Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4719308" data-attributes="member: 59082">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 bladesRange: Melee weaponTarget: One opponentAttack: Dex vs. AC, two attacksHit: 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?No, I am not looking for that kind of realism but a balance of heroic fantasy tempered with a dash of realism so things don't get too out of hand. In some ways 4e is more balanced than previous editions (couldn't 20th level Dwarven Fighters have 300 HP in 3E?). For example, I like the slower curve from 1st to 30th level...despite what someone said, I think it is much less drastic than in previous editions and more "realistic." And I am totally glad to see save or die effects gone; and I love the new below 0-HP saving throw rule--it has great dramatic effect, with the scramble for the other PCs to try to get to their fallen comrade(s) to stabilize them (although we had one dubious situation where the four party members kept on taking turns going below 0 HP, then one would scramble over and pull them out of combat to stabilize them, then another would go below 0 HP, etc; it was quite comical, unrealistic, but fun--every PC went below 0 HP at least once, but all survived). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /> Remind me never to disagree with you again <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification