D&D 4E The Quest to use the Half-Elf's Dilettante (4e spoilers)

[Kraydak]

And why is that may I ask? The ability to add a whopping +2 to attack at will seems rather significant, especially in a version of dnd where according to someone who mentioned this in another thread, Weapon Focus does +1 damage instead of giving +1 to attack.

Oh and btw while we are on the subject, is there an equivalent of the weapon specialization feat? I know fighters get comabt dominance and choose 2H or SnB, but what about good ol' weapon spec? Is it still a feat?

For a long-bow ranger with reasonable feats and gear, Careful Attack is better than Twin Attacks ONLY if you need to roll a natural 21 to hit. Possibly a 22. If you only have minion targets, add 20. For rogues picking up the abilities, the numbers are probably a bit better, maybe 20-21-22. If you need those kind of numbers, you should already be booking it. Note that if you go above 22, Twin Attacks is, again, always better.

I also feel the need to reiterate the fact that Eyebite blows for rogues. Invis (against 1 person only), lasting until *the beginning* of your next turn, only gives you better AoO-free mobility. Guess what rogues already have?

 

[Dormain1]

I created a Paladin Half-elf

with Dire Radiance Dilettante which will mesh well if you want creature to stay away from you

add multiclass warrior of the wild (hunters quarry)

and it looks like he will be quite effective at getting the attention of whoever he challenges

remember you are able to get all three off in 1rd at one target if you choose not to move for a nice 2d6+con, if they move towards you another d6+con and if they attack someone else 3+chr

as a first level character haveing 2/3/1/0 powers looks pretty good to me

starting stats but you could easily swap dex and wis if you wanted a better AC (with plate and hvy shield I got 20)
str 14
con 16
dex 12
int 8
wis 14
chr 16

with the half elf getting a extra encounter* and a human getting a extra @will*, these races really stand out for me (*your choice)

 

[mneme]

Careful Attack vs Twin Attack

I think this is obvous, but it's fun working out the math; Kaydrak is right; under nearly all circumstances, Careful Attack is strictly worse than Twin Attack (exception: melee, when you've got a shield).

Look at the numbers:

ph: probability of hitting with a basic attack.

P(hit): Careful Attack: ph+10% (unless you need > 20 to hit, in which case it's worse).
Twin Attack: ph*2-ph = 2ph-ph**2 (chance of 1 hit) + (ph**2) (chance of two hits; something that's much better for a ranger than a rogue, of course, as the second hit doesn't count as much for the rogue).

So unless 10% is greater than your chance to hit (ie, you need a 20), Twin Attack is better (FWIW, if you need to roll exactly a 20, CA -is- better; it triples your chance of a hit, which is much better than the chance of rolling two crits (or one crit) with TA. And yeah, if you need a 21, CA is still better; it means you still have double the chance to hit, but also crit on a 20, so triple "damage". It's dodgier for a 22 to hit, as going from "hit on a 20" to "crit on a 20" is often not as good as two chances to hit, but not crit on a 20.). Any attack roll above 22, TA is clearly better as it increases your chance to hit where CA doesn't; any attack roll below 19, and TA is clearly better, as it increases your chance to hit -once- more than the 10% that CA gives you. [this doesn't take into account rerolls, but since those are usually encounter powers; not a big deal]. So, for instance, if you need a 15 to hit, with TA, chance to hit at least once is 12/20-36/400, or 51%, with a 9% chance of hitting twice (and better chance of critting, too; 9.75%, with a .25% chance of a double-crit). with CA, chance to hit is 40%, and you've still only got a 5% chance to crit. So in this not-unlikely example, Twin Attack is well over twice as good as Careful Attack is. (yay! Math!)

 

[mattdm]

yay math

So, what's the number that makes it equal? +3? +4?

Sounds to me like this should be proposed for the errata, since, like you say, it seems like pretty indisputable math.

 

[Kraydak]

I think this is obvous, but it's fun working out the math; Kaydrak is right; under nearly all circumstances, Careful Attack is strictly worse than Twin Attack (exception: melee, when you've got a shield).

Look at the numbers:

ph: probability of hitting with a basic attack.

P(hit): Careful Attack: ph+10% (unless you need > 20 to hit, in which case it's worse).
Twin Attack: ph*2-ph = 2ph-ph**2 (chance of 1 hit) + (ph**2) (chance of two hits; something that's much better for a ranger than a rogue, of course, as the second hit doesn't count as much for the rogue).

So unless 10% is greater than your chance to hit (ie, you need a 20), Twin Attack is better (FWIW, if you need to roll exactly a 20, CA -is- better; it triples your chance of a hit, which is much better than the chance of rolling two crits (or one crit) with TA. And yeah, if you need a 21, CA is still better; it means you still have double the chance to hit, but also crit on a 20, so triple "damage". It's dodgier for a 22 to hit, as going from "hit on a 20" to "crit on a 20" is often not as good as two chances to hit, but not crit on a 20.). Any attack roll above 22, TA is clearly better as it increases your chance to hit where CA doesn't; any attack roll below 19, and TA is clearly better, as it increases your chance to hit -once- more than the 10% that CA gives you. [this doesn't take into account rerolls, but since those are usually encounter powers; not a big deal]. So, for instance, if you need a 15 to hit, with TA, chance to hit at least once is 12/20-36/400, or 51%, with a 9% chance of hitting twice (and better chance of critting, too; 9.75%, with a .25% chance of a double-crit). with CA, chance to hit is 40%, and you've still only got a 5% chance to crit. So in this not-unlikely example, Twin Attack is well over twice as good as Careful Attack is. (yay! Math!)

When considering needing 20s to hit w/o Careful Attack, you forgot to consider critical hits (TA->2/20 hits per round, all crits, CA=3/20 hits/round, only 1/3 crits). This puts TA above CA for long-bow builds needing a 20 exactly to hit with TA, once they get +2 weapons. You also need to consider 1/round damage (even if TA lands 2 hits in a round, it can only use HQ once).

For longbow rangers, with weapon focus, devastating crit (once 11th), lethal hunter and level appropriate magic bows (at d6 on crit/+), TA wins for both needed 19s and 20s, and loses for needing 21s. In general I think TA wins for 22s, but CA might be able to edge it out, especially with vicious weaponry. I didn't bother to run those numbers.

 

[Mengu]

The problem is not that Careful attack is bad. The problem is Twin Attack is a bit too good (like +4 careful attack was a bit too good). Twin Attack could sure use some sort of penalty.

Currently, if your chance to hit is between 11% and 89% (not taking into account crit hits and misses), Twin Attack increases your chances to hit more effectively.

Assume twin attack has a -2 penalty. Now, if your chance to hit is between 38% and 82%, Twin Attack will increase your chance to hit. Which means if you need a 14 or higher, taking one attack that needs a 12 is slightly higher probability to hit than taking 2 attacks that need 16.

I think a -2 attack with twin strike will bring the powers closer together.

 

[Kraydak]

So, what's the number that makes it equal? +3? +4?

Sounds to me like this should be proposed for the errata, since, like you say, it seems like pretty indisputable math.

At +5 it might be worth picking up as an anti-high-AC-boss ability. Maybe.

 

[dasheiff]

Half-Elf Dilettante choices by stat.


Str: Fighter/Paladin, Cleric/Warlord, Ranger/Rogue
Dex: Ranger/Rogue
Con: Warlock
Int: Wizard
Wis: Cleric
Chr: Paladin, Warlock

Any: Warlord

Here is how I would go about it. Take your highest stat, remove
the classes in your role. Consider the ones left, if none, move to
your next highest stat.

A Chr based Paladin, probally wants to look over Warlock first.
A Cleric is probally going to look at Fighter/Paladin or Ranger/Rogue
depending on if he wants to go more striker or defender.

 

[mattdm]

Assume twin attack has a -2 penalty. Now, if your chance to hit is between 38% and 82%, Twin Attack will increase your chance to hit. Which means if you need a 14 or higher, taking one attack that needs a 12 is slightly higher probability to hit than taking 2 attacks that need 16.

I think a -2 attack with twin strike will bring the powers closer together.

Since that's the state of things in 3.5, surely they must have considered that and intentionally dropped the penalty. I wonder what the process that went into that was.

 

[Mengu]

Since that's the state of things in 3.5, surely they must have considered that and intentionally dropped the penalty. I wonder what the process that went into that was.

My guess is they did the math when they gave +4 to Careful attack, as it was meaningfully in line with Twin Attack. When they scaled Careful attack down after playtests, they didn't rethink Twin Attack.