6 HQ or 16 vs. 14.5

At level 2 this widens to 2d8 + 2d8 SA or 18 compared to 2d10 + 1d8 HQ or 15.5

 

[Regicide]

For those keeping track, the firearms that beat the polearms got dominated by better firearms, which were bested by better armor, which were beaten by better tactics, which got trounced by guys in tanks, who got beaten by better weapons...

It's more like:
spear > everything else
pilum/sling > everything else
shortbow > everything else
longbow > everything else
crossbow > everything else
musket > everything else
rifle > everything else
cannon (tanks/artilery) > everything else
cannon/bombs (aircraft) > everything else
missiles > everything else
badgers with rail cannons > everything else
sharks with lasers > everything else
satellite borne mind control devices > everything else

 

[keterys]

Using your new Rogue "twin-strike" power at level 1 your Rogue will be doing 2d8 + 2d6 SA per round compared to a ranger doing 2d10 + 1d6 HQ or 16 vs. 14.5

At level 2 this widens to 2d8 + 2d8 SA or 18 compared to 2d10 + 1d8 HQ or 15.5

You're not showcasing a problem with rogues getting twin strike - you're showing that sneak attack does more damage than hunter's quarry, because it's harder to pull off.

It's no more broken for the rogue to twin strike than for the ranger.

Which is not to say that I think the rogue should gain the ability to get twin strike, by any stretch of the imagination

 

[Regicide]

You're not showcasing a problem with rogues getting twin strike - you're showing that sneak attack does more damage than hunter's quarry, because it's harder to pull off.

Which, in other words, is saying that rogues already have their own way of upping damage, which accounts for them not having twinstrike, so they don't need a 3rd.

Anyway, this is 4E where everything tastes like chicken and you can't describe anything in any way other than mechanically, so "reflavour" stuff. Just say the rogue IS using both daggers when they have two of them, it just doesn't give extra damage and it's all handled by 1 attack roll because thats just how rogues roll. Huzzah.

 

[keterys]

Which, in other words, is saying that rogues already have their own way of upping damage, which accounts for them not having twinstrike, so they don't need a 3rd.

No... it doesn't account for them not having twin strike. It accounts for sneak attack applying to less attacks than hunter's quarry.

Once you get enough static damage bonuses _nothing_ accounts for twin strike. Nobody should get it.

 

[Regicide]

Once you get enough static damage bonuses _nothing_ accounts for twin strike. Nobody should get it.

That is the designer's fault for thinking that narrowing the scope of the game will balance it without taking into account that no matter how narrow something is, if you make it long enough, it gets out of hand.

They should have capped bonuses properly, but they didn't. They fixed some things such as critical hits so that bonuses don't get applied multiple times like in 3E (*shudder* x32 power attack damage, whee) but they thought they were safe and went and added all sorts of other bonuses that all add up, then they went and added ways of multiplying those bonuses, such as twin strike and THEN they added repeated power use.

Anyway, it's not TECHNICALLY twin-strike's fault. Alone it CAN be a reasonable power when not... abused. It's up to the DM to keep their player's in line until WotC gets the message that being able to do infinite damage is probably a bad thing and post some errat... er... "updates."

 

[Goumindong]

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.

The utility of both your orb and your staff mastery bonuses are increased exponentially as your bonus increases. If you take second mastery and spread your secondary points between con and wis then neither of them will be very valuable.

Your staff mastery is essentially a "turn a hit into a miss power" very similar to what halfings get(but halfings can stop a crit and you cannot though you get a guarantee). The quality of hit it can turn into a miss is a function of your bonus. The more con you have the more ability you have to stop an important attack(like some stun that would hit you otherwise).

It works the same for your orb, at low values the penalty does not significantly increases the time you keep a single enemy under a save ends effect. If you're going orb you've pretty much got to punch it. You also have to be able to use a staff(2 handed) and orb at the same time.

That isn't to say that second implement isn't valuable, but its much more for Orb wizards who have some dex and want to make sure that their precious save ends power hits the enemy that they want it to by grabbing a wand mastery. Wand mastery is also nice because the orb doesn't require you to attack with it to you and so you can worry about an orb with a good special ability and then wield a high + wand in the other hand. But in that situation you're pretty much just buying a situational + bonus to attack.

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.

The key is that not only does thunderwave have more control in the majority of the game, tie in with your strogest powers better, but as you advance into paragon tier the feats that allow you to maximize its potential make scorching burst terrible in comparison.

Thunderwave ends up(assume Wisdom of 18 by paragon tier) as a ranged 2 Close burst 4, push 5 that gives you 2 to any defense every time you use it. Yea its 3 feats, but it makes your at will stronger control than many of the push encounter powers.

The only problem with it is that "push" is defined from where you are and not from the origin of the power.(if that was the case then Thunderwave would become nearly a slide 4 power)

Now, your personal choice not withstanding does not make it not the best at will.

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".

My argument is "its the best at will but utilizing it requires the player to hamper their build in order to get that use out of it". I.E. "Strong Thunderwave should not be the perview of Orb wizards with decent dex only"

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.

No, the edge of the cloud can see out, nothing can see in. -5 on all attacks going in, no penalty if you're on the edge of the cloud going out. Makes it a tad bit harder to use(sticking it next to an ally does not block that enemies LoS to your friend, giving them an advantage). Just as if you're looking out from under any other concealment.

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.

Yes, but only once per day. I am highlighting that you still get a lot of benefit out of these powers during other times. You can't have stinking cloud up every encounter, only once.

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.

Only if the other options have just as much power, and they really do not. To make use of thunderwave you really need a 4+ wisdom mod, preferably higher.

hardly the only viable build for a wizard.

Viable =/= optimal. Just as you would expect any large AOE character to dominate some encounters(encounters with low enemy levels means that the large AoE character gets more hits in, especially when coupled with high enemy counts typicaly for those encounters)