PHB1 Powers and Feats, as they'd be written today

[Obryn]

So all through that Commander's Strike thread and a few others here and there, I've been thinking that the designers would word many of the 1e Powers - especially at-wills - differently now that "4e-ese" has a more developed and more consistent terminology. I'm wondering what your ideas are on this... It's not necessarily errata we're looking at - in some cases, the thing might have exactly the same effect, and in some cases it might not.

Here are my thoughts...

Commander's Strike
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One Creature
Effect: An ally of your choice makes a Basic Melee Attack against the target. On a hit, the ally deals extra damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.


Twin Strike
At Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon
Target: One Creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged)
Effect: Repeat the attack against the same or a different target. If you are wielding two melee weapons, this attack must be with your off-hand weapon.


Lay On Hands
...pretty much change to Daily.


And then, though this may be a stretch...


Weapon Focus
Benefit: Choose a specific weapon group, such as spears or heavy blades. You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with your chosen weapon group on attacks with the Weapon keyword. At 11th level, this bonus increases to +2. At 21st level, it increases to +3.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select this feat, choose another weapon group.


...thoughts? Anything else you think might have been worded (or even done) differently?

-O

 

[abyssaldeath]

Weapon Focus was intentional. I do not believe it would be written differently.

 

[drothgery]

Weapon Focus was intentional. I do not believe it would be written differently.

Really? You think staff wizards and dagger warlocks (we're just talking PH1 classes here) were supposed to do more damage than orb wizards and wand wizards, or rod warlocks, respectively? I think they just decided to go with it going forward, but it's not an accident that every caster in later books has a weaponizeable implement option except bards (and bards have magic items that remedy this).

As for things they would have done differently... either weapon expertise, implement expertise, and paragon / epic defenses would be built in or monster attack bonuses and defenses would be reduced across the board in a corresponding fashion.

 

[keterys]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure Twin Strike doesn't need to be improved in effect or reduced in play speed by the change you made, so hopefully that wouldn't happen.

I'd think that Commander's Strike would be changed to make it clear that the target needs to be in melee reach, since that appears to come up as a question.

Weapon Focus works like it is because of swordmages, as far as I can tell, benefitting wizards, sorcerers, druids, invokers, etc as a side result.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Really? You think staff wizards and dagger warlocks (we're just talking PH1 classes here) were supposed to do more damage than orb wizards and wand wizards, or rod warlocks, respectively? I think they just decided to go with it going forward, but it's not an accident that every caster in later books has a weaponizeable implement option except bards (and bards have magic items that remedy this).

As for things they would have done differently... either weapon expertise, implement expertise, and paragon / epic defenses would be built in or monster attack bonuses and defenses would be reduced across the board in a corresponding fashion.

As far as staff Wizards I think it's more of an issue of a problem with the staff implement than weapon focus. As far as any other weapon/implements I think that they are suppose to be more damage oriented.


Edit: A good way to fix the staff issue would be to get rid of the staff weapon group and put Quarter Staff in the mace group.

 

[DracoSuave]

Really? You think staff wizards and dagger warlocks (we're just talking PH1 classes here) were supposed to do more damage than orb wizards and wand wizards, or rod warlocks, respectively?

If you were designing the PHB1 around the way things are designed today, you'd keep Weapon Focus keyword free. They've been intentionally blurring the barriers between the two and making classes that take advantage of this; the problem isn't the absence of the keyword 'weapon' on weapon focus, it's the absense of an implement focus feat at all.

That said:

Astral Fire and all would have no attribute requirements.

 

[Obryn]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure Twin Strike doesn't need to be improved in effect or reduced in play speed by the change you made, so hopefully that wouldn't happen.

I'm of the impression this is basically already the way it works. This brings it in line with the revised wording of Dual Strike, though, with the second attack as an Effect.

I'd think that Commander's Strike would be changed to make it clear that the target needs to be in melee reach, since that appears to come up as a question.

Yeah, clarification would definitely be nice. I just think it would be an Effect line rather than an Attack line.

I think they just decided to go with it going forward, but it's not an accident that every caster in later books has a weaponizeable implement option except bards (and bards have magic items that remedy this).

I think that's the case, too. I don't think it was an intentional result of Weapon Focus; I think it was an accident that they decided to keep and move forward with. It makes weapon/implements pretty universally better than just straight implements. If this were the intent, I'd expect to see an Implement Focus, too, rather than the balkanized elemental bonus damage feats. All IMO, of course.

Like I said - it's just a guess! I don't know for sure.

-O

 

[mneme]

I've been thinking that the designers would word many of the 1e Powers - especially at-wills - differently now that "4e-ese" has a more developed and more consistent terminology.

I think you're right. Actually, one wonders if a "Player's Handbook 1, 2nd edition" will be in the offing at some point.

Commander's Strike looks good, except for the melee range:

How about:

Commander's Strike
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One Creature
Range: Melee
Effect: An ally of your choice makes a Basic Melee Attack against the target. On a hit, the ally deals extra damage equal to your Intelligence modifier.

I'm not sure where you were going with Twin Strike, since as mentioned, you didn't solve most of the real problems with it. I'd do:

Twin Strike
At Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee or Ranged
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon
Effect: Make two basic attacks with the qualifying weapons; if you are wielding two melee weapons, you must make one attack with each weapon. On a hit, you deal normal damage minus the ability bonus you added to your to-hit roll. You may not use powers that may be used as a basic attack on these attacks.

(intention: let heavy thrown weapons be used with Twin Strike using Strength. Let Twin Strike work with Melee Training. Really, I'm not sure that the last sentence is needed, but it would be a really big bump without it; as it is it makes some non-viable builds viable)

I agree with other responders that the -right- change to Weapon Focus is to add Implement Focus and call it a day; there's no reason that Implement wielders get singled out as not being able to get extra damage reasonably with feats, and Implement/Weapon wielders are worse; punished for having an interesting class. They're already largely screwed for damage at high levels by not having an Iron Armbands of Brokenness equivalent, by not having full (or, for pure implement users, any) use of Weapon Proficiency (I know this is coming), and by not having an equivalent to the to hit bump weapon users can get when making a weapon attack against NADs.

If anything, I'd not only drop the stat requirements on Elemental Foci; I'd be tempted to make them untyped bonuses--if you want to play tricks to make all your attacks radiant and get weapon focus + Astral Fire, that's just another 3 damage in epic, much less than the +1/w you get at minimum from a Superior weapon; if you want to try to get every element onto your attacks and take every elemental focus, you're still being way outdamaged for less effort by the melee users, so why not? (maybe make Astral Fire, etc only work when wielding an Implement (even when you're attacking with it as a weapon), to make the buy-in for non-implement wielders steeper).

 

[FireLance]

I think twin strike is okay when the ranger attacks two targets. Many controller area at-wills have more or less the same effect. However, I do think that getting double your static damage bonuses (even less your ability score bonus) against a single target may be too good at higher levels. My fix for twin strike would be based on what was done for some assassin powers:

Twin Strike
Ranger Attack 1

At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons or a ranged weapon.
Targets: One or two creatures
Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee; main weapon and off-hand weapon) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged), two attacks. If you attack one target and both attacks hit, resolve them as a single hit.

Hit: 1[W] damage per attack. If you attack one target and both attacks hit, you deal 1[W] (melee; main weapon) + 1[W] (melee; off-hand weapon) or 2[W] damage (ranged) instead.
Level 21: 2[W] damage per attack. If you attack one target and both attacks hit, you deal 2[W] (melee; main weapon) + 2[W] (melee; off-hand weapon) or 4[W] damage (ranged) instead.​

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I actually like that solution for _all_ multi attack powers. Storm of Blades is a heck of a lot more sane that way, for instance.