Half Elf Gone ?

[mneme]

Actually, I suspect a fair number of char-opers would agree with you that twin strike needs toning down. After all, the point of charop isn't to break the game (per se); it's to make the most powerful character you can -within- the rules.

 

[Aulirophile]

Actually, I suspect a fair number of char-opers would agree with you that twin strike needs toning down. After all, the point of charop isn't to break the game (per se); it's to make the most powerful character you can -within- the rules.

You would be wrong, and probably shouldn't speak for a forum you don't actively participate in. Majority of CharOp, who are actually aware of all the potential builds and their potential effectiveness, thinks Twin Strike is fine. See link.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[kaomera]

I dont think anyone can argue that Twin-Strike isnt overpowered.

Why not? I can totally argue that Twin Strike is not OP. It's the best DPR at-will, which puts it above every other Ranger at-will. But it's definitely not better than other classes' at-wills, IMO. All it does is put out damage. There's tons of other stuff out there that Rangers just don't get out of Twin Strike.

Yes, Twin Strike is probably too easy to abuse. There's tons of stuff in 4e that's easy to abuse. And Twin Strike is too much of a no-brainier for any Ranger; I really don't see it as a "stealth class feature", but it's definitely the result of the way that the Ranger's class features work. Take it outside the class and it can become an issue.

But I certainly hope they don't nerf Twin Strike. I'm glad your house-rule is working out for your group, and I certainly wouldn't try to dissuade you from it, even if I thought I could. But I don't think every group is going to have the same results as you, and I very definitely don't think the groups I've played with would enjoy it. IMO, it would turn into a very significant incentive to just never have another Ranger PC again.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Actually, I suspect a fair number of char-opers would agree with you that twin strike needs toning down. After all, the point of charop isn't to break the game (per se); it's to make the most powerful character you can -within- the rules.

How about not allowing Twin Strike to crit?

I think that would fix a lot. If it were a problem in my party, I would probably do that.

 

[Shazman]

I don't think twin strike needs to be nerfed. Just because some half-avengers can use it to increase their chance to crit on because people can go out of their way to pile damage modifiers on it to get decent damage, doesn't mean we should nerf it. Strikers are supposed to do damage. That's their job. If you are going to start nerfing the damage of strikers, you will just make grind more prevalent which will probably make many players question if the massive amount of time it takes to resolve 4E combat is worth it. If anything, PC's need more ways to do more damage to get some parity with the enormous hit point bloat of monsters, that starts out bad, and only gets worse with higher levels.

 

[mneme]

Aurophile: observer bias. I read that thread and see "plenty of char-oppers agree with me". You see the opposite. It depends on what you mean by "a fair number" and what you think my point is.

I don't actually have a problem (necessarily, anyway) with twin strike for -rangers-.

 

[Kingreaper]

You would be wrong, and probably shouldn't speak for a forum you don't actively participate in. Majority of CharOp, who are actually aware of all the potential builds and their potential effectiveness, thinks Twin Strike is fine. See link.

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Majority opinion there seems to be: twin strike=fine for rangers.

Lots of people saying to just plain make it a class feature.

 

[Herschel]

Class feature would work best, but is that a precident they want to be setting?.

Of course, if they made the first attack hitting be a prerequisite for the second attack being made, that option actually nerfs the Ranger more than the interlopers.

 

[Dan'L]

Class feature would work best, but is that a precident they want to be setting?.

Of course, if they made the first attack hitting be a prerequisite for the second attack being made, that option actually nerfs the Ranger more than the interlopers.

I know this discussion is becoming very house-rules territory, but... how about tying the attacks to Hunter's Quarry, such that one (or both) of the attacks must target your quarry? That would keep it more class-specific without requiring that every ranger build actually take the power.

-Dan'L

 

[kaomera]

Class feature would work best, but is that a precident they want to be setting?.

A number of classes already gain powers as part of their class features. The question, I think, would be: does this count as one of your normal at-wills (like the Warlock pact at-will) or not?

Marauder's Rush, now that Throw & Stab has been nerfed, got me thinking about the spear-based ranger again, something I've wanted to do since 4e came out but can't really make work. I think there may now (post-MP2) be enough powers that don't require either two weapons or a ranged weapon to make it work... Obviously this would be a ranger that eschews Twin Strike, and that would be a problem if Twin Strike was a class feature (unless, of course, there was a replacement class feature available).

I think that what it comes down to is that Twin Strike seems to me, so far, to meet WotC's expectations. (ie: there has been no errata) And I think that there was a conscious decision to move two-weapon attacks out of the realm of class features (except for the ability to wield larger secondary weapons). So, without a power like Twin Strike you don't get much benefit out of running around with two bastard swords (or whatever you're wielding). Since 4e Rangers are supposed to be dual-wielding, it makes sense to give them a basic power that covers this.