Grading At-Will Powers

[Malisteen]

Commander's strike is somewhat situational. It's better if your party's defender is a fighter, for the extra mark. It's better if your party's striker is melee based, rather then ranged, letting you give them a 2nd chance at their bonus damage if they missed on their turn. It's better if your 5th member is another defender or melee striker. It's better if you have a reach weapon (which is in turn better if your party has two or more high AC heroes in it, to make up for your lower AC from lack of a shield, and to give you someone to hide behind).

That said, it's usually great for a tactical warlord, unless you're playing in a group where you're the only leader, your defender is a Str-dumping Chaladin, and you've got multiple ranged strikers.


In a normal group, with at least one Str-based defender or melee striker, Commander's attack nets a high int taclord a decent damage boost, and gives you another chance to take advantage of your several short duration attack boosts.

IE: at first level your average eladrin taclord drops warlords favor once an encounter. Provided it hits, you'll be giving one ally +4 to hit until the end of your next turn. They attack with the bonus on their turn, and then on your next turn you can follow up with commander's strike for another attack benefiting from that +4 to hit. There are multiple short duration ally attack boost powers to take advantage of throughout a Taclord's progression, and the Battle Captain Paragon Path provides an extra two to three of these per encounter.


As a Taclord, this is hard to pass up. It's not as obvious a choice as Furious Smash is for a Chalord. Of course, that's something of a false comparison. If you're a tactical warlord, furious smash is rather terrible for you, just as commander's strike is rather lame for an inspiring warlord. Thunderwave isn't a terrible power just because it's lackluster for Wis-Dumping staff wizards, is it?

Commander's strike isn't amazing like the ranger's doublestrike power, or the cleric's righteous brand, or most of the wizard at-wills, but is still rather good. And sure, it's rather situational depending on your party make-up... But your a warlord. If any class should be taking the other party memebers into account when selecting powers, it's you. If it doesn't fit your party, or if your party composition changes, just retrain it. NBD.

 

[Carpe DM]

Here are some observations. Pardon the use of game terms, but really, the Paladin is an MMORPG tank, and so tanking terminology ("peeling," etc.) is the most precise.

1. Paladin At-Wills are highly situational. Rather than rating them overall, I think it's useful to note the situations in which each is superior.

a. Bolstering Strike: Against multiple opponents, if tanking.
b. Enfeebling Strike: Against a single opponent, or if peeling. (Enfeebling Strike + Divine Challenge is a pretty good peel).
c. Holy Strike: Against a single opponent, if solo (or striker is down). Holy Strike especially if undead.
d. Valiant Strike: I suppose this is best for clearing minions. I have not found much use. Yes, you connect. Yes, Paladins have a problem connecting because of their multiple hit stats. But the side effects of Bolstering / Enfeebling are better if you have strikers available.

2. Certain moves become much better in combination. Furious Smash, for example, has been maligned. But in our group, the Furious Smash / Piercing Smite has been a killer opener for our Warlord / Paladin. Every critter in the tangle is now marked, and all minions must be on the Paladin or die.

Commanders' Strike -> (Paladin drops a minion) -> Raven Queen's Blessing has also been a very, very effective combo.

So I think that, in general, it is best to rate Warlord at-wills in conjunction with their potential for combination play.

best,

Carpe

 

[Darkthorne]

Ok, I now can see the value add when tied with Warlord's Favor, was overlooking/misreading the "until the end of your next turn" bit.
Thanks

 

[Roxlimn]

KarinsDad:

That's a matter of strategic opinion. There are a fair number of creatures in the MM whose Fort is defenses are lower than Ref defenses. With Knowledge skills, you can discern proper targeting.

Lower Ref defenses are more common. That much is true. So you take a primary at-will that targets Ref. After that, you hedge your bets and get an at-will that targets Fort.

It makes no sense to devote limited Encounter slots to Fort attacks unless they're THAT good, and even then it still makes sense to cover bases with the at-wills.

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad:

That's a matter of strategic opinion. There are a fair number of creatures in the MM whose Fort is defenses are lower than Ref defenses. With Knowledge skills, you can discern proper targeting.

Yes. There are ~30% of the creatures with a Fort lower than Reflex. But, there are only about 10% where Fort is the lowest of Fort, Reflex, and Will. Hence, taking an At Will vs. Fort doesn't make a lot of sense when the other two Defenses tend to be lower.


And yes, with Knowledge skills, you can (sometimes) discern proper targeting.

DC 25 Heroic Tier creature
DC 30 Paragon Tier creature
DC 35 Epic Tier creature

It's quite doable, but not guaranteed. The majority of the time, such a roll will fail except at Epic level (unless the Wizard devotes extra bonuses to his skills such as Skill Focus). For example, the chances at first level for an 18 Int Wizard even with Skill Training is only 25%. At 10th level against a Heroic Tier creature, it is 50%. But, at 10th level, PCs will often be going against Paragon Tier creatures and it will again drop to 25%.

And, the chance for success is only semi-decent against creatures that correspond to the knowledge skills the Wizard actually has Skill Training in. If the Wizard does not have the skill, the chance of success is slim.

Lower Ref defenses are more common. That much is true. So you take a primary at-will that targets Ref. After that, you hedge your bets and get an at-will that targets Fort.

The problem is that the only Fort At Will in the game totally sucks (to hit vs. most creatures, and damage) until Paragon level that it doesn't make sense to gimp yourself against most creatures in order to gain a slight edge against a few. It's not always possible to target an enemy with an AoE power without targetting allies as well.

A Human could take Ray of Frost along with two other At Wills. This is terribly suboptimal for Heroic non-Humans.

It makes no sense to devote limited Encounter slots to Fort attacks unless they're THAT good, and even then it still makes sense to cover bases with the at-wills.

It does make sense to devote an Encounter power to Fort once the Wizard has 3 Encounter Attack powers. Before that, I agree that it does not. The difference between At Will and Encounter powers is that the Wizard only get 2 or 3 At Will whereas he can get 5 or 6 Encounter Attack powers. Hence, it makes more sense to devote 1 (or even 2) Encounter powers instead of 1 At Will to anti-Fort.


At lower levels, the difference between Fort and Reflex is typically 3 or less. It doesn't make sense to worry about low Fort creatures too much until much higher levels when the difference between can be really significant (like 4 or 6 where it really makes a huge difference to pick the proper power). But even then, it is a very very low percentage of the creatures (like < 2%). Who cares about that?

Hence, a Wizard can ignore having a way to attack low Fort creatures until nearly Paragon level and it will make little difference in the game. At that point, he can either retrain an At Will to Ray of Frost, or use up an Encounter Power. It makes little difference, especially considering that he has typically at best a 50% chance of figuring out the weakness of a foe anyway.

 

[Benly]

What's the justification behind grading Hit And Run at D? It does what it says on the box: it hits an enemy and lets you bail out. Certainly you'll usually want to use Twin Strike instead, but it's not a bad power at all - I've ended up using it a couple times when the battlefield situation has unexpectedly changed due to controllers or lurkers mixing it up.

I grant that Nimble Strike is better, but it's a ranged power. If you're in melee when it hits the fan, you're going to have a lot more difficulty using Nimble Strike to bail out than Hit And Run. Hit And Run I would mark a C at worst - it's nothing spectacular, it's going to spend most of its time sitting in your toolbox, but occasionally you'll be glad you have it and when you need it it'll perform admirably.

 

[keterys]

It only works on a single target for one square, is strictly worse than nimble strike, and has little to offer for it above taking a basic attack (which can gain from bracers of mighty striking, +1 charge, etc).

It may see occasional use, but the most likely reason is because melee rangers have no other option. When the Martial Power book comes out with a couple more options, its use will probably be extremely low.

It's possible it should move up from D, though. Anyone else agree?

P.S. Totally think Nimble Strike should have just worke on both melee and ranged.

 

[Benly]

If Nimble Strike did work on both melee and ranged, then yes, Hit and Run would be a clunker. As it is, it's not a great at-will power but I wouldn't rate it "barely passable".

 

[keterys]

If one existed that was just like Nimble Strike, but melee only instead, would that change your opinion? *curious*

 

[Benly]

If one existed that was just like Nimble Strike, but melee only instead, would that change your opinion? *curious*

I feel that if Hit And Run were wholly redundant, it would merit a downgrade. As it is, it serves a function that the melee ranger doesn't otherwise get, and it's a useful function. I fully agree that Nimble Strike does the same thing except better - so does Eyebite. The melee ranger doesn't get either of those.