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

[Garthanos]

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

And the at will doesnt need to be simultaneously more accurate and more deadly, but as Draco said maybe that is the fault of how Damage enhancers are handled...

Guess reaping strike hitting on a miss is more accurate and all Avenger attacks are now just as reliable.

 

[Obryn]

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.

I'm unconvinced it's a house-rule, but this is a discussion I've seen and skipped elsewhere. I can say that all the games I've played in have run it with staggered targeting, so if it's a misreading, it's a common one!

So, this is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about - clarifying and cleaning up the wording. There's evidently huge table variation in this Power - so it would be great to tidy it up and make it self-explanatory, whichever way it goes.

-O

 

[keterys]

Agreed, no matter what it would be good to clarify things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Well, this is an idea to consider. I'm not really sure why archer rangers should be especially favored in this way, but maybe you can elaborate at some point (perhaps it should go its own thread...).

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

Ouch! those poor rangers! I guess they'll die. lol. Fighters are Controllers (yeah yeah, its called defender, now try to actually figure out what the difference is in any practical sense, HINT: there is no martial controller class).

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.

Except multi-targetting, while not strictly always limited to controllers, is still mostly a controller function. Thus removing that ability from rangers is in no way stepping on their primary function.

And your "effect" solution for Twin Strike is pointless. It doesn't get rid of the stacked static damage bonus issue, which IS the whole issue with TS.

Agreed, no matter what it would be good to clarify things.

I suppose it could be clarified, but lets be full disclosure here, WotC has made it abundantly clear that the intended interpretation of TS is that you designate a target as part of each attack and thus you don't decide the second target until the first attack is resolved. You may not consider that RAW, but basically 99.5% of everyone playing the game appears to believe that is the correct interpretation. It only sounds unclear when you get that last 1/2% that are rules lawyers discussing it on the boards.

Anyway, this is getting more or less OT, so I think I'll just leave it at that.

 

[keterys]

I suppose it could be clarified, but lets be full disclosure here, WotC has made it abundantly clear that the intended interpretation of TS is that you designate a target as part of each attack and thus you don't decide the second target until the first attack is resolved.

Could you link me that? If they've said that, I can spread it around in my gaming groups. We'd be happy to do it the right way...

You may not consider that RAW, but basically 99.5% of everyone playing the game appears to believe that is the correct interpretation. It only sounds unclear when you get that last 1/2% that are rules lawyers discussing it on the boards.

Well, by the rules of the game, in the PHB1 and further explicitly clarified in the PHB2, it is incorrect. You have to choose the targets before making the attack. Out of several dozen players I know face to face, I've only seen one try to do it the way you're discussing, and when asked about it, admitted it was because that's how it worked in 3e and they immediately stopped. It's possible I only know lawyers and know a startling number of the .5% of players, but it seems far more likely your numbers are incorrect.

I'd totally believe that they intended it to work like the new method of doing things in the PH2 though. I'd also believe that they'd chosen not to fix it because they realized it was good enough as it was, and are now designing powers more like the 'making X attacks but only apply damage bonuses once' like evidenced in the assassin. Which is definitely an even better way to design things, and could easily be applied to Twin Strike.

 

[Zaran]

I think that the classes that rely on two primary attributes like Rangers and Paladins should be changed to one Attribute. Ranger powers should all be Dex based and Paladin powers should all be Charisma . If they want to use Strength in the powers they can be secondary kicker attributes.

 

[CapnZapp]

Keterys, are you saying a Ranger can't attack a second target if his first attack killed his first target unless he decided to split his attacks already at the start of his turn?

I agree this seems like an unneccessary restriction and I agree it means an unneeded slowdown.

If it is in place to curtail the Ranger's power, I would far prefer a solution that didn't violate basic intiutiveness.

Sigh. I guess one more for them houserules...

 

[keterys]

Yep. You get to the 1 or 2 targets line and go 'This guy.' or 'These two guys' then you roll the attacks and resolve all that.

Similarly, if you're doing a Bedeviling Burst as a sorcerer, you have to choose your 1 or 2 targets in advance. This means that you can't wait to see if you move the first guy before picking the second target (which can be important tactically).

The main advantage of doing it that way is time saved (like I said, 30-40%). The main disadvantage is the loss of convenience. Tangentally, it's also more effective a reasonable percentage of the time when you get to choose with exact precision. Something Twin Strike doesn't really need to be competitive or retain its spot as the single best at-will.

That said, it still might totally be the intent for it to have worked that way. I'd be eager to see a post or FAQ or something to that effect so I knew.

 

[Turtlejay]

Wow, this thread sure meandered off-topic. From "PHB1 Powers and Feats, as they'd be written today" --------------------------> "PHB1 Powers and Feats, how they'd be balanced today". Different subject entirely.

And on topic, since I am surely no rules lawyer, just a common sense seeking gamer, I would understand if WotC re-released PHB1 (and Martial Power? maybe?) with post PHB2 style rewordings, but I would also be upset. Having preordered the 4e books, I would feel a little miffed about not having the updated version.

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

At will attacks should be short and to the point, and should not be complex... tho there -is- an easy way to do it.

Targets: One or Two creatures.
Attack: Strength vs AC (Melee) or Dexterity vs AC (Ranged)
Hit: 1[W] damage. If you only targetted one creature, this attack does an additional 1[W] instead.
At 21st level, 2[W] damage, and the additional damage is 2[W].
Special: If this is a melee attack, the additional damage is from your off-hand weapon.


However, I'm not convinced this is the right change for the power. They -want- Rangers to have that Two-Weapon Fighting/Twin Shot deal going down, it's part of the design of the class from the bottom up. If the problem is bonuses to damage, those should be fixed as those are the real problem--however the powers themselves without that are just fine.