Rain of steel - too powerful?

[PeelSeel2]

So, how much damage would Furious Smash do for my Dragonborn Warlord 16 with Strength 20, a +4 Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus (Heavy Blades)?

I think the key is that each of these effects note that they apply to weapon damage rolls. If you roll for damage, they apply.

Furious smash is pretty explicit in that it is only str modifier damage, so 5 points. It has nothing do with weapon damage.
p.145
Hit: Deal damage equal to your Strength modifier, and then
choose one ally adjacent to either you or the target.

 

[PeelSeel2]

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.

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."

You are right.
p.57
Some powers add modifiers to attack rolls or damage rolls. These modifiers apply to any roll of the dice.

Rain of steel is a good power. I do not think it is overpowered, however.

 

[mrpiercejg]

Rain of Steel only does 1w damage, and weapon prof bonus only applies to attacks, not damage. Geez...

 

[inati]

If the fighter uses this power and the mobs scatter from him, the other players need to take advantage of this. Use the fighter as the fulcrum of the battle, take advantage of the fact that you can move through the fighter's square freely, and make the enemies decide if they want to move through the fighter's threat range where they will get hit by the Combat Superiority feature, get stopped in their tracks and then get smacked for 1[W] on their next turn. This is where Rain of Steel really shines.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Rain of Steel only does 1w damage, and weapon prof bonus only applies to attacks, not damage. Geez...

I don't think anyone's advocating adding proficiency bonus to damage; we're discussing adding enhancement bonus to damage rolls.

Rain of Steel deals 1[W] damage, but as a damage roll, it gets certain bonuses added to it. Including enhancement bonus, and the feat bonus from Weapon Focus.

-Hyp.

 

[Gort]

I get the feeling this discussion would be more worthwhile if anyone actually knew the rules

PS: Besides Hypersmurf, crusader for truth and justice.

 

[Stalker0]

Is the power too good for a fighter 5th daily? I don't know.

But I think its a heck of a lot better than the other fighter 5th level dailies by a long shot.

 

[Goblyn]

The enhancement bonus is not part of 2[W], true.

But 2[W] is a damage roll.

"A magic weapon adds an enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls, so a +3 flameburst longbow adds +3 to all attack rolls and damage rolls made with the bow."

All damage rolls made with the bow.

If you have a power that deals 2[W], and you're using a +3 flameburst longbow, then when you make the damage roll with that weapon (2[W]), you add the enhancement bonus to it.

Weapon Focus? "You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with your chosen weapon group."

2[W] is a damage roll. If you're making that damage roll with the right weapon, add a +1 feat bonus to what you roll on 2[W].

-Hyp.

I'm sorry I must have worded my reply badly because it doesn't seem as if we've a disagreement here.

The issue as I saw it was that with the 2[w] roll, those damage bonuses are not doubled up as per raw according to the example. They are added to the 2[w] roll the same as they are added to a 1[w] roll.

Edit: Whoa; my bad. I had thought the issue was between a single 1[w]+ mods attack and a single 2[w]+ mods attack. But yeah, two separate attacks, by all means add that stuff to each one.

 

[jadrax]

Is the power too good for a fighter 5th daily? I don't know.

One downside that I can see which is not being discussed, is that compared to the other two is that it is a stance, however there are so few stances that this is not currently a big limitation.

Apart from that I think it comes down to if your Group needs more Control or more Damage.

 

[tomBitonti]

Minor language quibble

This is poorly worded (and, I am working on the text as presented, so this is my best fit):

PHB p56: An area power creates an area of effect that hits multiple targets or creates an obstacle.

I would imagine there are cases where "hits multiple targets" resolves to just one target (or none!)

Otherwise, you get a strange ambiguity:

XXX creates a line effect that attacks all enemies in a line six squares long.

If there is one (or no) target in the area of effect, the effect is an obstacle.

If there are at least two targets in the area of effect, the effect is ... actually, I don't know. The effect could be either just effecting multiple targets (and not creating an obstacle), or could be effecting multiple targets AND creating an obstacle.

I think what that works down to is that the rule tells how to determine whether or not an effect is an area effect, not a rule saying what an area effect must do. That is, IF an effect targets multiple enemies OR the effect creates an obstacle THEN it is an area effect.

Or, if the text is prescriptive, then it is very badly worded, as it provides no logic to tell which of the two cases is to apply.