Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mad Hamish" data-source="post: 4663561" data-attributes="member: 25321">Twin strike is (as has been shown multiple times) more likely to hit a monster unless you need an unmodified 19-21 to hit. So the ranger ability to hit at +2 is still less useful than it to make sure of finishing off a monster. _Maybe_ it'd make sense for the fighter in that particular case but you only have 2 at wills for a non-human and taking one which you'll only ever want to use when you're looking to finish a nearly dead monster off is a complete waste.No it hasn't, at least not for the ranger ability.It might have made people think it was useful and try to use it but that's not the same thing.Nor does it do enough for a fighter to make it an attractive pick IMO (although I have to admit that I don't really recall what the other fighter at wills are)Certainly I'd take the one that does damage on a miss and cleave ahead of it as a great weapon fighter and probably Tide of Iron and Cleave ahead of it as a sword and board.It doesn't matter what descriptions you give a ranger is more likely to hit an enemy with twin strike than careful strike unless you need a raw 19-21 to hit it.Nor does a corner case give you enough reason to pick it as a fighter. Nor is there anything that requires using Careful Strike or Sure Strike in order to be telling a fantasy story.and, for what it's worth, I suspect that members of The Black Company, the Bridgeburners or those on the Chain of Dogs would be looking for the best way to win fights they're in quickly.Of course you might you want to argue that Cook and Erikson aren't telling fantasy stories.</blockquote>

Verification