Rain of Blows

[Runestar]

I do not disagree with this as a general rule of thumb, but just because you get multiple attacks against a single foe does not mean that you will kill it (Rangers often fail to kill foes, even bloodied ones). Nor does it mean that a single attack against multiple foes cannot kill one or more of them either.

Wizards do this "chipping at multiple foes" all of the time and the damage seriously adds up.

I had always felt that it was not a wizard's role to deal damage, but to control the battlefield and stymie the foes so that the key damage dealers can attack relatively unmolested. It is nice that their spells also do some damage, but generally, I try not to depend on that. For example, I would never choose damage-only spells like fireball. Status-effect spells like icy terrain, stinking cloud and sleep are where their true strength lies, IMO.

The damage adds up, yes, but way too slowly, IMO. Each round you do not take down an enemy is an extra round it can contribute in battle against your party. Which may result in the expenditure of additional resources such as healing surges and restorative abilities, because while your party may be dealing more damage, they are also taking more damage as a result of the foes having more actions available to them.

While rain of blows alone may not be enough to 1-shot a foe, it should be able to still contribute a decent amount of damage, which when combined with the attacks from the rest of the other players (such as the strikers), might just be enough to push the foe over the edge. Moreso than sweeping strike.

The combined damage dealt by sweeping blow will have to massively outstrip the overall damage dealt by rain of blows for it to be considered worthwhile (IMO, by at least double). And I view this sort of scenario more an exception than the norm, in that the DM would rarely ever set up this sort of situation. At least, that was my experience with whirlwind in 3e...

As has already been illustrated in this thread, Rain of Blows does not necessarily vastly outstrip the damage that Sweeping Blow does.

In terms of total damage dealt, I agree. In terms of the quality of the damage done, I have to disagree.

I still stand by my earlier point that rain of blows generally remains vastly superior compared to sweeping blow, by virtue of it allowing you to concentrate all the damage on a single foe, rather than forcing you to spread it out evenly. Under normal circumstances, I am not going to slowly chip away at a horde of foes and attrition hp with them, because I am sure to come out for the worse (enemies' hp outstrip that of a defender's by too great a margin to make this a worthwhile venture, IMO). So I feel that it is still better to take down any one foe ASAP and prevent it from contributing to combat any further, before moving on to the 2nd target, and working on each one of them in a systematic fashion, until your party is the only one left standing.

If I am going to deal damage to it, then I should go all the way and make sure every bit counts and works towards reducing its hp to zero ASAP. Anything less is simply unacceptable, simply because as mentioned earlier, they are every bit as efficacious in combat regardless of whether they are at 1hp or full hp.

I also find it funny that there are certain powers which appear to benefit other classes more than the original class itself. For instance, I feel it odd that rain of blows seems to mesh better with a brutal scoundrel than a fighter. But I am not sure what to make of this trend...

Just my 2 cents.

 

[KarinsDad]

I still stand by my earlier point that rain of blows generally remains vastly superior compared to sweeping blow, by virtue of it allowing you to concentrate all the damage on a single foe, rather than forcing you to spread it out evenly.

I understand your POV. As a general rule, our group too tries to concentrate on foes since "a dead foe cannot counterattack" (usually).


But, for Rain of Blows to do this, the Fighter has to have a Dex of 15. Has to. If he takes Rain of Blows without the 15 Dex, then 1 encounter in 4 (50% chance to hit with 2 hits), Rain of Blows concentrates the damage like you state more than Sweeping Blow. Nearly 3 encounters in 4, Sweeping Blow concentrates the damage more because it hits more often.


For Rain of Blows to do this, the Fighter has to be using a light blade, a flail, or a spear. Has to. Or, Sweeping Blow concentrates damage more often and really is superior.


So, "vastly superior" is in the eye of the beholder. A Fighter can be designed to use a Spear. But, he will average less damage by missing another attack(s) in an encounter than if he uses a Longsword.

Great. He hit the BBEG with Rain of Blows. He missed a different foe (or foes) because the Spear is +2 to hit whereas the Longsword is +3 to hit (which means even Rain of Blows is at -1 to hit if used with a Spear compared to a Longsword).

Pros and Cons.

If he uses a Superior Weapon, he is using a Rapier instead of a Bastard Sword. So, he does an average of one less point of damage with all of his hits (including Rain of Blows) just in order to possibly get some secondary attacks in with Rain of Blows each encounter. That is the definition of balance, not the definition of vastly superior.

 

[KarinsDad]

The Weapon line is indented under the "Hit" entry; the Weapon entry is thus modifying the Hit entry, and applies once per hit, not once for the entire power.

I've come to the conclusion that the indenting means nothing.

There are no indenting rules. Just other examples where indenting appears to mean something. I do not think that one can come to rules conclusions from formatting because it is easily possible to screw up formatting.


I'm changing my mind on this power. It gets two attacks. It doesn't matter if they hit or not. It gets a third secondary attack if the weapon is a light blade, a spear, or a flail and the PC has Dex 15.

There are no other rules there. There are no "Hit: Make a secondary" rules. There are no "Attack, make a secondary" rules.

Just two attacks and a conditional secondary listed. Not only is this literal RAW, but it also balances out the power more with the other 3rd level encounter powers there and makes it less devastating. IMO.


I actually think that the intent was a primary attack and a secondary attack. Period. 2 attacks, not 3. But, that is not what is written there.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are no other rules there. There are no "Hit: Make a secondary" rules. There are no "Attack, make a secondary" rules.

So how do you evaluate Dance of Steel, Chains of Sorrow, Cage of Chains, and Skullcrusher?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

So how do you evaluate Dance of Steel, Chains of Sorrow, Cage of Chains, and Skullcrusher?

Good question. I'll concede this as per RAW. I'm not as convinced as per RAI. I wonder if there is an error there somewhere.

 

[Arbitrary]

In hindsight I think it would have been far easier to just write out in a little paragraph what each power did instead of using a bunch of shorthand with text layout that is itself a component of how the power works and keywords.

Less so far hasn't been more in this wonky rules confusions.

 

[Runestar]

In hindsight I think it would have been far easier to just write out in a little paragraph what each power did instead of using a bunch of shorthand with text layout that is itself a component of how the power works and keywords.

Less so far hasn't been more in this wonky rules confusions.

Presenting a power in a bullet-point format is not necessarily a bad idea, if wotc could prove more consistent with the way they classified the manner in which powers are worded. It could theoretically do away with tricky wording issues, though here, it just seems to exacerbate them.