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

[Garthanos]

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.

They do make twin strike one of the most reliable and high damage powers all boiled in to one... which many think is over board. (if it wasnt then wouldnt some other ranger powers be reasonable to use more often ... )

They could give another accuracy based power real meat to compete with twin strike if the twinstrike was worded as you just made it...
By makin twin strike a best of both worlds we deprive somebody of choices ;-) ....

If they wanted we could have

1) twin strike (multiple opponents)
1a) scissor strike (1 opponent higher damage)
2) precision strike (something like the avengers attack 2 rolls 1 target might not even need 2 weapons or the second is used for balance or to move the enemies weapon out of the way or distract the enemy so the real attack is real reliable.)

The point is the Rangers TS isnt just better than other archetypes at-will it kind of overwhelms his own.

 

[keterys]

Make the comparison to Dual Strike a bit more inline.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think the point of Dual Strike's change was so that it wasn't Twin Strike 2.0. Twin Strike is better, but it's not on a class that gets accuracy and damage bonuses, so it's still a different animal.

 

[keterys]

*peers at Prime Shot and Hunter's Quarry*

Different... animal. Right.

 

[DracoSuave]

*peers at Prime Shot and Hunter's Quarry*

Different... animal. Right.

I meant to the power itself. But yes. It -is- a different animal. One is a Striker's heavy attack, and the other is a Defender's tool. The Striker's going to be better at using the two-attack shtick than a defender, just like Controllers are even better at hitting multiple targets than a Defender is.

It's just how the roles work out.

The main problem with Twin-Strike isn't that it does a lot of damage, it's that it does a lot of damage that -other classes- have trouble competing with. It's not a problem if every ranger needs this power, because it's designed to be useful to all rangers regardless of build. The problem is a lack of competition in this arena from the other strikers, and perhaps -that- is what needs to be addressed more.

Twin Strike might not be the problem-Eldritch Blast might be the problem.

 

[keterys]

Twin Strike might not be the problem-Eldritch Blast might be the problem.

Or they both are I'll even state outright I think they both are.

 

[Turtlejay]

I think twin strike as a ranger power is not the problem, it is twin strike abused by use of half elf dilettante and other things that are the problem. It is the increasing number of static damage bonuses that are the problem.

It is pretty much an established fact that warlords are not the strikers that they should be. Perhaps Eldrich blast modeled after twin strike would be nice, eh? Two attacks, greater chance to deal curse damage? Getting into house rule territory.

Jay

 

[Garthanos]

Or they both are I'll even state outright I think they both are.

I like the idea of more flavorful curse effects on another thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

The main advantage of doing it that way is time saved (like I said, 30-40%).

Well, I see it the other way. Having to decide beforehand if one attack is going to sink the foe in front of you or if you need to go safe and use both (possibly wasting one) is what I feel is going to take extra time.

Saving time to me means not making this into a decision point. Instead you simply make your main-hand attack; if that downs your foe, you make your off-hand attack at another foe.

This doesn't mean I don't see how your interpretation could be the RAW one. It does limit the Ranger's power a bit, which I definitely can see as intentional.

I only wish 1) this had been more clearly written (I don't expect to retro this decision) 2) it wouldn't be there at all - it's not that I don't want limits on Ranger power, it's that I would like the mechanisms that limit its power to do so without adding more decision points to the game.

Not because the Ranger is complex to run (it isn't), but because more complexity is generally unwelcome in a complex game like D&D 4E.

I'll probably get over it.

 

[keterys]

Yep, the entire point of the new 'Effect: Make another attack' style is to give a way to do the way that you're used to, which is why it came up that they'd potentially rewrite the power that way. Just like they might potentially rewrite the power like the assassin 'stack weapon dice but not damage bonuses' style.