Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ravenheart" data-source="post: 5178389" data-attributes="member: 72088">Ok, I've realised the error of my ways and I now conclude that the issues with Twin Strike are three-fold:1. Doubling up on static bonuses2. Dilettante/Multi-class/hybrid abuseand3. The overshadowing of other ranger at-will powersSo how does one go about to "fix" this? I'm going to try, so bear with me.As for Issue nr 1., the obvious intent of Twin Strike is to ensure a hit (compared to other PHB strikers - the rogues desire and ease of gaining combat advantage and the warlock targetting NADS and ability to multi-curse). Later the avenger would take a slightly different route with their oath of enmity, which is similar to the ranger in that it in most circumstances offers what could be equated to a +5 bonus on the attack. The ranger however, has the added possiblity of dealing damage twice, and can therefore add static bonuses on both occasions. Sadly, there is no clear and simple way of making static bonuses only apply once, since in my mind that would require quite a hefty rewrite and re-interpretation of the rules regarding multiple attack powers and damage rolls. Twin Strike should therefore consist of but a single damage roll. The question then becomes how this can be achieved without sacrificing damage potential or the very flavour of the power. Let's look at the power's name, Twin Strike - this suggests two identical attacks, but this doesn't necessarily mear that both hit if one hit or that both happen simultaneously. Could it therefore not be logical to assume that the second attack is more of a follow-up blow, albeit similar to the first?Following this logic, could it then not be seen as a security measure of sorts (as the flavour text implies - If the first attack doesn't kill it, the second one might)? The first attack needn't necessarily hit, as there's another one just around the corner. Should both attacks hit, it's a slightly gamebreaking double whammy. On the contrary, should neither attack hit it's Lady Fortune making rude gestures at your back.Generally though, at least one attack will hit, and that's fine. It's when both hit that the DM starts to twitch. So how can we preserve the odds that at least one hit, but not both?I have a radical proposal. Make Twin Strike an auto-hit, 1[W] damage at-will power that triggers when you miss with an attack. Now hear me out before you launch the nukes.First, this should be a class feature. This conveniently takes out Issue nr.2 (or at least neuters it radically, as this requires some heavy multi-classing or wasting your precious Hybrid talent feat), and practically dissolves Issue nr. 3 (albeit it is of less use to certain ranger builds, it is now a class feature as any other). Second, this would of course have some limitations, such as only being usable once per round and only in conjunction with melee or ranged at-will attack powers. Thirdly, I would suggest limiting this extra attack against the same enemy to avoid stepping on the monk's feet (i.e. Flurry of Blows, although that requires a hit and has a lower damage potential).Here's a formatted version of my suggestion:Some tweaking might be called for. Should the trigger require a ranger at-will attack power, maybe even a 1st level ranger at-will attack power? Is the level 21 damage boost uncalled for? Should there be further frequency limitations, such as Wis modifier times per encounter, or even day? Is this a stand-alone class feature or would it be a replacement for another, such as Prime Shot? Maybe this could be denied Beast Mastery rangers instead of Prime Shot? what kind of feat support should such a feature need, a paragon feat to have it also trigger on a hit, target another creature or deal additional damage? There's a lot to ponder...Now what do you think, am I completely off my game here?</blockquote>

Verification