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

[Garthanos]

Yes resolving both as one attack when they are made both against a single opponent is very reasonable in my opinion.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

My solution for Twin Strike would be to remove both the power and Hunter's Quarry and make the second attack into a minor action attack that's a class ability. And a different class ability depending on whether they're a bow or two weapon ranger.

Then the ability to make the second attack would be the source of the extra damage a striker should be getting, and they'd use on top of the other at-wills, encounter and daily powers.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

Um, Melee weapon -is- the range of the power. That's what it -means.- Putting Range: Melee doesn't mean anything, Melee is an attack type, it's what comes -after- that is the range.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

This language made me puzzled for an instant. "How so one single hit?!" Then I realized there was more, below.

Perhaps it would be clearer to say outright what your purpose is, which also cuts down on the verbiage?

Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee; main weapon and off-hand weapon) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged), two attacks. If you attack a single target and both attacks hit, you only get to add your stat to damage (Str or Dex) once.

 

[FireLance]

This language made me puzzled for an instant. "How so one single hit?!" Then I realized there was more, below.

Perhaps it would be clearer to say outright what your purpose is, which also cuts down on the verbiage?

Attack: Strength vs. AC (melee; main weapon and off-hand weapon) or Dexterity vs. AC (ranged), two attacks. If you attack a single target and both attacks hit, you only get to add your stat to damage (Str or Dex) once.

The problem really is all static damage bonuses, not just the ability score modifier (which doesn't actually apply to twin strike in the first place ). But yes, I think it would be easier if "static damage bonus" was a defined term, and the rules stated clearly that you only deal static damage bonuses once to each target each time you use a power.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the Careful Attack / Sure Strike powers might work differently.
WotC is correct in that precision is important - but it's only important when the hit effect is good, too. Hitting is required but not sufficient.

There is now a Rogue Power "Probing Strike" that gives you a bonus to your next attack. That is significant, because it can serve as a setup strike for an encounter or daily power in the following round.

But I don't think the wording would need a change. Unless adding something like "You can use this power as a basic attack" is a wording change. (And whether it is or isn't - I am not sure it is the right change.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would actually have liked that rangers striker damage comes from a minor offhand attack. (1[w] no stat bonus on heroic tier, [w] + statbonus on paragon tier and 2[w] + statbonus at epic tier or so)
Benfit for weapon style stay the same - prime shot for melee rangers.

but then you have to redo a lot of powers (usually converting encounter powers so that they subject a creature to your hunters quarry, which deals extra d6s on a hit)

and maybe in a late PHB i could see it work this way... but the designers were really conservative in PHB 1...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, personally I wouldn't feel bad if Twin Strike and other multi-attack powers were all just limited to one target and added 1[W] per attack roll that succeeds. Yeah, its nice that rangers can hit 2 targets, but its just overly abusable and not really a necessary core capability of the class. The problem with restricting it ONLY in the case of attacking one target vs two is that the vast majority of the time there are already 2 decent targets and players would simply never use it on one target, so the adjustment would be practically meaningless.

Leave multi-targetting to controllers where it belongs.

 

[keterys]

Well, personally I'd prefer if all of the ranger multiattack on one target powers were limited to TWF, and the archer's multiattack powers were all multiple target.

But I'm pretty sure my opinions on the ranger and the majority's are not necessarily shared.

 

[CovertOps]

Eh, personally I wouldn't feel bad if Twin Strike and other multi-attack powers were all just limited to one target and added 1[W] per attack roll that succeeds. Yeah, its nice that rangers can hit 2 targets, but its just overly abusable and not really a necessary core capability of the class. The problem with restricting it ONLY in the case of attacking one target vs two is that the vast majority of the time there are already 2 decent targets and players would simply never use it on one target, so the adjustment would be practically meaningless.

Leave multi-targetting to controllers where it belongs.

So it's OK for a Fighter to kill 2 minions, but Rangers get the giant minion clearing Nerf bat.