Rain of steel - too powerful?

[Hypersmurf]

Could you explain that?

Sure.

PHB p286: The target can't be forced into an obstacle.
PHB p56: An area power creates an area of effect that hits multiple targets or creates an obstacle.

Wall of Fire, an area power, has neither Hit nor Target entries; it does not, therefore, hit multiple targets. p56 suggests, then, that Wall of Fire creates an obstacle.

And per p286, you can't force someone into an obstacle.

-Hyp.

 

[Insignia]

Wall of Fire, an area power, has neither Hit nor Target entries; it does not, therefore, hit multiple targets. p56 suggests, then, that Wall of Fire creates an obstacle.

... but since you can't enter an obstacle (as per page 284), but you can enter the wall of fire, we know for a fact that it's not an obstacle. One might also argue that "hitting multiple targets" is largely synonymous with "attacking several people".

 

[Gort]

True - the fighter can get 2[w] out of his encounter powers. That makes everyone draw about even. Additionally he can potentially hit multiple foes with rain of steel.

Your "even" statement and "can hit multiple foes" statement do not agree with each other.

The ranger and rogue are using the same number of dailies as the fighter. They also wait until the third round of combat to blow their daily: the fighter has to blow his on the first round to keep up.

Not so. In a long fight, the fighter easily outstrips both, and in a short fight he can engage multiple targets to easily outstrip both. In any case, the fighter shouldn't be doing as much damage as the much more fragile ranger and rogue, certainly not for entire encounters.

This is missing the point though - Rain of Steel is far and away more powerful than the other choices for a daily for a fighter of that level. I can't really justify not taking it from an optimisation point of view. And that's the definition of an overpowered power.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... but since you can't enter an obstacle (as per page 284), but you can enter the wall of fire, we know for a fact that it's not an obstacle.

'swhy I only said 'arguably', and not 'definitely'

One might also argue that "hitting multiple targets" is largely synonymous with "attacking several people".

"target" is a fairly rigidly defined term, though, and Wall of Fire doesn't have any. It's also debatable as to whether Wall of Fire can be described as "attacking" at all... and it becomes important for things like Divine Challenge to know the answer.

-Hyp.

 

[Insignia]

It's also debatable as to whether Wall of Fire can be described as "attacking" at all...

Depends on your interpretation of "attack power", I guess.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Depends on your interpretation of "attack power", I guess.

Right, and Wall of Fire is pretty much the poster child power for the "Attack Ambiguity".

See the Wall of Fire vs Seal of Binding debate, for example - the subject of the seal is immune to attacks, and Wall of Fire deals damage without an Attack entry. The CustServ response was therefore that Wall of Fire could deal damage to a Sealed creature, despite it being an Attack Power.

-Hyp.

 

[Insignia]

Right, and Wall of Fire is pretty much the poster child power for the "Attack Ambiguity".

Right! So to make my statement less ambiguous, one might also argue that "hitting multiple targets" is largely synonymous with "physically injuring several people". (My point in any case is that you can push people through it. If that places it in a category other than "obstacle" and "attack", I can live with it.)

 

[PeelSeel2]

No. It's exactly the same as all the other powers that say 1[W] + Str bonus, except without the Str bonus. In this case, the dwarf normally does D10+7 (+3 strength, +2 dwarven weapon proficiency, +2 magic weapon) with his 1[W] + Str bonus, and goes down to D10+4 because the only difference is the lack of Str bonus in the power.

I think it is only supposed to do 1(W) damage and no bonuses apply. The rules are real ambiguous on this point, but here is my justification:

I would tend to think that 'other bonuses' would not apply where it says just 1(w). If it had the 1(w)+(whatever), I would tend to think that all applicable bonuses apply.

p.276 PHB

DAMAGE ROLLS
✦ Roll the damage indicated in the power description. If you’re using a weapon for the attack, the damage is some multiple of your weapon damage dice.
✦ Add the ability modifier specified in the power description. Usually, this is the same ability modifier you used to determine your base attack bonus for
the attack.
In addition, any of the following factors might apply to
a damage roll:
✦ Racial or feat bonuses
✦ An enhancement bonus (usually from a magic
weapon or an implement)
✦ An item bonus
✦ A power bonus
✦ Untyped bonuses

Bold is my emphasis. This is ambiguous, but I think the intent is if bonuses apply, then all bonuses apply, if no bonuses apply, then none do, not even magic bonuses.

That is my two cents, for what it is worth.

 

[Gort]

I think it is only supposed to do 1(W) damage and no bonuses apply.

I disagree. When a ranger uses Twin Strike in your game, do you not take his magic bow into consideration? Of course you do. This is exactly the same.

 

[chitzk0i]

This is ambiguous, but I think the intent is if bonuses apply, then all bonuses apply, if no bonuses apply, then none do, not even magic bonuses.

I see no language supporting the 'all or nothing' theory. The bulleted list says, "Do A and add B to it. Also, C, D, and E could apply." There's nothing that says, "If you take out B, take out C, D, and E as well."