Rain of Steel: Modifiers?

[UltimaGabe]

I'd first like to say I haven't read half of the posts in this thread because they're very long, drawn-out, and seem to be an argument over semantics between two individuals.

That being said, I am playing a Fighter in my D&D group, with my focus on being very sticky and very defendery (to quote the e-vernacular) and I took Rain of Steel in a heartbeat. Here's how I rationalize it:

I've taken several feats to make enemies suffer if they try to get away from me. I've got Shield Push (to push an enemy if they try to hit an ally, or push them the opposite direction if they shift away), Heavy Blade Opportunity (to make my opportunity attacks better, thus stopping non-shift movement), Armor Specialization (to make it harder for enemies to hit me), Combat Expertise (to make all of my attacks less likely to miss), and, at a level where I had nothing else to take, Combat Reflexes (to once again make my OAs better). Long story short, enemies don't move away from me. I get free attacks, I stop movement, and though I'm not using a high-damage weapon (is a longsword high-damage?) my attack bonus is high enough that I deal consistent damage, and enemies know if they do anything to get away, I'll hit them.

So, like I said, enemies don't move away from me. That's pretty much a given. True, the DM has chosen to do this, but if he didn't, he'd have to deal with all sorts of other things (he'd possibly be taking more damage, and he'd always have to deal with the attack penalties whether he's within reach of me or not). So if the enemies are always going to move away from me, most of my abilities aren't going to get used. (I think I've used Shield Push twice. It turned the tide of battle both times, but still, I don't use it often.) I'll get an OA maybe once an adventure on average.

So aren't these feats, on some level, being wasted? I mean, sure, it's great that I'm fulfilling my role by making the enemies attack me instead of my allies, but which is better- to fulfill your role by doing relatively nothing, or fulfill your role AND aiding the battle by doing damage and/or positioning the battlefield in your favor?

Which is a better defender- one who keeps the enemies locked down, or one who keeps the enemies locked down half the time, and the other half of the time provokes them into moving (by automatic damage every round), thus locking them down when they move?

I love being a Defender.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I think keterys' point is that, why would melee enemies move away from the fighter if the damage happens at the start of their turn? The enemies aren't going to stop themselves from moving adjacent once they realize that the fighter will chase them down wherever they do end up. They're going to take the damage no matter what, because even if they move, the fighter will move to them. So, at worst, a single melee enemy will ignore the fact that the power is used, and at best multiple enemies will spread apart so multiples can't be auto-damaged at the start of their turn.

The assumption that the fighter will always pursue is erroneous.

The "3x3" zone idea isn't wrong of course, but the fact that it can moved at will means that monsters won't try to move out of it. Thus, the power is just extra damage on the top, therefore a striker power. I also agree that the same power can be used in a different context, or more how I see it, with different intention and be considered a different role-type power. If the fighter becomes the damage machine akin to a striker, there is not much incentive in bypassing the fighter to get to the other strikers, thus making him stickier in turn, so more defendery.

The monsters will try to move out of it. There are cases where the fightger won't pursue. If there are other monsters that could move into the vacated space and threated the ally, no pursuit. If the position has a tactical advantage for the ally or one of the other party memebers, the fighter won't pursue. If not all the monsters moved away, the fighter won't pursue.

Maybe every component of an ability has a role attached to it. Strikering is the damage component. Leadering is the buffing allies component. Defendering is the debuffing enemies, unless they attack the source. Controllering is debuffing enemies, sometimes with all kinds of conditions for escape attached, except for attacking the source.

"debuffing enemies, sometimes with all kinds of conditions for escape attached" sounds pretty much like the marking/combat challenge mechanic.

With this model, Rain of Steel is strictly a strikering power. If you consider the result of this power, the fighter might have some kind of battlefield control, because even if the only meta-effect of the power is that multiple enemies are moving so as to not both get hit by auto-damage, that could potentially be very useful if it means they aren't able to get combat advantage without biting the auto-damage. A Stormwarden ranger seeks, normally, just do take down the opponent with no interest in having its attacks target the Stormwarden, so he fulfills his role as the striker.

If you make up a model that fits what you want to call the power, divorce that from whether the power allows the character to perform its role, and name the classifications the same as roles, you can say that. But you caould just as well call Rain of Steel leadery. Because your made-up classification of leader powers, striker powers, defender powers, controller powers has no relation to whether one of those powers can be used to perform the roles of defender, leader, striker or controller.
[/quote]

That is certainly the case, that the assumption is the fighter is pursuing the monster, because anything else is less than optimal choice. If the monster is running permanently, then the battle is over and it doesn't matter. If the monster is baiting the fighter away from his allies, who cares? He's biting tons of OA's and possibly imm. interupts along the way. If the monster plans to ignore the fighter, then it doesn't matter where the fighter is standing, or that he is using Rain of Steel, unless it is a 5-foot wide hallway. If the monster plans to engage the fighter because it doesn't want to be punished by marking mechanics, then the extra damage of Rain of Steel has no bearing on that. Either way, the monster will take the damage from Rain of Steel.

It isn't always a less optimal choice to pursue. In some situations, it will be a better choice to stay in place. But, it isn't always the optimal choice to make things stay where they are either. Fighters have push powers for areason. Sometimes you need to encourage things to move away. Taking damage automatically at the start of each turn influences whether or not a creature stays where is is.

No need for pictures, but what is a situation that a fighter with Rain of Steel on would stay away from his foe instead of running up to his foe? Remember, the monster has already decided that the fighter -can- pursue him wherever he runs, unless he runs from the encounter entirely, so the fighter's position means nothing. With that information, the monster will choose to engage the fighter and try to take him down, or attempt to ignore and go for the allies. Either way, again, he is taking Rain of Steel damage. The only difference you make by staying next to your allies is allowing the enemy to freely use ranged attacks it might have, because it won't be marked by you, or take damage from your Rain of Steel, or take OA's.

Try this: two enemies who gain bonus damage with combat advantage flanking an ally, no special terrain, in the open. Fighter moves to S,E,W or N square adjacent to ally (the NE,NW,SW,SE corner squares don't always work). The enemies cannot sustain a flank without at least one of them taking retributive damage from Rain of Steel. Retributive damage for sustaining flank = defendery.

If the enemies move so as to still be adjacent to the ally but neither are adjacent to the fighter, they lose flanking (effectively -2 to hit and -damage equal to their bonus damage with CA) = defendery.

Now if there is nothing else on the map, the fighter might be able to keep shifting or passing forward to be adjacent to one or more of the enemies. But, there will almost always be other things on the map. The fighter may stay where he is to keep another threat at bay (perhaps even one he has locked down with combat challenge or Pinning Smash), he may need to keep an area safer for an ally that can use the position to his advantage or he may need to stay within movement range of a situation he sees developing that will require his attention in a round or two.

If the monster who only has melee attacks foolishly stays out of combat to avoid the 1[w] damage, then chalk it up to foolishness, not the result of the power. Although both would have an important role, of course.

The power forces decisions from a limited set of options, sometimes none of those options are particularly good. Sometimes, being forced to pick from two or more sub-optimal options, in the midst of combat, forces mistakes. It isn't foolishness, it's the power creating a situation in which mistakes are made. And monsters can have both melee and ranged attacks. Often, the ranged attack does less damage, and doesn't have an effect attached to it. So if the monstger is doing less damage to avoid taking damage, that's defendery.

One situation perhaps is if the party is flanked by melees, the fighter will stay put so as to not be baited away from the left side while the right side runs up to destroy a glass canon. But if melee monsters are staying out of melee just to avoid the fighter damage, their loss is assured, because they aren't doing any damage at all. So, staying put only makes sense if you're wasting the time of melee combatants who foolishly stay out of combat, effectively "stunning" them, as the effect, with no combat advantage and all that.

You're assuming the whole party is in one place. A monster moving away from a specific ally or allies that the fighter moves to defend does not equate to a monster moving out of combat.

You can use Rain of Steel simplistically to just do some more damage. But you can also use Pinning Smash to lock down a target to kill it like an avenger. The fact that the powers can be used that way doesn't make them striker powers. And choosing them doesn't make the fighter any less of a defender. You can use Rain of Steel to encourage enemies to leave or not enter an area adjacent to allies.

Rain of Steel creates situations where the monsters have to make decisions, often none of them good about whether or not to take damage or move away from the target they prefer. If the DM can't seperate that decision being forced on the monster from the decision being forced on him, and pouts, always leaving the monsters in place while complaining that the fighter is using a striker power, then yeah, Rain of Steel won't have any effect. But that isn't because the power can't be used to defend. The DM is choosing to have the monster take the retribution rather than do something the DM doesn't want it to do, even in circumstances where the better choice would be to suck it up and move.

 

[keterys]

But that isn't because the power can't be used to defend.

Actually, I agree completely with this and I don't believe I said it _can't_ be used to defend - in fact I weighed in early in favor of that. I also agree with Rain of Steel creating no-win situations where the fighter gets to really flex his abilities.

It seems odd to call a power based on _intention_, though. Rain of Steel has control functions (multiple targets, encouraging movement), as well as damaging components, in addition to any side benefits it gets as a defender. It could also be used to spread creatures out so you can flank them more easily, giving combat advantage... but I'd never argue that it was primarily a leader style power. Similarly, Blade Barrier can be used to protect your allies from enemies and to do significant damage, but I wouldn't say that it's a Leader, Defender, or Striker style of power.

But, whatever, everyone gets Rain of Steel because it's good - probably too good - and it has a decisive effect on combat whether you're trying to destroy the enemy or corral them.

Whether the two of us can see eye to eye on semantics of a made up word is vastly unimportant.

As far as the original question, what damage bonuses apply to Rain of Steel - it's a damage roll so pretty much everything (enhancement, focus, wrath of the gods, etc). Your DM should make a call on Iron Armbands of Power. I've seen them be added to close attacks and powers like Rain of Steel more commonly than not, and the character builder supports that, but I have no idea why that would be since it says melee damage rolls and not, say, damage rolls with a melee weapon.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Okay, I can see how a fighter won't always pursue a particular monster, but to waste his turn not getting in melee with something? If the fighter just stands next to his allies, he is not marking or dealing damage, and forcing enemies to use ranged weapons is more a controller deal, because they can then choose to attack whoever they want with no penalty, sans the inherent one from using a theoretically weaker ranged weapon. But really, the classification of the power is unimportant, and regardless of the elements of the power, it is still on a defender's power list.