Ranger's Careful Attack house rule...

[breschau]

Looking over all the info leaked from the con, I can't imagine that the ranger's Careful Attack power will stay as it appears on the sheet. The name implies a delay, the description implies delay ("you study the enemy, looking over his defenses"), I can't justify letting a character have a +4 to hit from an at-will power (essentially gaining it infinitely). This is an aimed attack pure and simple. The action should not be standard. It should take longer to "study the enemy" than a standard action. I will likely house rule this to be a full-round action (no minor, or move actions in the same round); or at least no move action in the same round. I know we are months away from the full release and things may change, but as it stands, Careful Attack is just too much.

What do you think?

Disagreement and discussion welcome. Flames are not.

 

[Ebon Shar]

You have a point. It does seem a bit overpowered and open to abuse. Your rule makes sense. However, I'm willing to wait to see how it plays out in game a bit before jumping on the houserule bandwagon. Nevertheless, your solution is an elegant one.

 

[Amy Kou'ai]

I think that would make Careful Attack not worth taking in your game. I wouldn't take it, anyway.

 

[Kordeth]

I believe it was WotC's own Rodney Thompson who said the math appeared to be done incorrectly on the careful strike ability, and that there is a drawback. Probably another case of the large lead-time needed to gin up convention material, in the same vein as the paladin's divine challenge.

 

[Benimoto]

One thing I noticed is that this is probably the power that was changed from "roll two dice" to "+4 to hit" that was mentioned in an earlier developer blog.

The power seemed strong, but generally okay to me. The ranger's a striker, so hitting the enemy is all he does. So, having a good power that allows the ranger to hit the enemy is pretty important. It's unlimited, but you can only use it when a) you're acting, and b) you're not using another power.

I would worry that introducing restrictions on it would only serve to make the ranger's other powers more appealing, and then one of them would start to look broken instead, until all the ranger's powers were nerfed.

 

[breschau]

I believe it was WotC's own Rodney Thompson who said the math appeared to be done incorrectly on the careful strike ability, and that there is a drawback. Probably another case of the large lead-time needed to gin up convention material, in the same vein as the paladin's divine challenge.

Really, that's cool. Could you link please?

 

[small pumpkin man]

I think you should stop worrying about houseruling things for a game you've never played. Against many enemies it's no more powerful than the rogue's ability to target reflex instead of AC (sometimes less powerful) which had been described by Mouseferatu IIRC as "(one of) the power(s) he'd used the least", not to mention the fact that even though it's "at will", you don't actually get it on every attack, you get it on most attacks on your turn, as long as your other powers aren't a better option.

 

[Kordeth]

Really, that's cool. Could you link please?

Nope. Sorry, I've probably read about 150 4E threads in the last few days and I honestly have no recollection of which thread I saw that in. I do remember it was one of the WotC crew and I'm pretty sure it was Rodney, but that's all I recall.

 

[themilkman]

From my experience, it isn't really that overpowered in play. Maybe a nerf of 1 or 2 on the to-hit, but anything more than that would make it pointless.

 

[Voss]

Its pretty much +4 to compete with the fact that the other strikers are going after the defenses rather than AC. Sometimes the math works out better in favor of one or the other.

Without careful shot, the sample ranger is pretty poor. The daily is fairly low damage, but useful for spreading some damage to multiple targets, and his other powers are pretty much only for getting out of melee unscathed. Careful shot is really his bread and butter.

 

[Cyronax]

Its pretty much +4 to compete with the fact that the other strikers are going after the defenses rather than AC. Sometimes the math works out better in favor of one or the other.

Without careful shot, the sample ranger is pretty poor. The daily is fairly low damage, but useful for spreading some damage to multiple targets, and his other powers are pretty much only for getting out of melee unscathed. Careful shot is really his bread and butter.

I played the ranger a lot at the con and saw it in others hands as well. Careful Strike did not appear to be that overpowered. It was in fact the ranger's best attack, and the ranger (if cornered) tended to be dropped a lot.

I think Careful Strike will stay as is.

The problem character in the DDXP was (as everyone knows) the paladin. The others seemed balanced against one another in terms of 1st level power ..... and its up to you to decide if that is a good thing.

BTW, while waiting in line for Delves, I ended up playing a few character vs. character duels with my friends.

The class the consistently survived those encounters was the cleric. Cleric still remains the most poweful class IMO. But its less overbearing than it was in 3.5.

C.I.D.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I played the ranger on one of the 5 hour scenarios. It seemed a bit overpowered to me too, mostly because of the combination of it and Hunter's Quarry. I think I would have done it as a move action that gave a flat bonus to hit. Especially given the changes to cover rules and firing through friendlies, I didn't have to move around much at all, so it would still see a lot of use. As it was, it was an every round event; I never even looked to see what my normal attack was.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

As it was, it was an every round event; I never even looked to see what my normal attack was.

Not to discount the rest of your post, but it's worth noting that the above, at least, is exactly what's intended. From what the developers have said, the at-will powers are supposed to replace your normal attack pretty much any time you're not using an encounter or daily power.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Nope. Sorry, I've probably read about 150 4E threads in the last few days and I honestly have no recollection of which thread I saw that in. I do remember it was one of the WotC crew and I'm pretty sure it was Rodney, but that's all I recall.

FWIW, I remember seeing it too.

 

[breschau]

Its pretty much +4 to compete with the fact that the other strikers are going after the defenses rather than AC. Sometimes the math works out better in favor of one or the other.

Without careful shot, the sample ranger is pretty poor. The daily is fairly low damage, but useful for spreading some damage to multiple targets, and his other powers are pretty much only for getting out of melee unscathed. Careful shot is really his bread and butter.

Exactly. That's the trouble. With the other powers of the ranger being situational, they will always default to using Careful Attack, much like the wizard's default attack is going to be Magic Missile. Notice though that the devs changed MM from auto-hit to a roll. Because auto-hit at-will is too powerful, even if it's for little damage. Considering the AC of the leaked monsters, this gives the ranger essentially an auto-hit (80%+) at-will, unless dealing with monsters several levels above the sample character.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Exactly. That's the trouble. With the other powers of the ranger being situational, they will always default to using Careful Attack, much like the wizard's default attack is going to be Magic Missile. Notice though that the devs changed MM from auto-hit to a roll. Because auto-hit at-will is too powerful, even if it's for little damage. Considering the AC of the leaked monsters, this gives the ranger essentially an auto-hit (80%+) at-will, unless dealing with monsters several levels above the sample character.

Autohit at will is only overpowered because it doesn't scale properly. +4 to hit merely moves you up the scale, as you said, the Dragon wasn't being "auto-hit" by the ranger at all. These are not equivalent.

 

[Sphyre]

What do you think?

Not that I'd pre-houserule a game that I haven't played yet, but if I determined that I needed to houserule it someway to make it make sense, I would take out the minus bonus to hit and then add a line "If you are attacking your quarry, then you gain +4 to hit."

 

[jaer]

Not that I can comment on the balance issue of the ability, but it seems that your biggest issue is the name and flavor. That "careful" requires too much time (as flavor) more than +4 is too much (which is something difficult to determine even at this point).

I'd be more likely to call it something different and change the fluff (call it "percise shot" which simply implies accuracy not time-taking care). But that will be more likely to confuse players then fix anything.

I just don't see the point of house-ruling back in full-round actions to appease the fluff of one class's first level ability after the developers went through the trouble of making sure it wasn't in the new edition!

If you find a lot of powers are infringing on this and feel a distinction NEEDS to be made due to actual power of the attacks, then it is a good fix. But as a band-aid to help you get your mind around the idea of "care shot" not taking more time than a regular attack...bringing back in full round actions seems heavy-handed and biased against one class.

 

[Khaim]

I think I would have done it as a move action that gave a flat bonus to hit.

That would be broken to hell and back. The whole point of making it a power is that it takes your standard action, which means you're not doing anything else. Adding +4 to hit onto real powers, especially ones with attached status effects (and we haven't seen any of those, eh?) would be crazy.

Personally, I thought up something like this for the 4e ranger a while back. It didn't seem broken then and it certainly doesn't now.