Ray of Frost

[Falling Icicle]

As far as the character sheets are concerned, I checked the character sheet PDF linked in the compiled thread. It clearly lists RoF, an At-Will Wizard Power, under Encounter Powers for Tira, the Warlock. What I was saying is that because Tira has it as an Encounter Power, not an At-Will Power, it cannot be a basic attack. It very well might be allowed for a Wizard.

Very strange. The one I downloaded and printed before has it listed under at-will powers, but you're right, the pdf now shows it listed under encounter, yet it still has the at-will keyword. Hmmm.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Ahhh, glad we were able to clear that up. Most likely, the one you have was compiled before people had 'figured out' how it was popping up on another class's sheet.

Of course, this could all be some kind of printing error on WotC's part. We could know quite soon on that note, since the multiclassing page should be going up then.

 

[Rechan]

The problem with RoF is that it's vs. fort. The only people you need to slow down are brutes/eskirmishers, who probably have decent fort.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The downloadable pdfs from Wizards were updated with corrections a few days after DDXP. Among things changed were explanations for the implements, the ranger's Careful Shot damage, and Tira's Ray of Frost to name a few off the top of my head.

 

[Spatula]

As for its secondary slowing effect, ROF is already balanced with MM because it does less damage.

The lower damage isn't the point. To-date, all "basic attacks" that we've seen have done damage only, with no side effects. I would imagine that it makes combat smoother that way, as you don't have to deal with suddenly applying status effects to someone in the middle of their turn. It also makes it impossible to take someone's turn away while they're in the process of using it ("I move past the wizard" "He hits you with super-blammo-stun spell as his OA, your turn is over"), outside of dealing enough hp damage to drop them.

Odd, my Warlock sheet clearly shows it as an at-will power, as does the Pre-Release Rules Compendium.

That was the original version. WotC put out errata'd char sheets a little while after the DDXP. Ray of Frost was made an encounter power for the warlock, the ranger's Careful Aim power lost +4 damage, all the casters had the text on implements re-worked, and probably some other changes too.

 

[frankthedm]

As for its secondary slowing effect, ROF is already balanced with MM because it does less damage.

That may not necessarily be true. A status effect impacts the victim a good deal, mopre than just a few points of damage. The reduced damage is a part of balancing act, another part may very well be is that you will only get the chance to slow one foe per round, even with abilities like the warlord that will grant extra attacks.

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

Being a basic attack means you can use it as an opportunity attack and in conjunction with various powers, those that say things like "move 2 squares and make a basic attack" or "make a basic attack, if you hit push the target 1 square" etc.

 

[small pumpkin man]

The downloadable pdfs from Wizards were updated with corrections a few days after DDXP. Among things changed were explanations for the implements, the ranger's Careful Shot damage, and Tira's Ray of Frost to name a few off the top of my head.

Btw, do people have those? I forgot to save the updated ones, and I can't find them on teh Wizards site any more.

 

[FadedC]

The difference in damage between the 2 spells is likely to be extremely negligable once you've gianed a few levels. With say a 22 int and a +4 wand your looking at an average of 15 for MM vs. 13.5 for ray of frost. Probably there will be other bonuses too. So I don't think anyone would take MM just for the damage.

The range on the other hand is more significant.

 

[Graf]

The problem with RoF is that it's vs. fort. The only people you need to slow down are brutes/eskirmishers, who probably have decent fort.

This is not true. Everyone moves in 4e and has good zones and bad zones. Slowing someone and keeping them in their bad zone is the advantage.

Tying down a brute at range is good but it's not so meaningful if they've already snarled up your front line (i.e. in later rounds of a fight).

Hitting a striker/controller/artillery and slowing them so your strikers can maul them is perfectly viable and something you almost always want to do. (brutes/soldiers don't want to move all the time -- if a fighter is in base to base with 2-3 of your guys they almost certainly want to stay still).

If you slow up their back line you can either pull back and get out of their range (and possibly force the brutes to pull back as well) or press the advantage and have a much better chance of getting into melee or cutting off their retreat.
I don't think being vs. fort "gimps" the power particularly.