Power Multipliers and Weapons

[GoodKingJayIII]

How are the spellcasters (wizards and warlocks, namely) going to stack up against the classes who use weapons, and whose weapons are multiplied by their encounter powers?

Take a Fighter's encounter power, Spinning Sweep, which is +6 vs AC, 4d6 + 3 and knocks the target prone. Now compare that to the Warlock's Witchfire, which is +4 vs Ref, 2d6 + 4 damage, and causes a -4 attack penalty to the target until your next turn. Basically even...

Except for damage.

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the damage a weapon user can cause vs. the damage a non-weapon user can cause, because weapon users modify their abilities' damage based on the weapon they use. At least at the lower levels. Not sure how this is going to play out as levels ramp up.

It also looks like 2-handed weapons are still an excellent choice in the whole sword 'n board/2hander/TWF debate; no extra attack roll is required, and presumably they work with any power based off a single weapon, vs. two-weapon fighting which may only work with two-weapon Powers. Of course, we don't know everything about what shields do.

But I am concerned that this might be a trend across the leveling board, especially because the power curve is purportedly much flatter across the board. I'm excited that Fighters are getting a significant boost, but I don't want that boost at the expense of Wizards, Warlocks, and so forth.

Not trying to raise any alarm bells or anything, but I am curious what other people think about this potential trend.

 

[Sojorn]

The witchfire is going to be often more accurate against heavy armor foes. It's ranged. And the warlock will usually have another 1d6 or more stacked on top from his curse.

Additionally, prone is just combat advantage from melee until they get to act, since standing apparently doesn't provoke OAs now. I think. Might be wrong about that but it'd make sense. The -4 is a brutally large penalty and might make someone rethink using that big per encounter they're in the perfect spot for.

 

[im_robertb]

The character sheet you linked to says the fighter's power is 2d6+3. So the problem is...non-existent?

 

[Mort_Q]

Sorry, I don't have that Warlock character downloaded.

What's the range on Witchfire? Is it AoE?

 

[Blue]

Take a Fighter's encounter power, Spinning Sweep, which is +6 vs AC, 4d6 + 3 and knocks the target prone. Now compare that to the Warlock's Witchfire, which is +4 vs Ref, 2d6 + 4 damage, and causes a -4 attack penalty to the target until your next turn. Basically even...

Except for damage.

Not quite. You're forgetting a few factors.

First is that the Warlock will often get +1d6 from Warlock's Curse, so it's 3d6+Cha vs. 4d6+Str.

Second that AC is the most inflated of the defenses because it adds armor and shield. So Str vs. AC is a lot worse to hit then Cha vs. Will.

Third, witchfire is ranged 10. The fighter is using a melee weapon with base 2d6 damage - they wouldn't be doing that well with a ranged weapon. I'm assuming Spinning Sweep is 2[W]+Str, as most of the encounter powers are. That means that a ranged encounter power (to be equivilent) would be doing 2d10+Dex at most (bow, long). 3d6+Cha (avg 10.5+cha) vs. 2d10+dex (avg 11+dex) seems really comparible. The bow has more range, the curse goes after an easier defense.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[Sojorn]

Sorry, I don't have that Warlock character downloaded.

What's the range on Witchfire? Is it AoE?

One creature, 10 range.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

The character sheet you linked to says the fighter's power is 2d6+3. So the problem is...non-existent?

Aha, you're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

I think it applies to the daily powers though. Brute Strike is 6d6+3 vs. Curse of the Dark Dream, 3d8+4 and has a secondary effect which can be sustained. Not nearly as bad.

Hm. Perhaps Fighter Encounter Powers don't do 2[W]? The DDXP Fighter has Passing Attack, which only does 1[W] as well. If so, that would keep things fairly even. On the other hand, most (maybe all) other encounter powers we've seen do 2[W]. Could this be a mistake?

Edit: Also, let's take the Dragonborn Paladin's Encounter smite attack from KotSF, which does 2d8 base damage. Were he to wield a greatsword or a maul, I'm assuming that would be 4d6. So while it doesn't work out for the fighter (assuming because the Fighter's attack also knocks someone prone), it probably would for the Paladin's attacks, so the question remains.

 

[Stalker0]

Hm. Perhaps Fighter Encounter Powers don't do 2[W]? The DDXP Fighter has Passing Attack, which only does 1[W] as well. If so, that would keep things fairly even. On the other hand, most (maybe all) other encounter powers we've seen do 2[W]. Could this be a mistake?

Passing Attack does 2[W] in the sense that you can hit two targets for 1[W] each.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Martial powers tend to be 1[w] at will, 2[w] encounter, 3[w] daily at the lower levels. Eventually at some point powers do 4[w] on daily, and at wills do 2[w] at 21st level.

Arcane powers tend to be more likely to effect multiple targets, have secondary effects or inflict ongoing damage. The scaled down damage takes into account that spellcasters now get things like feats and items that let them do more damage. You'd want to use an implement whenever possible, because an implement's bonus adds to attack and damage rolls and adds more damage on critical hits.

 

[loisel]

This thread is a good catch, I think. We don't have the books but looking strictly at what we have, I'd say the warlock is getting gipped.

We only have Witchfire to go on as an encounter power, but I sense that they were thinking 2[W]=2d6. I really hope that's not the case, because other strikers might get the genuine stuff, and 2d10 (or more) is a lot better than 2d6. This becomes more important when you're level 15 or something, and half your attacks are reds and blacks.

Most encounter powers in what we know (except the large number of encounter powers that cause your opponent to shift) do 2[W], which is why I think this 2d6 is the Warlock's sucky version of 2[W].

I've been kinda wanting to play a warlock, but I guess I'll keep my mind open just in case they end up being less good strikers.

Seb