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

[keterys]

From my perspective, you want to encourage attacks which hit multiple targets. It's multiple attacks on one target that ends up working poorly - hence the fighter Dual Strike change being a good thing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Multi-targetting isn't restricted to controllers, no matter what forum goers wish--the designers have said as much.

And re-writing Twin-strike into a more complicated hodgepodge just to sate some need for balance isn't the right way to go; the idea is rewriting PHB1 powers to fit modern design, not rewrite them to fit some personal balance ideas.

It -would- be written one attack, then the second attack as an effect, so that you could choose your second attack's target after the first resolved.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

And re-writing Twin-strike into a more complicated hodgepodge just to sate some need for balance isn't the right way to go; the idea is rewriting PHB1 powers to fit modern design, not rewrite them to fit some personal balance ideas.

Updating Twin Strike to fit the PHB2 design does mean rebalancing it: they made the same mistake with Dual Strike, but since then they've avoided any at-wills that make allow two attacks to be made against the same target. For the obvious reason that it's conspicuously better than other at-wills.

 

[DracoSuave]

Updating Twin Strike to fit the PHB2 design does mean rebalancing it: they made the same mistake with Dual Strike, but since then they've avoided any at-wills that make allow two attacks to be made against the same target. For the obvious reason that it's conspicuously better than other at-wills.

And yet Twin-Strike went completely untouched...

...interesting that.

If you're going to balance the power, that's fine, but making it into an obscenely complicated hodgepodge is the -opposite- direction than you want to go, and not the purpose of such a redesign.

 

[keterys]

It -would- be written one attack, then the second attack as an effect, so that you could choose your second attack's target after the first resolved.

Are you making that same assumption about _all_ of the powers that entail multiple attacks?

At any rate, that form of Twin Strike would be both more effective and slower than the current version. Not a winning change.

Personally, I think if they redid the ranger nowadays it would actually just be different in a bunch of ways. They've learned an awful lot since then.

 

[Obryn]

the idea is rewriting PHB1 powers to fit modern design, not rewrite them to fit some personal balance ideas.

Yep, by and large, although I'd include "oopsies" in with that. I don't think Twin Strike's balance qualifies as an error, per se.

At any rate, that form of Twin Strike would be both more effective and slower than the current version. Not a winning change.

How so? To me, it looks exactly like the current version, with more obvious wording.

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

Well it doesn't really matter... -some- class has to be the best at dealing damage, and that class has to have an at-will better than the others. It's just a mathematical fact. Twin-Strike happens to be that, and mainly because of damage-adding items above and beyond the normal fare.

It's just how it is, just like there's always going to be bad cards in Magic... you can't make everything absolutely equal without making them absolutely the same.

So Ranger gets to be that something. Should damage-enhancing items be toned down? Yes. Should Twin-Strike be changed to something utterly different? Not necessarily.

 

[keterys]

How so? To me, it looks exactly like the current version, with more obvious wording.

Heh, mostly because by RAW you have to make a decision on where to target your attacks (say, splitting them between two targets), then roll them. So being able to roll one, see how you did, then roll another, is both an increase in power _and_ slowing the power down by a significant (say, 30-40%) amount.

Though, yes, a lot of DMs do house rule that one, so that might bring things in line with some folks' games.

 

[keterys]

Well it doesn't really matter... -some- class has to be the best at dealing damage, and that class has to have an at-will better than the others. It's just a mathematical fact.

No, it isn't. It could get its damage from class features, encounters, and/or dailies.

So Ranger gets to be that something. Should damage-enhancing items be toned down? Yes. Should Twin-Strike be changed to something utterly different? Not necessarily.

Is Storm of Blades a necessary update? Was Dual Strike? Depends on your opinion, I suppose, but 'necessary' is probably a lot stronger than I'd use. Would it improve the game? Sure. And if you're changing it at all, why not improve the game?

 

[Garthanos]

Should damage-enhancing items be toned down? Yes. Should Twin-Strike be changed to something utterly different? Not necessarily.

That is my take...

though I also dont see any reason why 2 attacks focused on 1 opponent don't always become 1 attack its a combo like a scissors strike the die roll determines how well the multiple strokes manage to mess up your enemy...lower damage roll means fewer of the multiple strokes threatened or hurt your enemy.

Abilities that fire off of per attack would treat it as 1 and using the higher to hit enhancement bonus of the two weapons, 1 character attribute bonus benefit, both weapons damage enhancement bonus and damage die.

Somebody who is better at wording things concisely help me ;-)