# Grading At-Will Powers



## keterys

This exercise was primarily focused on establishing guidelines for power design. It generated some interesting debate and is probably useful for DMs and players alike for comparing powers. While this post deals with at-wills, you may be interested in the daily or encounter powers here.

All powers are graded assuming they are used effectively - if a power requires a second person in melee to work, don't take it in a party with no other melee. In many cases you'll find that personal preference varies from these grades - while a power may be extraordinary in theory or combined with the right build or party, take the power that is most fun for you!

Grades 
A - Excellent. This power brings something special to the table in terms of tactical ability or damage output. It may be too powerful, especially in the hands of the wrong class. 
B - Good. This is a solid power. Most powers should fall into this grade.
C - Okay. This power is certainly adequate but pales somewhat in comparison to other powers.
D - Poor. This power is certainly usable (and may even excel in certain rare situations), but is definitely lacking compared to other options. 
F - Compares extremely poorly to other powers and should likely be improved or ignored.

A+ powers in particular are at a dangerous balance level. If designing a new power and it is on par, or better, than an A+, most likely you should go back to the drawing board and tweak some things.

B- is what I considered the baseline for comparison of powers. A bit worse and it's in the C territory, but a fair amount of distance to get into the A range.

*CLERIC*
B+ / Lance of Faith
C- / Priest's Shield
A+ / Righteous Brand
A- / Sacred Flame

*FIGHTER*
B- / Cleave
B- / Reaping Strike
F / Sure Strike (could be worked into a build that lets you use at-wills for OAs or purely as a minion killing maneuver)
B / Tide of Iron

*PALADIN*
B- / Bolstering Strike
B / Enfeebling Strike
B+ / Holy Strike
B / Valiant Strike

*RANGER*
F / Careful Strike
C- / Hit and Run
B / Nimble Strike
A+ / Twin Strike

*ROGUE*
B- / Deft Strike 
B+ / Piercing Strike
B- / Riposte Strike
B- / Sly Flourish

*WARLOCK*
B+ / Dire Radiance
B- / Eldritch Blast
B+ / Eyebite
B+ / Hellish Rebuke

*WARLORD*
B- / Commander's Strike
B+ / Furious Smash
B- / Viper's Strike
B / Wolf Pack Tactics

*WIZARD*
B+ / Cloud of Daggers
B- / Magic Missile
B- / Ray of Frost
A / Scorching Burst
A / Thunderwave
B / Illusionary Ambush


----------



## Puggins

Great thread!

My comments on the wizard dailies, which are the ones I'm most familiar with:

* Cloud of Daggers (you: 7, Me: 6) Good spell for control wizards- you'll get a fairly reasonable hit, and you create an obstacle.  Perfectly viable, just not spectacular.

* Magic Missile (you: 6, Me: 4) Sorry, the "basic missile attack" property on this one isn't enough of a perk to save this one.  It's the clunker of the lot.

* Ray of Frost (you: 6, Me: 7) I like ray of frost quite a bit.  Slowing an opponent prevents a melee attack from him a nice chunk of the time.  Lots of tactical possibilities.  Perfect to prevent someone from fleeing.

* Scorching Burst (you: 8, Me: 9) This is the winner of the bunch, as far as I'm concerned.  At-will minion-clearing combined with comparable damage to the other at-wills.  Awesome.

* Thunderwave (you: 9, Me: 7)  Very good spell- one that I'll experiment with, I'm sure.  But there are a couple of warning lights here: it's a close burst, which makes it an CYA power more than anything else (not that there's anything wrong with that);  It's also an attack versus fortitude, which isn't optimal against brutes, who tend to have low reflex but high fortitude saves.  Several that I've seen have forts higher than their AC.  Since this is the class you'd most want to push away, I wouldn't call this ideal.

* Illusionary Foes (You: 7, Me: 7) It's the wizard's only will attack in at-will powers.  That alone gives it a nudge.  The -2 attacks is nice to help out your front line.  I think it's a notch below ray of frost, but barely so, and the two spells occupy different niches anyway.


----------



## Falling Icicle

Puggins said:


> * Magic Missile (you: 6, Me: 4) Sorry, the "basic missile attack" property on this one isn't enough of a perk to save this one.  It's the clunker of the lot.




I disagree with you about Magic Missile. The most important advantage it has is not the ability to be used as a ranged basic attack, but rather its 20 square range. That's double the range of all the other wizard ranged at-wills! It's also 2nd highest in damage potential (exceeded only by cloud of daggers if one has a really good Wisdom). My Wizard picked Magic Missile and Scorching Burst and has never looked back. We've only been playing a couple weeaks and that 20 square range has been useful several times already.


----------



## Pickles JG

Twin strike is an 11


----------



## Falling Icicle

Pickles JG said:


> Twin strike is an 11




Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...


----------



## Minigiant

I disagree with the wizard at wills

3/ Cloud of Daggers (it's a decent obstacle but very situational)
4/ Magic Missile (Ranged 20 is overrated. You'll eventually have to move up for the other powers)
10/ Ray of Frost (At will spammable slow? Mr. Brute ain't doing diddly 'til turn 4)
7/ Scorching Burst (AOE damage for minions and spamming)
9 / Thunderwave (Push everyone in the same direction and AOE)
7 / Illusionary Foes (Only vs Will and actually does something to artilleries)

Careful Strike is a 1. Twin Strike is a 9.


----------



## Pickles JG

I think that Piercing Strike & Sly Flourish are both good too - extra to hit sometimes & extra damage (in that build). 

I think Furious Smash & Commanders Strike are both rather poor. Warlords are really strength dependent & if you rely on giving allies extra attacks it implies theirs are better than yours which implies yours are pretty terrible - which has implications for all of your other powers.   The odd Commanders Strike for a rogue/ranger that has not sneak attacked would be an exception, so better for humans who can carry a sitiational power. Mind you they are all situational.

I think you are right for fighters & I have no feel for the others at all (must play more)



Falling Icicle said:


> Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...




It's the most damaging at will there is once you factor in quarry. 

Longbow basic attack does d10+5
Longbow twin strike does 2d10 but you have twice the chance of getting your quarry bonus. (or at 50% hit rate actually 25% more - it's less good against really easy targets.)

It doubles the benefits from all damage buffs that are not attrribute modifiers.

It will kill precisely twice as many minions as any at will except Cleave & the wizard ones.


----------



## DemonLord57

Falling Icicle said:


> Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...



You are dismissing all of the other bonuses to damage rolls. This is not a good idea, as it can be (and likely will be) extremely significant.

As for my evaluations:
*Cleric*
Lance of Faith - 6
Priest's Shield - 5
Righteous Brand - 10
Sacred Flame - 9

*Fighter*
Cleave - 4
Reaping Strike - 4
Sure Strike - 2
Tide of Iron - 6

*Paladin*
Bolstering Strike - 7
Enfeebling Strike - 7
Holy Strike - 4
Valiant Strike - 5

*Ranger*
Careful Strike - 1 (they have Twin Strike, Fighters do not)
Hit and Run - 6
Nimble Strike - 7
Twin Strike - 9

*Rogue*Deft Strike - 5
Piercing Strike - 5
Riposte Strike - 4
Sly Flourish - 4

*Warlock*
Dire Radiance- 4
Eldritch Blast - 5
Eyebite - 5
Hellish Rebuke - 4

*Warlord*
Commander's Strike - 6
Furious Smash - 8
Viper's Strike - 7
Wolf Pack Tactics - 7

*Wizard*
Cloud of Daggers - 3
Magic Missile - 3
Ray of Frost - 5
Scorching Burst - 7
Thunderwave - 8
Illusory Ambush - 7


----------



## Mengu

You have them mostly in the same ballpark I would grade them in. The ones I somewhat disagree with:

Score / Power
*CLERIC*
6 / Lance of Faith - should be a 7, as good as Sacred Flame, frequently better.
10 / Righteous Brand - should be a 9, not quite the best at-will.
*FIGHTER*
6 / Reaping Strike - should be 7 or 8, since it results in very high expected damage values.
*PALADIN*
6 / Valiant Strike - should be higher than Holy Strike, 7 is good
*RANGER*
8 / Twin Strike - if any at-will deserves a 10, this is it.
*ROGUE*
5 / Deft Strike - at least a 6, if not a 7. Being able to combine extra movement with a move action is fantastic.
6 / Piercing Strike - at least a 7, if not an 8. No other at-will targeting reflex gains weapon proficiency bonuses.
6 / Riposte Strike - should probably be a 7, extra attacks aren't easy to come by.
*WARLOCK*
6 / Dire Radiance - should be a 7, it puts an enemy between a rock and a hard place.
*WIZARD*
6 / Ray of Frost - should be a 5, slow very situationally comes into play.
9 / Thunderwave - should be lower, maybe 7, Close blasts are scary for the wizard, Scorching Burst is much more convenient to use.


----------



## bganon

I just want to second that Piercing Strike is very good.  A 1st-level rogue can fairly easily get a +8 vs *Ref* attack with this (18 Dex, use a dagger), which is pretty amazing.


----------



## Stalker0

bganon said:


> I just want to second that Piercing Strike is very good.  A 1st-level rogue can fairly easily get a +8 vs *Ref* attack with this (18 Dex, use a dagger), which is pretty amazing.




Yep, piercing strike with a rogue's attack bonus is almost an autohit in many cases, I think its actually one of the best at-wills in the game.


----------



## KarinsDad

Minigiant said:


> 3/ Cloud of Daggers (it's a decent obstacle but very situational)
> 4/ Magic Missile (Ranged 20 is overrated. You'll eventually have to move up for the other powers)
> 10/ Ray of Frost (At will spammable slow? Mr. Brute ain't doing diddly 'til turn 4)
> 7/ Scorching Burst (AOE damage for minions and spamming)
> 9 / Thunderwave (Push everyone in the same direction and AOE)
> 7 / Illusionary Foes (Only vs Will and actually does something to artilleries)




Ray of Frost is not anywhere near as useful as you indicate.

Cloud of Daggers has many uses:

1) It often averages the most single target At Will damage.
2) It typically kills a minion, even if the Wizard misses.
3) It typically damages an opponent, even if the Wizard misses.
4) It can be used to prevent flank, or wall up a doorway, or other situational control uses.

Ray of Frost is a lot less useful:

1) It typically averages the least single target At Will damage.
2) It may slow one opponent for one turn which may or may not stop that opponent from attacking. But even if the target is not within 4 of the Wizard, at a range of 10, it is probably within range of other PCs, either with a ranged weapon or with a charge.
3) It might make it more difficult for an opponent to flee.
4) It targets Fort which is on average, 2 higher for most opponents in the MM than Reflex or Will.

Slowing a single opponent, one opponent at a time, is not that big of a deal.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Falling Icicle said:


> Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...




An average Ranger has dex 18. At first level, basic does 1d10+4(9.5) and Twin Strike does 2d10(11), at 8th, when you get 20 dex, you will generally have weapon focus and a +2 weapon, making basic 1d10+8(13.5) and Twin Strike does 2d10+6(17), at 14th when you get 22 dex, you should have weapon focus and a +3 weapon, making basic 1d10+11(15.5) and Twin Strike does 2d10+10(21), at 21st, when you get 24 dex, you should have weapon focus and a +5 weapon, making basic 2d10+18(29) and Twin Strike does 4d10+16(38).

All of this is without quarry which also favours twin strike. Starting with 20 dex makes the basic slightly better, but not enough, and if you lose your magic weapon the basic attack gets a lot closer, but the basic attack will only ever be "better" as a bow ranger if you're without magic weapons, haven't taken weapon focus, aren't shooting your quarry, are below level 21 and have at least 22 dex.


----------



## Arbitrary

And if you get into a situation where you can't/shouldn't fire you can always bust out some melee weapons and have a chance at getting in some damage despite a likely low strength score.  

Not many at-will powers have that versatility.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

For the Wizard at-wills I think the targeted defence is important. Kerberian's Monster Manual statistics summary shows that Fortitude is usually harder to hit than Reflex, and in the case of brutes is usually higher than AC. Lurkers are the only monster type where Fortitude has a significant advantage over Reflex, and targeting will is better for all types. The enemies you'd want to hit with Ray of Frost are the ones you don't want to get into melee ie often brutes and soldiers, and they have the best Fortitudes.

One note about Cloud of Daggers vs Magic Missile is that since it's an area spell it ignores cover and concealment - you just need line of effect.

For my human wizard (still at first level in KotS) I chose Scorching Burst, MM and Thunderwave. I've found I've never yet used Thunderwave, I've used MM on occasion and I'm spamming Scorching Burst all the time. In most of our fights I'm able to get 2-3 attacks a round with Burst. 

f my DM allows the new illusion spells from Dragon 364 I'll probably swap MM for Illusionary Foes. Not only for the Will attack, but because it's the most generally useful against solo enemies. The defenders and leaders in our party will usually be in melee with a solo, so the slow from Ray of Frost wouldn't help much, while the -2 to hit will help keep the front line alive.

so:

5-7 / Cloud of Daggers (depending on Wisdom)
5 / Magic Missile
4 / Ray of Frost
10/ Scorching Burst
6-8 / Thunderwave (more useful for melee Wizards than my one)
9 / Illusionary Foes (some monsters are immune to illusions.)


----------



## Matthra

Falling Icicle said:


> Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...




The only thing you don't add to it is ability bonus, this means weapon enhancement, feat based damage enhancement, and buffs provided from other players still apply. Doing d10s with no other bonuses you would need an ability of +5 to get the same median damage assuming a hit.

The only other ranger at will you can compare it to is careful strike (+2 to hit, 1[W] + ability damage), since the others are movement based utility powers. With 19+ required to hit careful strike has a better chance of doing damage (by 1%) than twin strike, at 18 and lower required to hit twin strike has a better chance of landing at least one blow on the target. Twin strike is also versatile, it works as well against the big baddie as it does a horde of minions, where as careful strike is more aimed at mobs with very high AC. 

So I would give twin strike a perfect 10, versatile, powerful, and just plain fun to use.

Another perfect 10 at will power IMHO is Sacred Flame. No other at will power extends a parties endurance as much as this one. At first level its about a healing surge saved every three or so occurrences of damage taken, and it scales very well as the party rises in level. Not to mention the optional save can be a lifesaver in a pinch. The only draw back to this power is the record keeping, especially when mobs regularly hit for less than the temp HP amount. So its versatile, and powerful and not to difficult to keep track of as long as you use a token or something to track the condition.


----------



## keterys

Interesting how much of the response centers around the wizard at-wills. So, both cloud of daggers and thunderwave I assumed that you would have a respectable Wisdom, just for one clarification. Best to assume a power will be used to its best effect:

Cloud of Daggers: Highest damage at-will, Autokills minions and autodamages others, extra damage to swarms, provides a chokepoint, has synergy with other movement powers
Magic Missile: Longest range, gains bonus damage from bracers of perfect shot, can gain extra attacks with a warlord
Ray of Frost: Lower damage, slows. Problem is that its primary intended target's best defense is likely Fortitude, and the power has no additional effect under many circumstances (ie, when slow doesn't matter)
Scorching Burst: Only At-Will Area power. Otherwise lackluster, but this is a very big deal.
Thunderwave: Only At-Will that does not provoke. Hits a good sized area and pushes potentially _very_ far. While less respectable at low level, being able to push as much as 8 squares later with an at-will makes this the best at-will for _control_.
Illusionary Foes: Most reliably effective secondary effect. 



> Cleave - 4
> Reaping Strike - 4



Weird, you think these are worse than Priest's Shield? Cause Priest's Shield is a 5, and I figured Cleave's minion killing and autohitting was a step up from a +1 AC bonus.

Similarly, I figured Reaping Strike was the best choice for difficult to hit solo and elite monsters and netted a respectable damage increase... I was tempted to set it lower than Cleave, but figured it was still better than Priest's Shield.



> I think Furious Smash & Commanders Strike are both rather poor.



I'm not terribly enthused by commander's strike, but it is the equivalent of a Sly Flourish or Holy Strike that lets you add another stat to damage (Int in this case) and allows a warlord to use a one-hand and shield and let a 2h fighter type make the actual hit (or rogue, or whatever).

Furious Smash (and Righteous Brand) are both based on the fact that they can setup hits by your ally's encounter or daily powers that are worth more than an at-will.



> Lance of Faith - should be a 7, as good as Sacred Flame, frequently better.



+2 to an ally's attack is quite good, but sacred flame's ability to give a save is practically on par with a utility power in its own right. The temporary hit points can also be a surprising amount of proactive healing. That said, I did almost make this change myself because lance of faith is more consistently useful, even if I like Sacred Flame more.



> 6 / Valiant Strike - should be higher than Holy Strike, 7 is good



Hmm, anyone else agree? Valiant Strike looks to me like the correct way to do, say, Sure Strike... a flavorful bonus to attack without losing the damage... but is it notably better to have, say, +2 attack on an at-will than +Wis if you're Wis-specced?



> 5 / Deft Strike - at least a 6, if not a 7. Being able to combine extra movement with a move action is fantastic.
> 6 / Piercing Strike - at least a 7, if not an 8. No other at-will targeting reflex gains weapon proficiency bonuses.
> 6 / Riposte Strike - should probably be a 7, extra attacks aren't easy to come by.



So, I set Deft Strike where it was based on the theory that Nimble Strike was more useful - you can shift 1 before or after the attack, and it's a shift instead of a move. Deft Strike's best use is for getting flank then moving back out, as far as I can tell... which is very good, but I set it 1 lower because it provokes and movement is only before the attack. 

Piercing Strike is like getting a +2 to +3 to hit on average - more under certain circumstances. It seems to me like Twin Strike ends up more effective than that. I'll up it to 7 for now, at least.

I'm not seeing Riposte Strike at all - the target can just not hit the rogue again, and it's a strength-based attack that won't get extra sneak attack (cause you already hit). I mean, it's good certainly, but better than the other rogue at-wills? Maybe I'm missing something here.



> *WARLOCK*
> 6 / Dire Radiance - should be a 7, it puts an enemy between a rock and a hard place.



Hellish Rebuke is easier to trigger and Dire Radiance targets Fortitude, the best defense of the melee types you'd likely best want to use it on. So I dropped it 1.


----------



## Mistwell

Falling Icicle said:


> Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...




You are right you about not adding your ability, but just plain wrong on an purely objective level about everything else.  Folks have run a ton of math simulations on twin strike, and hands down it does more damage than any other at-will power in the game.



Minigiant said:


> I disagree with the wizard at wills
> 
> 3/ Cloud of Daggers (it's a decent obstacle but very situational)




Situational?  It does damage to the thing you cast it on, and does damage again on that things next round.  It does more direct damage to a target than any other at-will power at the Wizard's disposal. AND it stays around so you can push more foes into it with thunderwave!



> 10/ Ray of Frost (At will spammable slow? Mr. Brute ain't doing diddly 'til turn 4)




Slow is much weaker than you seem to think it is.


----------



## keterys

Matthra said:


> So I would give twin strike a perfect 10, versatile, powerful, and just plain fun to use.
> 
> Another perfect 10 at will power IMHO is Sacred Flame. No other at will power extends a parties endurance as much as this one. At first level its about a healing surge saved every three or so occurrences of damage taken, and it scales very well as the party rises in level. Not to mention the optional save can be a lifesaver in a pinch. The only draw back to this power is the record keeping, especially when mobs regularly hit for less than the temp HP amount. So its versatile, and powerful and not to difficult to keep track of as long as you use a token or something to track the condition.




Twin Strike is the best of the raw damage powers, so I set it above the rest (2 points higher than +Cha for Sly Flourish, for instance), but I don't understand how it's versatile. It also offers nothing except damage, however, so I'd have trouble making it a 10. I wasn't factoring in its minion killing goodness so I'll up it 1, but... After all, Righteous Brand seems like it's far better (I'll just hit and... okay, ally, lay on your daily with almost no chance to miss).

I really like Sacred Flame as well, but its secondary effects feel like they're not always useful and it does do slightly less damage than Lance of Faith. It's certainly less proactive. 

I'll admit flat out that I don't expect a lot of powers to get up in the 9/10 range, because, well, it's hard to compare to Righteous Brand when you get right down to it.

One reason people cited for lowering Thunderwave is because it's scary for a wizard to get into close range - while that's certainly true, it may not be as true for other controllers (imagine a controller who worked like the infernal warlock, for instance), and there are certainly builds (Arcane Reach, WotST, multiclass, eternal seeker, wizard / Iron Vanguard, etc) that can make it extremely powerful.

From my perspective, I'd have a hard time making a spell that was more powerful than Thunderwave as an at-will option for any class, and I'd have serious second thoughts about making one that was equal, too. Hence, my initial 9. I did lower it to an 8 cause I'm clearly in the minority there


----------



## Minigiant

My problem with Cloud of daggers is that is becomes a simple minion killer once you pass a few levels. It'll only deal Wis mod more damage than the other at will. At level 7+, it'll be 3-5 more damage and auto-minion kill. I could use SBurst for area, RoF for  1 turn slow,  MM for range, IA for -2 to attacks etc.

Also take the feats into consideration

Ray of Frost is great with the 2 cold feat combo (wintertouch+lasting frost). If you hit you get +2 to attack and +5 damage for cold attacks. It'll be great when all your enc and dailies are done. And not all brutes high high Forts.  And those speedy skirmishers and lurker have terrible Fort.

Thunderwave with Arcane Reach and Resounding Thunder gains some range. Add solid sound for defense help.

Illusionary Foes is psychic right? Psychic lock = -4 to attack.


----------



## keterys

Cloud of Daggers also deals damage on a miss, like Reaping Strike. This really adds up over a long solo fight, for instance.

All of the wizard at-wills are good. It's pretty cool like that.


----------



## Minigiant

keterys said:


> Cloud of Daggers also deals damage on a miss, like Reaping Strike. This really adds up over a long solo fight, for instance.




3-7 damage on a miss vs things with 100-400 HP. At least Reaping Strike uses your main attribute. 
Retrain Cloud of Daggers before you hit paragon.


----------



## keterys

Very good point about retraining - obviously, some powers are better at certain levels than others. I'd say it's probably best to rate them on their 'best' point, much like rating powers like Thunderwave and Cloud of Daggers assumes you're actually putting points into Wisdom.


----------



## Leatherhead

On the Rogue abilities:

Why no love for Sly Flourish? Do people not realize it can be used with a ranged weapon unlike Piercing Strike and Riposte Strike?

Oh, and there any errata on Riposte Strike yet? Because there doesn't seem to be any range limitations on the riposte interrupt attack.


----------



## Thanee

Hmm... thought Sure Strike is more useful, but after rereading it looks like it's really not, since the Fighter does not even have to hit in order to mark an opponent.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Klaumbaz

*Rogue*Deft Strike - 5
Piercing Strike - 5
Riposte Strike - 4
Sly Flourish - 4

Deft strike - 7 move, strike, and shift/move away...Very effective in combat practice

Piercing strike - 8 As mentioned, +8 to hit (with dagger) at level 1 vs reflex is very nice. 

Good question about riposte strike. I could see tossing your dagger (requires light blade to use it's effects) at your enemy if they shifted away before they attacked you. (even better if you had cover and could stealth attack with it).

Sly Flourish - 6  adding in that extra 2-4 damage is worth an average weapon roll.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Careful Attack (Ranger) and Sure Strike (Fighter) should be graded -1: never take under any circumstance. These feats are usually outperformed by a basic attack (dependent on your ability score mod and other damage bonuses your attack might have). See this thread for the numbers: Analysis


----------



## Xzylvador

I <3 Cloud of Daggers. And any control wizard should. Wis and Int are probably going to be 18 and 16 (or the other way around) if not higher. This makes it do better damage than magic missile, full damage to swarms (without hurting adjacent allies by blasting), slide powers to put other in the square and do some damage, auto minion kill and a good way to block a door opening... it's nice.
Thunderwave's my second favorite, not because I think it's awesome. I hope never to use it, 'cuz it means I'm being hit. But it is very nice to push everyone around you away (especialy with arcane reach, point it toward yourself as you're not affected by your own close attacks) and then get out of trouble without wasting a move-shift and move-run without standard action.
Ray of frost is so-so. Sure, it smells like at-will control, but really slow still means that with run+charge if it's 6 squares away it can still attack. (If your DM rules run+slow don't work together, it's still 4 squares. With the "short" range of RoF, this means that most of the time he can easily reach the front-line fighters of the party...) Probably with the feat that causes cold vuln it becomes better, but still I'd prefer the cloud.



> ...Sure Strike (Fighter) should be graded -1: never take under any circumstance. These feats are usually outperformed by a basic attack (dependent on your ability score mod and other damage bonuses your attack might have). See this thread for the numbers: Analysis



On a non-human I -might- agree, but as a human this will always be one of my 3 at-wills. Fighters aren't there to damage, they're there to be sticky. With heavy blade opportunity, you get +2 (sure strike) + wis + probably a +2 from combat reflexes (or whatever that feat was called) to attack on OA's. These OA's aren't there to damage but to make sure that ugly brute stops moving past you to hit the squishies you're protecting.


----------



## Baumi

Wizard:
Ray of Frost: I don't like the Slow Effect from Ray of Frost to much, but if you are playing a cold-mage with the appropriate feats it can become quite good.

Magic Missile is underrated in my opinion. The Range 20 can really help in the beginning of a combat, the damage is very good and sometimes you just need a damaging power for just one enemy. Also you can use the cheap gauntlets that adds damage to a basic attack. If you play a Wizard with primarily Area Attacks, then it is good to have at least one power that can help you out without hurting nearby friends...

Cloud of Dagger is a superbly anti minion power, but for some reasome I simply don't like it even though I play an Orb Wizard myself.

Scorching Ray & Thunderwave are both superb and every Wizard should take at least one of them!

Overall I find that the Wizard is the only class where I really have problems deciding which of the awesome powers I should take. 

Fighter:
Cleave: Great Minion Killer ... if you lack a controller or just want to hack Minions to pieces, then take it!

Reaping Strike: It's a bit meh for me since it is only good if you miss and even then it's not too much damage for a REAL opponent. Still, if you have a two handed Weapon and only one enemy then it is surely better that a Basic Attack. One more problem ... it sucks for one-handed Weapon Fighters.

Tide of Iron: A must for every Shield Fighter! For everyone else absolute useless 

Sure Strike: It would have been an good alternative to the other At-Wills if you would have kept the Strength for damage, but without it ... 

While the Fighter have some interesting At-Wills, he mostly have no real choice which to take and humans have to take one at-will that they don't really need (at least till the martial handbook is out).


----------



## Tervin

Within a few hours I set out to try and test out Commander's Strike properly. An 18 Int tactical warlord with two strikers in the party should mean plenty of times when that is a really good option.

Till I have seen it fail in that setup, I will not say it is a weak at-will. And I think this goes for a lot of the powers. It is all about what the rest of the character and the party as a whole is like, which means it is no real point in rating powers in a vacuum.


----------



## Mengu

keterys said:


> +2 to an ally's attack is quite good, but sacred flame's ability to give a save is practically on par with a utility power in its own right. The temporary hit points can also be a surprising amount of proactive healing. That said, I did almost make this change myself because lance of faith is more consistently useful, even if I like Sacred Flame more.



I see these powers as being even because I find about equal use for both. Strictly speaking, Sacred flame looks better on paper, but just as often, the urgency of having to take a target down, makes me want to use Lance of Faith, both for the slightly higher damage, and bonus to hit.





keterys said:


> So, I set Deft Strike where it was based on the theory that Nimble Strike was more useful - you can shift 1 before or after the attack, and it's a shift instead of a move. Deft Strike's best use is for getting flank then moving back out, as far as I can tell... which is very good, but I set it 1 lower because it provokes and movement is only before the attack.



I find myself using Deft Strike a lot because it basically means I can move 8 and attack. This lets me avoid opportunity attacks as I circle around the battle field. The other great use is being able to shift away from one opponent (like a minion), and go engage another. The mobility granted, is a huge advantage for getting the position I want. Also first round of combat, it lets me get a good angle, and maybe drop my opponent into short range of my thrown daggers. Being able to move 2 squares and toss a dagger during a surprise round is quite handy.




keterys said:


> I'm not seeing Riposte Strike at all - the target can just not hit the rogue again, and it's a strength-based attack that won't get extra sneak attack (cause you already hit). I mean, it's good certainly, but better than the other rogue at-wills? Maybe I'm missing something here.



I think you're right on this one.




keterys said:


> Hellish Rebuke is easier to trigger and Dire Radiance targets Fortitude, the best defense of the melee types you'd likely best want to use it on. So I dropped it 1.



I see. I still like it as much as Hellish Rebuke, because Hellish Rebuke makes the opponent hesitate to attack you. Dire Radiance makes the opponent hesitate to approach you, which can protect other party members near you.


----------



## KarinsDad

Minigiant said:


> My problem with Cloud of daggers is that is becomes a simple minion killer once you pass a few levels. It'll only deal Wis mod more damage than the other at will. At level 7+, it'll be 3-5 more damage and auto-minion kill. I could use SBurst for area, RoF for  1 turn slow,  MM for range, IA for -2 to attacks etc.
> 
> Also take the feats into consideration
> 
> Ray of Frost is great with the 2 cold feat combo (wintertouch+lasting frost). If you hit you get +2 to attack and +5 damage for cold attacks. It'll be great when all your enc and dailies are done. And not all brutes high high Forts.  And those speedy skirmishers and lurker have terrible Fort.
> 
> Thunderwave with Arcane Reach and Resounding Thunder gains some range. Add solid sound for defense help.
> 
> Illusionary Foes is psychic right? Psychic lock = -4 to attack.




Yup, feats help. Inescapable Force and Solid Sound can help Cloud of Daggers.

But with regard to the 3 (core) single target At Will Wizard powers, nothing really changes that much at high level. They still have the same range, they still do about the same amount of damage.

As for Fort, sure, some creatures have low Fort. Some. It's ~18% with better Fort than Reflex (give or take, I have not calculated it for all creatures).

That's less than 1 creature in 5 with better Fort than Reflex. That means that the +2 to hit you are talking about for WinterTouch (which does not occur until turn #2, the creature has to be hit with cold on turn #1 in order for WinterTouch to affect it on turn #2) merely negates most of the difference between Fort and Reflex for 4 out of 5 creatures (and the difference for these 4 out of 5 creatures is closer to 3 than 2 due to the 1 in 5 creatures which are more susceptible to Fort bringing down the average).

WinterTouch is an entire feat whose purpose is to put cold spells on par with non-cold spells with regard to "to hit", but only if the Wizard takes the Lasting Frost feat as well. Without Lasting Frost, WinterTouch totally sucks. WinterTouch is also worthless for the first cold attack against each creature. It doesn't kick in until attack #2.

So sure. Lasting Frost will give +5 damage. Compared to +Wis to damage hit or miss for 10 character levels of Cloud of Daggers. Two feats, just to get Ray of Frost on par with Cloud of Daggers.

That sounds like a lot of feats just to get in the same ballpark.

Let's take a simple example.

50% chance to hit. 11th level Wizard with +2 implement, 21 Int and 15 Wis (i.e. the Wizard never bumped up his 1st level 14 Wis, this favors your POV). We'll ignore the 1+ better Fort 1 in 5 creatures and consider it a wash with the 3+ better Reflex 3 in 5 creatures (and the fact that WinterTouch does not give a +2 bonus on round one) for simplicity.

Cloud of Daggers does 50% x 3.5+7 + 100% x 2 = 7.25
Ray of Frost does 50% x 3.5+12 = 7.75

With a gimped Wisdom Wizard with zero feats, Ray of Frost with two feats does slightly more damage. One would expect two feats to do more than this.

Up the Wizard's Wisdom to 19 (which at level 11, many PC Orb Wizards will have 19 or even 21) and it becomes 9.25 CoD damage vs. 7.75 RoF. And, there are other ways to get Combat Advantage which puts Ray of Frost back into the Fort saves sucks category again (60% x 3.5+7 + 100% x 4 = 10.3 vs. 50% x 3.5+12 = 7.75).

Ray of Frost is the weakest of the At Will single attack powers and needs feats to help it out. The Slow is practically irrelevant to the conversation. It hardly affects combat at all compared to killing a minion nearly every time CoD is used against one.

All in all, Cloud of Daggers is better for most applications than Ray of Frost and this is especially true for levels 1 through 10 (and still better than Ray of Frost for levels 11+).


Note: Sure, Slow can help in conjunction with other powers like ones that create Difficult Terrain. But, Slow for one creature rarely does anything when most powerful creatures have ranged attacks.


----------



## Ulthwithian

A few comments, here.

One is that people really should note what their assumptions are regarding the play conditions.  This does affect certain powers, and especially the arguments for or against them.

Take, e.g., the argument of MM vs. other Wizard At-Wills.  Some people say that the longer range is a reason to favor it.  However, the question is whether that longer range actually comes into play, and this is a question of the game you're in, not the power itself.  As for myself, I believe that in the first game I ran, the ranges never really got above 10 (I'm working on this).  Just one example of how other factors can change the assessment of a power.

As for Commander's Strike, it might need a bit of 'set-up', but granting the same kind of set-up as the other powers (i.e., Wis mod with Cloud of Daggers, etc.), it really deserves at least a 6 if not 7.  Some of the factors include:

1) Good Int on Warlord.
2) Fighter as Defender.
3) Multiple decent allies to use with it.
4) Reach weapons.

I think the Warlord in my group is almost the poster-boy for using Commander's Strike.  He's an Eladrin Tactical Warlord whose primary weapon is a Longspear.  If nothing else, Commander's Strike reads for him, "If you can poke an enemy adjacent to the Fighter, let the Fighter mark him."

As for the objection that the Warlord is gimping himself, I'm not seeing it.  By straight damage, the Eladrin actually does the most damage with his basic attack and at-wills, due to Eladrin Soldier.  However, given his Int (18), _any_ party member who attacks with melee attacks will do more damage with their basic melee attack than the Warlord will do with his other At-Will.

(Side note: There's also a Dragonborn Cleric of Kord wielding a Bastard Sword in the group.)

Other abilities of Commander's Strike is that it allows more uses of attack buffs (such as that from Righteous Brand) that have a set duration.  Also, if you have a melee striker that missed with his attack on his turn, thus not getting his per-round 'extra damage' (Sneak Attack, Quarry), Commander's Strike allows another shot at it.

There's also a true sense of teamwork built by Commander's Strike.  I've seen multiple high-fives (in one session) between the Warlord and another party member due to the use of Commander's Strike.  This is never a bad thing.


----------



## Branduil

small pumpkin man said:


> An average Ranger has dex 18. At first level, basic does 1d10+4(9.5) and Twin Strike does 2d10(11), at 8th, when you get 20 dex, you will generally have weapon focus and a +2 weapon, making basic 1d10+8(13.5) and Twin Strike does 2d10+6(17), at 14th when you get 22 dex, you should have weapon focus and a +3 weapon, making basic 1d10+11(15.5) and Twin Strike does 2d10+10(21), at 21st, when you get 24 dex, you should have weapon focus and a +5 weapon, making basic 2d10+18(29) and Twin Strike does 4d10+16(38).
> 
> All of this is without quarry which also favours twin strike. Starting with 20 dex makes the basic slightly better, but not enough, and if you lose your magic weapon the basic attack gets a lot closer, but the basic attack will only ever be "better" as a bow ranger if you're without magic weapons, haven't taken weapon focus, aren't shooting your quarry, are below level 21 and have at least 22 dex.



How are you coming up with those damage bonuses?


----------



## Danceofmasks

From a quick glance, it's just attribute bonus, feat bonus, and enhancement bonus.

For instance, weapon focus = +3 damage per hit at epic tier.

If you're wondering about the numbers in the brackets, they're average values.
Average for a D# = (#+1)/2. i.e. average for D10 = (10+1)/2 = 5.5


----------



## med stud

Ulthwithian said:


> A few comments, here.
> 
> One is that people really should note what their assumptions are regarding the play conditions.  This does affect certain powers, and especially the arguments for or against them.
> 
> Take, e.g., the argument of MM vs. other Wizard At-Wills.  Some people say that the longer range is a reason to favor it.  However, the question is whether that longer range actually comes into play, and this is a question of the game you're in, not the power itself.  As for myself, I believe that in the first game I ran, the ranges never really got above 10 (I'm working on this).  Just one example of how other factors can change the assessment of a power.
> 
> As for Commander's Strike, it might need a bit of 'set-up', but granting the same kind of set-up as the other powers (i.e., Wis mod with Cloud of Daggers, etc.), it really deserves at least a 6 if not 7.  Some of the factors include:
> 
> 1) Good Int on Warlord.
> 2) Fighter as Defender.
> 3) Multiple decent allies to use with it.
> 4) Reach weapons.
> 
> I think the Warlord in my group is almost the poster-boy for using Commander's Strike.  He's an Eladrin Tactical Warlord whose primary weapon is a Longspear.  If nothing else, Commander's Strike reads for him, "If you can poke an enemy adjacent to the Fighter, let the Fighter mark him."
> 
> As for the objection that the Warlord is gimping himself, I'm not seeing it.  By straight damage, the Eladrin actually does the most damage with his basic attack and at-wills, due to Eladrin Soldier.  However, given his Int (18), _any_ party member who attacks with melee attacks will do more damage with their basic melee attack than the Warlord will do with his other At-Will.
> 
> (Side note: There's also a Dragonborn Cleric of Kord wielding a Bastard Sword in the group.)
> 
> Other abilities of Commander's Strike is that it allows more uses of attack buffs (such as that from Righteous Brand) that have a set duration.  Also, if you have a melee striker that missed with his attack on his turn, thus not getting his per-round 'extra damage' (Sneak Attack, Quarry), Commander's Strike allows another shot at it.
> 
> There's also a true sense of teamwork built by Commander's Strike.  I've seen multiple high-fives (in one session) between the Warlord and another party member due to the use of Commander's Strike.  This is never a bad thing.



There is also a helmet that have the effect that every time you grant someone a basic attack, that person gets a standard action instead. That can be really nice with Commander's strike.


----------



## Puggins

> Interesting how much of the response centers around the wizard at-wills. So, both cloud of daggers and thunderwave I assumed that you would have a respectable Wisdom, just for one clarification. Best to assume a power will be used to its best effect:




Probably because the wizards have by far the most combinations available for their at-wills.  A human non-wizard basically chooses one power NOT to take.  A human wizard still has an ample amount of choices.  This will change soon, hopefully.  Even the wizard could use one or two more for variety, and the rest need three or four.



> Cloud of Daggers: Highest damage at-will, Autokills minions and autodamages others, extra damage to swarms, provides a chokepoint, has synergy with other movement powers



The utility is primo.  Little things like swarm vulnerabilities help differentiate powers.


> Magic Missile: Longest range, gains bonus damage from bracers of perfect shot, can gain extra attacks with a warlord



I'd consider it a reasonable choice IF you grouped with a warlord that used those specific powers.  But that makes this highly situational.  Bracers of Perfect Shot just don't cut it as a magic item choice for the wizard, IMO.


> Ray of Frost: Lower damage, slows. Problem is that its primary intended target's best defense is likely Fortitude, and the power has no additional effect under many circumstances (ie, when slow doesn't matter)



Hmm, I came at it from a different angle- the beauty of this power is that the creatures that most rely on speed (lurkers and skirmishers) would be most vulnerable to this power.  And, frankly, slowing a brute so that it has to pound the fighter instead of you is extremely desirable.


> Scorching Burst: Only At-Will Area power. Otherwise lackluster, but this is a very big deal.



Very, very big- seems to me it allows the wizard to perform one of his primary functions without using any of his encounter or daily powers on isolated groups.  I might change my mind later, but this is the star of the show for now.


> Thunderwave: Only At-Will that does not provoke. Hits a good sized area and pushes potentially _very_ far. While less respectable at low level, being able to push as much as 8 squares later with an at-will makes this the best at-will for _control_.



Certainly can't argue there, and I'll definitely experiment.


> Illusionary Foes: Most reliably effective secondary effect.



And only attack vs. will, which brutes hate, by and large.


----------



## keterys

I'll add a clear disclaimer shortly, but I'm assuming that we're considering the power if built to use it or in a party that it works well. This is important because when building new powers I can't go "Well, my party doesn't care about the difference between range 5 and 20, so it's okay for me to make a class have Lance of Faith... but range 20".

So, powers that are based on ability scores (Wis, Str, etc) assume you are increasing those scores at every ability bump and have a respectable amount. Assume that if you take riposte strike you're not a halfling trickster rogue with str 8. Etc.

Anyhow, lot of good stuff, I'll work back through and update the initial post shortly. I may switch to ranges since getting a consensus is not likely.

I'll also start up a thread for Encounter powers shortly, cause this is interesting to me at least


----------



## The Little Raven

keterys said:


> Cloud of Daggers also deals damage on a miss, like Reaping Strike.




Technically, this is not true. It has an Effect that occurs regardless of a hit or miss (the spell actually has no miss effect), which is a very important distinction to make because of the minion "take no damage from a miss" rule.


----------



## keterys

Heh, yes. I figured that was covered by the comments about autokilling minions and pushing people into/through it for extra damage.

Curious, I can't check right now - if you hit a swarm with this, do you trip the vulnerable for the initial damage and for the Effect?


----------



## Sarck

Where the hell are you people getting this at-will "Illusionary Foes" for Wizards? I'm looking through my PHB, the DND Insider Database, everything, and I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Mengu

Sarck said:


> Where the hell are you people getting this at-will "Illusionary Foes" for Wizards? I'm looking through my PHB, the DND Insider Database, everything, and I have no idea what you're talking about.



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/20080616


----------



## Sarck

Ah, thanks. I was getting really frustrated, thinking there was an error in my PHB or something.


----------



## -Avalon-

*Thunderwave & Scorching Burst*

I love these two abilities, and if played human would have picked cloud of daggers as a third most likely...

Scorching burst is a much better minion killer in the long run because even at high levels it still does the pre-req of 1 damage(or more) on a hit, and targets 9 squares (cloud only gets 1?)  Plus as a fire base and playing a tiefling, the ability to "once per encounter" add a push 1 to the ability is pretty nice (like throwing a grenade lol)

Thunderwave is EXCELLENT!  Just in the first module H1:KotS... If you are not afraid of getting in the mix a lil (yes I know, low HP), then you can push mobs into position for fighters to do passing attacks quite easily, or rangers to do hit n run's more effectively, etc...

Plus, if traps are in the area, and you happen to notice them (through your skill or a friend's) then pushing enemies into those traps is mucho gratifying...

Take for instance, first room of the Keep, the 10x10 pit in middle, once triggered, has a rat swarm in the bottom.  If you maneuver right (part of playing a wizard), you can toss goblins into the pit to be eaten by the rats.  Game mechanics says this won't happen, but... any DM that uses an ounce of logic would read the description and know the rats will devour ANYTHING that gets near them...

"...simply overwhelming anything that looks like it might make a meal."


----------



## Eric888

Holy strike is a lot better than people realize. Adding wisdom to damage is not a small increase for many paladin builds. On top of that, it does radiant damage. That is an extra 5-10 against almost any undead hit, and there are a lot of those, to say the least of magic items and feats that boost radiant attacks.

And commander’s strike seems really powerful too, assuming that the melee range applies to the character making the basic attack and not warlord, which the power isn’t really clear on.


----------



## Andor

KarinsDad said:


> WinterTouch is an entire feat whose purpose is to put cold spells on par with non-cold spells with regard to "to hit", but only if the Wizard takes the Lasting Frost feat as well. Without Lasting Frost, WinterTouch totally sucks. WinterTouch is also worthless for the first cold attack against each creature. It doesn't kick in until attack #2.
> 
> So sure. Lasting Frost will give +5 damage. Compared to +Wis to damage hit or miss for 10 character levels of Cloud of Daggers. Two feats, just to get Ray of Frost on par with Cloud of Daggers.
> 
> That sounds like a lot of feats just to get in the same ballpark.




Sure, but consider that a _lot_ of Rogues will also be using those feats with frost weapons. There is very little reason not to after all. So your Ray of Frost can also set up the Rogue and vice versa increasing party synergy. 

You shouldn't consider only the character in a vacuum, or Commander's Strike becomes _really_ stupid. 

BTW anybody notice that Commander's strike has no range limit? You could set up a squad of cheerleaders on a distant hilltop to get many, many extra attacks around. In theory. 

Never mind, I forgot Melee is a range class. Kinda. Wow that's really weird actually. If I'm reading it right you have to be in melee range of the creature you want your buddy to hit, but range to your buddy is immaterial as long as he can reach the creature with a basic melee attack.

- I can kinda see it, but I would have named the power 'Create Opening' not 'Commander's Strike'. That sounds like something you use after benefit negotiations break down.


----------



## zero skill LPB

I dunno. I think Sacred Flame kinda trumps everything else.

Wisdom based for Wisdom primary class = yay
Versus Reflex = yay
temporary hit points are nice, sure, but allowing a save? = WOO!

The potential to remove effects from allies before they suffer them... NICE.


----------



## keterys

And very few other attack powers will let you 'save or die' your team mates (after a beholder death ray or whatever) 

Is Holy Strike notably better than Sly Flourish? Trickster Rogues will have at least as good Cha as the pally's Wis, so radiant (resistable to some, extra damage to lots) vs. "untyped" damage, and marked target only (only a minor restriction, but one)

Least, that's why I scored them equally.


----------



## KarinsDad

Andor said:


> Sure, but consider that a _lot_ of Rogues will also be using those feats with frost weapons. There is very little reason not to after all. So your Ray of Frost can also set up the Rogue and vice versa increasing party synergy.
> 
> You shouldn't consider only the character in a vacuum, or Commander's Strike becomes _really_ stupid.




Sure, Rogues can do that. IF you have a Rogue in your party. IF your Rogue (or anyone else) has a Frost Weapon. Not all DMs hand out every magical item that the players want, especially ones which might be overly potent in certain synergy combinations like you mention.

The point is that it took two feats to make Ray of Frost no longer suboptimal. And in the scenario you suggest, it is most like that the Rogue will take those feats as well, just so that he does not have to depend on the Wizard.

Cloud of Daggers can prevent flank. You shouldn't consider only the character in a vacuum.

Note: Cloud of Daggers for an Orb user can be put into three squares at the same time (one extended one in round one, one standard action on round two, one action point on round two) which can really screw up enemy tactics and help party tactics. Sure, it doesn't last long, but it can really screw up a Paladin marked opponent (maybe even a minion) if he has to walk into a CoD in order to attack the Paladin (or take damage from the mark). Ditto for Fighter marked synergy with CoD. If the marked opponent moves out of the CoD, the Fighter gets to attack.

Lots of synergies with Cloud of Daggers. Like you said, you shouldn't consider only the character in a vacuum.


----------



## Goumindong

Ulthwithian said:


> A few comments, here.
> 
> One is that people really should note what their assumptions are regarding the play conditions. This does affect certain powers, and especially the arguments for or against them.
> 
> Take, e.g., the argument of MM vs. other Wizard At-Wills. Some people say that the longer range is a reason to favor it. However, the question is whether that longer range actually comes into play, and this is a question of the game you're in, not the power itself. As for myself, I believe that in the first game I ran, the ranges never really got above 10 (I'm working on this). Just one example of how other factors can change the assessment of a power.




The other advantage is that MM can be used with the plethora of Warlord Abilities that grant ranged basic attacks. Its a little weak compared to the rest when not figuring that, but it allows you to participate when the Warlord coordinates fire and other such stuff.

Which, especially in later levels when you are going to be using your at wills less and less will be very strong. Especially combined with Solid Sound. So when the Warlord tosses out his "you can make a ranged basic attack" you get +2 bonus to any defense(that you have not used solid sound for to get a bonus already, though if the power is a different than one you used already the DM might rule it a "different source), and get to make an attack when you would not have otherwise.

A wizard with a melee weapon and implement in each hand(or a staff) can participate fully with warlord abilities that grant extra attacks without problem.

This makes the power a lot stronger(and makes staff wizards a lot stronger) when used with a warlord.



KarinsDad said:


> WinterTouch is an entire feat whose purpose is to put cold spells on par with non-cold spells with regard to "to hit", but only if the Wizard takes the Lasting Frost feat as well.




Unless your entire party takes Lasting Frost and WinterTouch and stocks up on cold weapons. The cold keyword moves over to their powers and they make enemies vulnerable when they hit[for another +5 damage and combat advantage, which can be pretty big], so now your rogue doesn't have to flank to gain combat advantage, your ranger gets +5 damage and +2 attack on all his multiple iterative attacks, your fighter hits and interrupts movement easier.

And to top if off, you've got a few area cold spells that hit against reflex(at least Icy Terrain, i didn't look much at the later ones).

Taken alone it doesn't seem all that great, but taken as a whole it can be pretty nasty.



med stud said:


> There is also a helmet that have the effect that every time you grant someone a basic attack, that person gets a standard action instead. That can be really nice with Commander's strike.




Its only once a day so you are more likely to use it when you grant attacks from dailies that give multiple friendlies attacks as well.



Sarck said:


> Where the hell are you people getting this at-will "Illusionary Foes" for Wizards? I'm looking through my PHB, the DND Insider Database, everything, and I have no idea what you're talking about.




Newest Dragon issue "Class Act: Wizards"



keterys said:


> Heh, yes. I figured that was covered by the comments about autokilling minions and pushing people into/through it for extra damage.
> 
> Curious, I can't check right now - if you hit a swarm with this, do you trip the vulnerable for the initial damage and for the Effect?




Yes, you do trip the vulnerability for the initial damage and the effect. The efect is a Zone effect and the initial damage is an AoE "Everyone in the square" not a single target effect. So you ought to trip on both.


----------



## Switchback

KarinsDad said:


> Cloud of Daggers can prevent flank. You shouldn't consider only the character in a vacuum.
> 
> Note: Cloud of Daggers for an Orb user can be put into three squares at the same time (one extended one in round one, one standard action on round two, one action point on round two) which can really screw up enemy tactics and help party tactics. Sure, it doesn't last long, but it can really screw up a Paladin marked opponent (maybe even a minion) if he has to walk into a CoD in order to attack the Paladin (or take damage from the mark). Ditto for Fighter marked synergy with CoD. If the marked opponent moves out of the CoD, the Fighter gets to attack.
> 
> Lots of synergies with Cloud of Daggers. Like you said, you shouldn't consider only the character in a vacuum.




I guess this depends on your DM, but I find a lot of the area denial arguments about CoD unpersuasive. If a enemy has to choose between losing a turn or getting blasted by range another round vs simply charging through the daggers, I think he is going to go right through them. Similarly to try and finish off that pesky wizard that is whittling him down, its probably well worth the damage just to get flanking and smack the squishy with his big attack.

The daggers have no status effect, its usually going to be a measley 2 or 3 HP of damage which is not much against the inflated HP of 4e creatures. All things equal no one is going to step in that square for the fun of it. But in the life and death of combat where every round is critical, not losing a turn or  avoiding a bad tactical situation, outweighs the minor deterrence it provides.

Still the damage alone can be an argument over MM, but as a 'control' spell its pretty weak.


----------



## Goumindong

Switchback said:


> The daggers have no status effect, its usually going to be a measley 2 or 3 HP of damage which is not much against the inflated HP of 4e creatures.



Unless its a minion, in which case the area denial is perfect. Stick it behind a door and no minions can come through which means can mean a whole lot fewer melee attacks(if they are all melee minions), or ranged attacks if you are able to get some cover and deny them the ability to advance.

Add in the fact that minions have pretty standard attack and defense comparable to full HP creatures and the ability to deny them area is pretty handy. Not to shabby for an at will.


----------



## Mistwell

KarinsDad said:


> Yup, feats help. Inescapable Force and Solid Sound can help Cloud of Daggers.
> 
> But with regard to the 3 (core) single target At Will Wizard powers, nothing really changes that much at high level. They still have the same range, they still do about the same amount of damage.
> 
> As for Fort, sure, some creatures have low Fort. Some. It's ~18% with better Fort than Reflex (give or take, I have not calculated it for all creatures).
> 
> That's less than 1 creature in 5 with better Fort than Reflex. That means that the +2 to hit you are talking about for WinterTouch (which does not occur until turn #2, the creature has to be hit with cold on turn #1 in order for WinterTouch to affect it on turn #2) merely negates most of the difference between Fort and Reflex for 4 out of 5 creatures (and the difference for these 4 out of 5 creatures is closer to 3 than 2 due to the 1 in 5 creatures which are more susceptible to Fort bringing down the average).
> 
> WinterTouch is an entire feat whose purpose is to put cold spells on par with non-cold spells with regard to "to hit", but only if the Wizard takes the Lasting Frost feat as well. Without Lasting Frost, WinterTouch totally sucks. WinterTouch is also worthless for the first cold attack against each creature. It doesn't kick in until attack #2.
> 
> So sure. Lasting Frost will give +5 damage. Compared to +Wis to damage hit or miss for 10 character levels of Cloud of Daggers. Two feats, just to get Ray of Frost on par with Cloud of Daggers.
> 
> That sounds like a lot of feats just to get in the same ballpark.
> 
> Let's take a simple example.
> 
> 50% chance to hit. 11th level Wizard with +2 implement, 21 Int and 15 Wis (i.e. the Wizard never bumped up his 1st level 14 Wis, this favors your POV). We'll ignore the 1+ better Fort 1 in 5 creatures and consider it a wash with the 3+ better Reflex 3 in 5 creatures (and the fact that WinterTouch does not give a +2 bonus on round one) for simplicity.
> 
> Cloud of Daggers does 50% x 3.5+7 + 100% x 2 = 7.25
> Ray of Frost does 50% x 3.5+12 = 7.75
> 
> With a gimped Wisdom Wizard with zero feats, Ray of Frost with two feats does slightly more damage. One would expect two feats to do more than this.
> 
> Up the Wizard's Wisdom to 19 (which at level 11, many PC Orb Wizards will have 19 or even 21) and it becomes 9.25 CoD damage vs. 7.75 RoF. And, there are other ways to get Combat Advantage which puts Ray of Frost back into the Fort saves sucks category again (60% x 3.5+7 + 100% x 4 = 10.3 vs. 50% x 3.5+12 = 7.75).
> 
> Ray of Frost is the weakest of the At Will single attack powers and needs feats to help it out. The Slow is practically irrelevant to the conversation. It hardly affects combat at all compared to killing a minion nearly every time CoD is used against one.
> 
> All in all, Cloud of Daggers is better for most applications than Ray of Frost and this is especially true for levels 1 through 10 (and still better than Ray of Frost for levels 11+).
> 
> 
> Note: Sure, Slow can help in conjunction with other powers like ones that create Difficult Terrain. But, Slow for one creature rarely does anything when most powerful creatures have ranged attacks.




Nice post and analysis!



Goumindong said:


> The other advantage is that MM can be used with the plethora of Warlord Abilities that grant ranged basic attacks.




Plethora?

Name 5.  I count extremely few.  The vast majority specify melee basic attack, not ranged.


----------



## Torchlyte

I don't get the love for deft strike:

1. The movement provokes an attack of opportunity.
2. If you can't flank with your base move speed, you're doing something wrong.
3. Its only practical use (using it to get close during the surprise round) is dangerous (puts you next to all the enemies) and is easily surpassed by tossing a shuriken.

I think you're all undervaluing the +stat damage powers, too. As long as your average damage is less than 20, a +1 damage bonus is better than a +1 attack bonus. As long as your average damage is less than 40, a +2 damage bonus is better than a +2 attack bonus.


----------



## keterys

Torchlyte said:


> I don't get the love for deft strike:
> 
> 1. The movement provokes an attack of opportunity.
> 2. If you can't flank with your base move speed, you're doing something wrong.
> 3. Its only practical use (using it to get close during the surprise round) is dangerous (puts you next to all the enemies) and is easily surpassed by tossing a shuriken.




While I did consider it good, but lower than the other rogue at-wills, I'll take a moment to respond to these points...

1. And if you're an artful dodger, you may not care.
2. This statement is a gross failure to see the benefits of the extra 2 movement. You can use Deft Strike, then a move after. You can use Deft Strike to avoid using a Run action when your base move is insufficient for any number of reasons. You can combine shift with deft strike to move 3 while not provoking in some circumstances, etc.
3. You can throw a shuriken while using Deft Strike.



> I think you're all undervaluing the +stat damage powers, too. As long as your average damage is less than 20, a +1 damage bonus is better than a +1 attack bonus. As long as your average damage is less than 40, a +2 damage bonus is better than a +2 attack bonus.



This is just wrong. Even a basic 4th level character who deals 1d8 + 7 damage (4 stat, 2 enh, 1 feat, for instance) deals more damage from +2 hit than +2 damage. In addition, hitting and having _some_ effect is almost always better than missing more often but doing slightly more damage. Minions, almost dead critters, effects which trigger on hits, etc. It's definitely worth taking a penalty to hit for more damage (hence why Sure Strike is lackluster, just not enough bang for the buck) but +2 dmg < +2 hit barring extraordinary circumstances.


----------



## blargney the second

If you have a Str-based melee heavy hitter in your party, then Commander's Strike is a 10 for a tactical warlord.  Mine uses it in preference to his encounters or even dailies.

Letting your fighter mark another enemy is great, and letting any heavy hitter make an attack that can finish off an enemy is likewise fantastic.
-blarg


----------



## Evilhalfling

blargney the second said:


> If you have a Str-based melee heavy hitter in your party, then Commander's Strike is a 10 for a tactical warlord.  Mine uses it in preference to his encounters or even dailies.
> 
> Letting your fighter mark another enemy is great, and letting any heavy hitter make an attack that can finish off an enemy is likewise fantastic.
> -blarg




With the difficulty that the warlord has to be in melee range of the target as well.  We used it a lot, alternating giving the rogue a second chance of sneak attack (if he missed) and giving the 20 str fighter another swing rather than the 14 str warlord. Then saw that the warlord needed to be in melee range as well.


----------



## Arbitrary

It begs to be used with a reach weapon.


----------



## Switchback

Goumindong said:


> Unless its a minion, in which case the area denial is perfect. Stick it behind a door and no minions can come through which means can mean a whole lot fewer melee attacks(if they are all melee minions), or ranged attacks if you are able to get some cover and deny them the ability to advance.
> 
> Add in the fact that minions have pretty standard attack and defense comparable to full HP creatures and the ability to deny them area is pretty handy. Not to shabby for an at will.




That's a good use. But it is pretty situational. Majority of minions are already out when a battle starts, and if some come running you might not know it till they bust in. Lots of the doors on the battlemaps and such are double doors too. How high is the Cloud anyway, they might try jumping over it?


----------



## Goumindong

Mistwell said:


> Name 5.  I count extremely few.  The vast majority specify melee basic attack, not ranged.




R= works with ranged
M= works with melee

Lev 25 daily:
RN: Relentless assault[Everyone makes any basic attack as free action on crit till end of encounter]
R:Stir the Hornet's Nest[Miss; ranged basic attack for everyone]

Lv 23 encounter:
M: Pillar to Post[1 melee basic on hit]
RM: Sudden Assault[Grants Standard Action to combine with Victory Surge]

Lv 19 Daily:
M: Windmill of Doom[Everyone adjacent melee basic]
RM:Victory Surge[hit: Everyone Free basic attack after using any standard action till end of next turn, Miss: One does as above, Sustain minor: continues for one]. 

Level 17 Encounter:
RM: Hall of Steel[All allies within 5 squares make basic attack]

Lv 15 Daily:
RM: Warlord's Gambit[Ally can make basic attack as immediate interrupt when target attacks warlord]

LV 13: Encounter
RM: Beat Them into the Ground  [All allies make basic attack as free action against target of choice, no damage but knocks prone]

lv 9: Daily
M: Knock Them Down[All allies can move 3 squares and make melee basic attack as free action against target of choice, attacks deal no damage but knock them down]

lv 7 encounter:
M: Surprise Attack[One ally makes attack as free action against target of choice with combat advantage]

lv 1 Encounter:
M: Hammer and Anvil[hit: meleebasic attack]

Keep in mind that due to movement, many of these work best with ranged abilities since they are most likely going to be able to hit the target in question

So that is 11 powers that affect melee over 9 level choices, 5 of which are encounter levels.
7 that affect ranged over 6 level choices, 3 of which are encounter levels.

So yea, any warlord that wants to will be easily able to throw these or multiple each and every combat encounter and the ability to take part in these[often with attack and damage bonuses granted by the warlord in addition to the powers] is no small advantage for magic missile.

Granted, its not valuable until your warlord has these powers at later levels, but they are there and will be getting pulled out each and every encounter during times when you are less likely to be using your at-will powers(since you are going to have encounter powers to use first)


----------



## FadedC

Leatherhead said:


> On the Rogue abilities:
> 
> Why no love for Sly Flourish? Do people not realize it can be used with a ranged weapon unlike Piercing Strike and Riposte Strike?
> 
> Oh, and there any errata on Riposte Strike yet? Because there doesn't seem to be any range limitations on the riposte interrupt attack.




The power has the melee keyword and no listed range. This means that all attacks that you make with it have a range equal to the range of your melee weapon (most likely 1, unless you've somehow found a light blade with reach).


----------



## Mort_Q

nevermind


----------



## Leatherhead

FadedC said:


> The power has the melee keyword and no listed range. This means that all attacks that you make with it have a range equal to the range of your melee weapon (most likely 1, unless you've somehow found a light blade with reach).




That is an interesting theory. I would agree it could logically work that way, but the immediate interrupt attack caused by riposte strike hitting is not a secondary attack, it is a consequence of the power hitting. If it was a secondary attack I would have never bothered with it, because secondary attacks do have the clause about using the same range as the power's first attack unless otherwise noted.

Also, we need a common term other than *effect* to describe what happens when a power hits and does something, otherwise talking about powers is going to get confusing fast.


----------



## KarinsDad

Switchback said:


> I guess this depends on your DM, but I find a lot of the area denial arguments about CoD unpersuasive. If a enemy has to choose between losing a turn or getting blasted by range another round vs simply charging through the daggers, I think he is going to go right through them. Similarly to try and finish off that pesky wizard that is whittling him down, its probably well worth the damage just to get flanking and smack the squishy with his big attack.
> 
> The daggers have no status effect, its usually going to be a measley 2 or 3 HP of damage which is not much against the inflated HP of 4e creatures. All things equal *no one* is going to step in that square for the fun of it. But in the life and death of combat where every round is critical, not losing a turn or  avoiding a bad tactical situation, outweighs the *minor deterrence* it provides.




I beg to differ for a minion. 

In fact, if a minion does enter it and gets killed, the non-minion behind him should assume that it insta-death and avoid it.

The rule that creatures know how powers affect them only applies to powers currently affecting them. It does not apply to a power which is not currently affecting them.



Switchback said:


> Still the damage alone can be an argument over MM, but as a 'control' spell its pretty weak.




It's not just a control spell. It's the strongest single target At Will Wizard spell bar none. I am not saying that it is a super strong control spell. I am saying that it is the strongest damage At Will Single target spell which also has some minor control aspects. Not great (it is At Will after all), but not non-existent either.



Mistwell said:


> Nice post and analysis!




Thanks. I spent a lot of time analyzing options when designing my Human Int 20 Wizard (who took Cloud of Daggers, Scorching Ray, and Thunderwave).


----------



## Torchlyte

keterys said:


> 1. And if you're an artful dodger, you may not care.




It's still a disadvantage.



keterys said:


> 2. This statement is a gross failure to see the benefits of the extra 2 movement. You can use Deft Strike, then a move after. You can use Deft Strike to avoid using a Run action when your base move is insufficient for any number of reasons. You can combine shift with deft strike to move 3 while not provoking in some circumstances, etc.




I see the benefits, but they are underwhelming.



keterys said:


> 3. You can throw a shuriken while using Deft Strike.




Why would you? The point is to take advantage of temporary combat advantage when you have just one action, but that can be done just as easily with a ranged basic attack.



keterys said:


> This is just wrong. Even a basic 4th level character who deals 1d8 + 7 damage (4 stat, 2 enh, 1 feat, for instance) deals more damage from +2 hit than +2 damage. In addition, hitting and having _some_ effect is almost always better than missing more often but doing slightly more damage. Minions, almost dead critters, effects which trigger on hits, etc. It's definitely worth taking a penalty to hit for more damage (hence why Sure Strike is lackluster, just not enough bang for the buck) but +2 dmg < +2 hit barring extraordinary circumstances.




Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking here. Statistically, the attack vs damage point is always at 10... 

When your average damage > 10; +1 attack > +1 damage
When your average damage > 10; +2 attack > +2 damage

...and so forth. 

When your average damage > 11; +2 attack > (+1 atk, +1 dam)

zZz...



> In fact, if a minion does enter it and gets killed, the non-minion behind him should assume that it insta-death and avoid it.




All attack powers are insta-death to a minion. A Wizard's basic dagger attack is insta-death to a minion. That doesn't mean the hobgoblin warlord is going to avoid engaging a Wizard in melee.


----------



## Switchback

KarinsDad said:


> I beg to differ for a minion.
> 
> In fact, if a minion does enter it and gets killed, the non-minion behind him should assume that it insta-death and avoid it.
> 
> The rule that creatures know how powers affect them only applies to powers currently affecting them. It does not apply to a power which is not currently affecting them.




I see you have a human so I can understand your choices. But with 2 picks its harder. CoD is good against minion's but if you at all have a chance to hit more than 1, I would prefer Scorching Burst or Thundewave. I have Scorching at the moment, so taking CoD to derail minions as well is harder to justify. And then I would be stuck with two vs Reflex at wills.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos

Xzylvador said:


> On a non-human I -might- agree, but as a human this will always be one of my 3 at-wills. Fighters aren't there to damage, they're there to be sticky. With heavy blade opportunity, you get +2 (sure strike) + wis + probably a +2 from combat reflexes (or whatever that feat was called) to attack on OA's. These OA's aren't there to damage but to make sure that ugly brute stops moving past you to hit the squishies you're protecting.



Good point. When I first posted I thought that there might be a scenario where Sure Strike is a decent choice; for Careful Attack, this is never the case, since Twin Strike does everything Careful Attack can do, but better. There is no other Fighter at-will that gives an increased chance to hit, but there are very, very few scenarios where an improved chance to hit trumps a higher expected damage, and you've found one of them (maybe the only one?).

Having said that, this is _very _situational: applies only to OA provoked by movement, requires a paragon feat, and 15 Dex. Also (minor point), the victim of the OA can still use its standard action to keep moving. Bear in mind also that in all other circumstances, this at-will is inferior to all others (but you've conceded that point by saying you'd only consider it as the bonus at-will for a human Fighter). Nevertheless, it's a useful feat in this specific circumstance. I'll boost my recommendation from -1 to 0.


----------



## Nifft

My Human Wizard chose Magic Missile, Thunderwave and Scorching Burst.

*Magic Missile* - There was exactly one deciding factor: range. Scorching Burst is nice, but Magic Missile is better, because it means combat is happening very far away from me. It's proven very valuable (because my party lacks a Ranger); it could be less valuable in other parties.

*Thunderwave* - I have this for those very unfortunate occasions when combat is happening in my direct vicinity. It's not an overstatement to say it saved my life at 2nd level, when I was trying to lurk around a corner and suddenly a bunch of skeletons instantiated themselves all around me. I killed about eight skeletons -- half the attack force -- without taking too much damage.

*Scorching Burst* - This is my usual power, for when combat is happening between my most favorite range (ranged 20) and my least favorite range (close blast).

- - -

What I discarded, and why:

*Cloud of Daggers* - Excellent damage, but the control-area is just too small. If it did less damage but in a larger area, or had a longer range, I'd have taken it happily.

*Ray of Frost* - Poor target defense, and poor side-effect: Slow is not that great for a single-target who's already within 10 squares of me. At mid-range, I want to Push, Immobilize or inflict an attack penalty.

*Illusory Ambush* - Wasn't available. Is too good to pass up when combined with Psychic Lock, and Dark Fury is easily within my reach, so I'm considering what to trade for it at 11th level.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## KarinsDad

Switchback said:


> I see you have a human so I can understand your choices. But with 2 picks its harder. CoD is good against minion's but if you at all have a chance to hit more than 1, I would prefer Scorching Burst or Thundewave. I have Scorching at the moment, so taking CoD to derail minions as well is harder to justify. And then I would be stuck with two vs Reflex at wills.




Two picks is harder. One (more or less) has to be area effect and one has to be single target.

That does not invalidate that CoD is typically better than either Magic Missile or Ray of Frost as the single target one.

Having two Reflex save At Wills is not really that big of a deal considering that Wizards also get Per Encounter spells.

There are very few creatures in the Monster Manual where Reflex is way (i.e. 3 or more) better than Fort. There are about 30 some creatures (< 5%) with Reflex 3 or more higher than Fort. There are hundreds of creatures with Fort 3 or more higher than Reflex (and many of those are 5 or higher) and many hundreds more 1 or 2 higher.

So, a Wizard player is screwing himself big time taking Ray of Frost as his single target At Will power (especially considering that he cannot buff it with Lasting Frost until level 11).

Your justification for taking Cloud of Daggers (or Magic Missile for range) and Scorching Ray for your two picks is staring you in the face. Reflex is a lot better than Fort, regardless of the PHB suggesting that PCs try to get one of each type. That's what Per Encounter spells are for.


----------



## Marshall

keterys said:


> Anyhow, lot of good stuff, I'll work back through and update the initial post shortly. I may switch to ranges since getting a consensus is not likely.




Why dont you switch to grades? Its a little more clear when you say a power is a "B" or a "D" than a 6,7,8 or 2,3,4.

A+,A,B,C,D and F is all you need.


----------



## Switchback

KarinsDad said:


> Your justification for taking Cloud of Daggers (or Magic Missile for range) and Scorching Ray for your two picks is staring you in the face. Reflex is a lot better than Fort, regardless of the PHB suggesting that PCs try to get one of each type. That's what Per Encounter spells are for.




Oops. I should have said my 2nd is Illusory Ambush from the Class Acts article. Here is how it ranks vs CoD.

CoD +2 damage (My Wizard's wis bonus)

I. Ambush +2 or +3 to Hit Will (vs Reflex on average), and -2 to Hit for the enemy.

Even if one were not using the Illusion spells I would be hard pressed to go against Ray of Frost as a 2nd though. It at least has a 'control' option that can affect non-minions to a useful degree. Whereas CoD's version of control is just a zone that does 2 damage. Then you would have 2 spells that just do damage, that is the striker's job. And your at-wills will be used around 80% of the time. 

I guess you can debate the worthiness of a zone 1 square in size for making minion's go around it, or killing them 1 at a time, but I just haven't found it very impressive.

If one were only choosing it for its single target damage, it would do on average .5 more damage than Magic Missile for a +2 Wis bonus. If you splurged on a higher Wis, it might get more attractive. Personally, I think a Wizard should not be making decisions based on such tiny damage increases considering what the strikers in the group are putting out.


----------



## KarinsDad

Switchback said:


> Oops. I should have said my 2nd is Illusory Ambush from the Class Acts article. Here is how it ranks vs CoD.
> 
> CoD +2 damage (My Wizard's wis bonus)
> 
> I. Ambush +2 or +3 to Hit Will (vs Reflex on average), and -2 to Hit for the enemy.
> 
> Even if one were not using the Illusion spells I would be hard pressed to go against Ray of Frost as a 2nd though. It at least has a 'control' option that can affect non-minions to a useful degree. Whereas CoD's version of control is just a zone that does 2 damage. Then you would have 2 spells that just do damage, that is the striker's job.
> 
> I guess you can debate the worthiness of a zone 1 square in size for making minion's go around it, or killing them 1 at a time, but I just haven't found it very impressive.




Illusory Ambush is a fine At Will power. I can definitely see taking it instead of any of the other single target At Wills.


Ray of Frost sucks. It's the worse of the single target lot. Its control is pretty limited (range 4 movement for a creature max range 10 from the Wizard). It's very likely that most such creatures can either charge some other PC (or sometimes even the Wizard) or do a range attack in most circumstances.

Ray of Frost does suboptimal damage, it does suboptimal control, and it attacks a suboptimal defense (which means that it does its suboptimal control less often). 3 bad out of 3.

Cloud of Daggers (typically) does the best damage, it too does suboptimal control, it attacks one of the best defenses, and it also auto-kills minions. 3 good out of 4.

Check the Monster Manual where hundreds of creatures have Fort defenses 1 to 5 (or even as high as 9) greater than their Reflex defenses.

I also don't get why people think Slow is so great. I would never pick Ray of Frost over any of the other At Will single target powers. Slow is pretty lame unless combined with something like Difficult Terrain AND Prone (with just one of these, a Slowed creature can still sometimes charge, both are needed to prevent a charge).


Sure once in a while, a Wizard can hit a target with Slow (if he manages to hit vs. Fort) and then run like crazy (or try to prevent an opponent from running away). But, these situations are infrequent enough that the Wizard should have other options available and should not rely on RoF as a get away or prevent get away option. Especially for PCs like yours that have only two At Will powers.


The only time a Wizard should even consider Ray of Frost over Cloud of Daggers is when he has a low Wisdom and/or he or his team has some other synergies going on with the Ray of Frost (e.g. WinterTouch and Lasting Frost and/or other synergies).


----------



## Switchback

KarinsDad said:


> ...




I don't think your argument is without merit. CoD is *ok*, much better in your Human Wizard's book than a non-human.

But if you have 2 At-Wills and are stuck doing pure damage on both, which will be about 80% of your turns at low level, I don't see much point in being a controller. Not least for the non meta-gaming reason that its just plain boring. 

A Wizard is pretty bad if he would be Ray of Frosting something within 4 spaces (charge distance) of his allies. 

It's not good that it hits Fort, but you can still get Skirmishers, or Lurkers pretty reliably. There are also a lot of other affects, combat advantage, wand, etc that can give you a nice bonus to hit. If you can slow a creature and make it miss an attack, that is worth far more than an additional 2 damage.

Anyway, I'm glad something better came along. The Wizard's early options are less than impressive from a controller standpoint.


----------



## Conjurer

Played a Human Wizard recently (Staff Wielder, Int 18 after human bonus, Con 14, Wis 14, Leather Armor Proficiency and Toughness feats [AC 17 and 29 HPs])

My at-wills:

Thunderwave: The entire reason I'm playing a BattleMage type of wizard. I really like the pushback ability.

Scorching Burst: Just to catch minions away... just in case.

Illusory Ambush: Attacks will, which is fine by me and the effect is handy.
-------------
Ray of Frost & Cloud of Daggers are fun too. Magic Missile would be my last choice for single target at will, since it has no secondary effect.

(I'm actually considering retrying this concept again as a Dwarf... In which case, I think I'll go with Thunderwave and Illusory Ambush as my at-wills)


----------



## Minigiant

A wizard's at will choice are heavily affect by it's preferred target

vs Ref (MM,SBurst, CoD) :  all but skirmisher, Artillery, and lurkers
vs For (RoF, Thunderwave): all but brutes and soldiers
vs Will (Illusionary Ambush): all but controllers and leader


By effect-

MM: anti Artillery
Scorching Burst: anti everything, man  
CoD: anti minion
RoF: anti skirmisher and lurker
Thunderwave: anti brutes and soldiers
Illusionary Ambush: anti controllers, artillery, and leader

So if you take Thunderwave and Scorching ray, you will clobbering melee enemies. But Illusionary Ambush and Ray of Frost handles damage dealers.


----------



## KarinsDad

Switchback said:


> I don't think your argument is without merit. CoD is *ok*, much better in your Human Wizard's book than a non-human.




Human or non-human makes no difference. Out of the core single target At Will Wizard attacks, Cloud of Daggers is the best of the bunch the majority of the time.



Switchback said:


> But if you have 2 At-Wills and are stuck doing pure damage on both, which will be about 80% of your turns at low level, I don't see much point in being a controller. Not least for the non meta-gaming reason that its just plain boring.
> 
> A Wizard is pretty bad if he would be Ray of Frosting something within 4 spaces (charge distance) of his allies.




I suspect that most of the time, a Wizard will not have a choice. If an enemy is within 10 squares of the Wizard, it is often probably within 4 squares of an ally of the Wizard.

PCs tend to not bunch up (it makes enemy AoEs easier and it puts squishy PCs too close to melee). With 5 PCs in a group, it is likely that most of the time, some ally of most PC Wizards (especially Defenders) will often be 4 to 8 squares away from the Wizard and closer to enemies. That's often how the game is played by many people. 10 squares attack range forces the Wizard to be in fairly close to his allies.

But, most players of Wizards will not usually have their Wizards right on the tail of their allies. It puts them too close to enemies.



Switchback said:


> It's not good that it hits Fort, but you can still get Skirmishers, or Lurkers pretty reliably. There are also a lot of other affects, combat advantage, wand, etc that can give you a nice bonus to hit. If you can slow a creature and make it miss an attack, that is worth far more than an additional 2 damage.




The key word in your sentence here is "if".

40% chance by the PC to (sometimes) prevent a 50% chance by the monster to hit versus 100% chance to do 2 damage and an extra 10% chance to do initial damage.

So 1 time in 5 at best (and worse than that if the creature is within charge range or has a ranged attack), RoF MIGHT slow a creature where it actually affects a single attack in combat.

Remember, against Brutes it's often closer to 25% (or less) chance on average to prevent 50%.

What does the 2 At Will power Wizard with RoF do when he needs to attack a Brute near his allies? Mostly nothing if he cannot AoE him or does not have a different power that affects Reflex or Will.

Ditto for most Controllers, Minions and Soldiers as well. Their Forts are not nearly as high compared to their Reflex as Brutes, but it is still typically higher.



Switchback said:


> Anyway, I'm glad something better came along. The Wizard's early options are less than impressive from a controller standpoint.




I view this opinion (no offense) as the typical player entitlement one. "Wizards are not good enough controllers, so I'm glad that they now have a better option."

Wizards are great controllers. My Wizard rocks and he does not have any non-core abilities. At Will abilities are not good controller options, Per Encounter and Daily abilities are the good controller options. And that is how it should be (IMO). If the At Will powers become too good for controlling, players of Wizards will use their Per Encounter and Dailies less often.

I also opine that the game will get more and more unbalanced (with regard to this and with regard to many areas of the game) as more and more splat book options become available. It is pretty much inevitable due to synergies. At least IMO.


----------



## Matthra

keterys said:


> Twin Strike is the best of the raw damage powers, so I set it above the rest (2 points higher than +Cha for Sly Flourish, for instance), but I don't understand how it's versatile. It also offers nothing except damage, however, so I'd have trouble making it a 10. I wasn't factoring in its minion killing goodness so I'll up it 1, but... After all, Righteous Brand seems like it's far better (I'll just hit and... okay, ally, lay on your daily with almost no chance to miss).
> 
> I really like Sacred Flame as well, but its secondary effects feel like they're not always useful and it does do slightly less damage than Lance of Faith. It's certainly less proactive.
> 
> I'll admit flat out that I don't expect a lot of powers to get up in the 9/10 range, because, well, it's hard to compare to Righteous Brand when you get right down to it.
> 
> One reason people cited for lowering Thunderwave is because it's scary for a wizard to get into close range - while that's certainly true, it may not be as true for other controllers (imagine a controller who worked like the infernal warlock, for instance), and there are certainly builds (Arcane Reach, WotST, multiclass, eternal seeker, wizard / Iron Vanguard, etc) that can make it extremely powerful.
> 
> From my perspective, I'd have a hard time making a spell that was more powerful than Thunderwave as an at-will option for any class, and I'd have serious second thoughts about making one that was equal, too. Hence, my initial 9. I did lower it to an 8 cause I'm clearly in the minority there




I stick by twin strike being versatile, It can be used at range or in melle, it can attack one or two targets, in most cases it has a better chance to at least be partialy effective than the careful attacks, and does phenomenal damage for an at will ability. So yes, in a word versatile, in another powerful. No other striker ability comes as close to the being the only attack you'll ever need. This is an encounter ability for most other classes in the heroic teir.

Thunderwave by comparison is very situational, it requires you to be in or near melle, which is a scary place for the people most likely to use this ability. It's a push so the mobs can only move away from you, which means you need positioning for it to be best use. The most obvious flaw is that its only useful when moving the mob is tactically advantageous, which is often the case but not always. 

I could use twin strike every round and be effective, I could not do the same with thunder wave. Not saying it not cool but it certainly looses on the versatility front, and the damage front. Mind its really good at what it does which is get mobs away from the wizard so he can beat feet, and clever wizards will certainly think of many situational ways to use it, such as pushing mobs off cliffs or into traps or towards the defender.

Finally taking thunderwave for most wizards means not having an at will point attack, or giving up scorching burst, neither of which are sound tactical decisions. So I imagine most optimized wizards will skip thunderwave. 

As for sacred flame its a one of a kind ability, no other At Wills extends your parties endurance. It's basically a proactive heal. Something along the lines of "I know you are going to get hit so here is 4 HP healed when they hit you". The effect it has on healing surges spent is noticeable, to give a ball park if your in nine rounds of combat and hit two thirds of the time, that two healing surges your party won't have to spend, or put another way two less healing words you'll have to use in said combat. 

I'll post the otehr gems I've found later.


----------



## Switchback

KarinsDad said:


> I view this opinion (no offense) as the typical player entitlement one. "Wizards are not good enough controllers, so I'm glad that they now have a better option."




You are the one that said Ray of Frost sucked not me. If they made a power that is so obviously the worst choice and also the most 'controller' type option, something went wrong.


----------



## KarinsDad

Switchback said:


> You are the one that said Ray of Frost sucked not me. If they made a power that is so obviously the worst choice and also the most 'controller' type option, something went wrong.




And you are the one who said that you would pick it if you were not using Illusory Ambush which I find incomprehensible.

And I agree, Ray of Frost is the most "perceived controller" type power, but it actually controls very little.

Because of the fact that none of the At Will Single Target powers really do a good job of controlling (including Illusory Ambush with a ~40% to ~60% chance of hitting to decrease an enemy attack by 10%, that means that it's control function actually works ~5% of the time, it's damage function works ~50% of the time), one has to assume that the intent of At Will Single Target Wizard powers is not true control. It's damage.

As such, since Ray of Frost hits the worst defense and does the least damage, it sucks for the job it is supposed to do (regardless of whether one considers that job to be damage or control).

It's real job is not control. That's at best a side effect and is mostly a misconception that some people have.

The job of many of the Per Encounter and Daily powers is control for a Wizard. Hands and Walls control. At Will powers damage (and yes, I know about the "damage is control" claims).


So yes, I find Illusory Ambush to also be a second rate At Will Single Target power. I just find it slightly more useful than Ray of Frost because it averages more damage (better chance to hit) and since I find Slow to be extremely suboptimal.


----------



## keterys

I think you're underrating illusory foes a bit there - the penalty to attack is solid and combine with enfeebling strike and psychic lock and it puts a solo (the likely recipient of multiple at-wills for damage) in a pretty unenviable place.

That said, I do mostly agree.


----------



## Baumi

While I'm not a big fan of Ray of Frost, I still think that it is a great defensive power, but very specialiced. 

The number one Enemy of a Wizard are Skirmishers, since they have big move and can easily ignore the defenders in the front ... they are simply made to harass the ranged characters. The thing is that Fortitude is not the strong point of a skirmisher and if they got hit the wizard can then simply move backward and is out of range for the skirmisher.

So it is great against skirmishers (and lurkers) but the least useful at-will against enemy already locked down by defenders.


----------



## Minigiant

Ray of Frost and Illusionary Ambush are the wizard's  anti "nonmelee" powers.  Ray of frost is for fast melee users and keeps them from running around slapping people. Illusionary Ambush makes controllers, artillery, and ranged leaders miss. From my experience, when the enemy group is not 75% big dumb brutes, minions, and soldiers; you'll find your self loving these two.  Like elves and gnolls.


----------



## Nifft

Baumi said:


> While I'm not a big fan of Ray of Frost, I still think that it is a great defensive power, but very specialiced.
> 
> The number one Enemy of a Wizard are Skirmishers, since they have big move and can easily ignore the defenders in the front ... they are simply made to harass the ranged characters. The thing is that Fortitude is not the strong point of a skirmisher and if they got hit the wizard can then simply move backward and is out of range for the skirmisher.
> 
> So it is great against skirmishers (and lurkers) but the least useful at-will against enemy already locked down by defenders.



 1/ Skirmishers (and lurkers) have a worse Will than Fortitude.

2/ Slow is only useful for half the power's range (from 6-10 squares).

3/ Slow is only useful if there aren't any Defenders between you and it.

Now, if Ray of Frost let me Immobilize a single foe, it'd be worth targeting Fortitude. Immobilize is useful from 2-10 squares away. They could lower the damage and I'd still consider it useful.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Baumi

> 2/ Slow is only useful for half the power's range (from 6-10 squares).




Thats not true. After shooting Ray of Frost you still have a Move Action left, which give you more space than he could travel with two slow move Actions (besides Run, which would grant everyone Combat Advantage and -5 to attacks).


----------



## Nifft

Baumi said:


> Thats not true. After shooting Ray of Frost you still have a Move Action left, which give you more space than he could travel with two slow move Actions (besides Run, which would grant everyone Combat Advantage and -5 to attacks).



 If you think separating your Wizard from the rest of the party is a sound tactical move, go for it.

Next character, don't make a Wizard.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> I think you're underrating illusory foes a bit there - the penalty to attack is solid and combine with enfeebling strike and psychic lock and it puts a solo (the likely recipient of multiple at-wills for damage) in a pretty unenviable place.




I don't think so. The math speaks for itself, even against solos.

With a high Int 60% chance to hit (Will being an easy Defense) and a -2 for the opponents attacks (note: most foes gets one attack in a round, but there are some that get more), that's 6% of the times it is used that it actually affects combat in any way. If a Wizard uses it 4 times per solo encounter, the control aspect of this only affects an encounter one encounter in four and then only for a single attack.

The damage part of it affects ~60% of attacks, but then so again does the other (non-Scorching Ray) single target At Will powers.

Yes, it can combine with the abilities of other PCs. But, the control aspect of it rarely comes into play. And, it is only one attack that it stops every 4 encounters. The Wizard doing Scorching Burst on 3 minions can stop 6 or more attacks in 1 encounter using one power instead of using 16 powers. That's control. That's saving resources FOR the solo encounter coming up.



keterys said:


> That said, I do mostly agree.




Yeah, it's hard to argue that Wizard At Will powers have a lot of control capability.


----------



## rhm001

Nifft said:


> If you think separating your Wizard from the rest of the party is a sound tactical move, go for it.
> 
> Next character, don't make a Wizard.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




To be fair, he was talking about getting away from the enemy, not the party. "Farther away from the guy chasing you" and "Same distance from (or closer to) the rest of the party" are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Arbitrary

Every time so far I've been worried about a character dying it has been a result of someone getting even just 7-8 squares away from the party and getting tied up by multiple monsters while the rest of the group had their own problems to deal with.

Getting isolated is way more scary in this edition than in previous ones.


----------



## Cadfan

I think you can only grade powers in context, rather than between classes.  So with that in mind, here's my take.

*CLERIC*
7 / Lance of Faith
7 / Priest's Shield (Righteous Brand is useless without allies around, this isn't)
9 / Righteous Brand (but its really good WITH allies around)
8 / Sacred Flame (small damage decrease from LoF, but great side effect)

*FIGHTER*
8 / Cleave
8 / Reaping Strike (cleave and reaping strike make a great combo because they're each best against different things)
5 / Sure Strike (this isn't that bad at higher levels, but is never great)
7 / Tide of Iron

*PALADIN*
7 / Bolstering Strike (maintain a damage buffer of temp hp)
7 / Enfeebling Strike
6 / Holy Strike
8 / Valiant Strike (bonus to hit! bonus to hit!)

*RANGER*
2 / Careful Strike (sucks because twin strike is better)
5 / Hit and Run (not bad but nimble strike is better)
8 / Nimble Strike (guarantees mobility, forever, with an at will)
9 / Twin Strike

*ROGUE*
8 / Deft Strike (its like tumble, at will.  shift out of reach, then deft strike back to your chosen square)
7 / Piercing Strike
7 / Riposte Strike (a good standby for str rogues)
7 / Sly Flourish (a good standby for cha rogues)

*WARLOCK*
8 / Dire Radiance (can be used to control movement. hit with it, then position yourself to obstruct)
6 / Eldritch Blast
8 / Eyebite
7 / Hellish Rebuke

*WARLORD*
6 / Commander's Strike
6 / Furious Smash
6 / Viper's Strike
6 / Wolf Pack Tactics (none of these leap out at me, all are ok though)

*WIZARD*
7 / Cloud of Daggers (secretly, this just does 1d6+int+wis, with wis on a miss, the rest of the text rarely comes up)
7 / Magic Missile (only good for range, but not bad if paired with scorching burst since you need one single target at will)
7 / Ray of Frost (good if you're a cold focused caster with the right feats)
9 / Scorching Burst (the best of the best, AoE on tap)
7 / Thunderwave (good, but not great, the need for a close blast can be better filled with encounter powers)
7 / Illusionary Foes


----------



## Kitirat

KarinsDad said:


> I also don't get why people think Slow is so great. I would never pick Ray of Frost over any of the other At Will single target powers. Slow is pretty lame unless combined with something like Difficult Terrain AND Prone (with just one of these, a Slowed creature can still sometimes charge, both are needed to prevent a charge).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I talked to 3 CSR for the fun of it asking how slow is supposed to work.  2 of the 3 said it allows a move of up to 2 and no more each ROUND.  Period.  double moving for 4 or running being the key there.
> 
> The 2nd one said it was as you mentioned (can double move for 4).  I think the greater then 2 is taken from the part where if your slowed while moving, if you've moved more then 2 stop.
> 
> In anycase, I've used the majority opinion on slow (max of 2 move, period, save for forced movement) and it has found new and often painful respect.
> 
> It is not the best thing since sliced bread for sure.  But with a max 2 move, it can hold off some (especially skirmishers and lurkers) monsters for 1-2 more rounds.
> 
> I suggest ya try this ruling and you too will like the effect more.
Click to expand...


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> I don't think so. The math speaks for itself, even against solos.




O-kay... let's examine that math then. 

Flipping through my Monster Manual, from the beginning, looking for Solos.

In each case, I'm going to assume that you've exhausted any encounter/daily abilities you're going to use, and you're not able to hit more than one target with an area (and may possibly not want to use an area at all due to party positioning)

Tarrasque:
  You're extremely likely to hit (Its Will is only +2 over its level), probably something like a 95% hit rate. Bit of an aberration for this, but it's the first one. It's late in the comat so it is frenzy-ing or trampling every round, so let's say it gets 3 attacks for, say, 25 average damage each. It's at level + 3 or level + 4 to hit vs. Reflex or AC respectively. Let's call it a 50% chance to hit, that's not that impressive but it gets to hit the non-defender a lot.

So, 75 damage * .5 = 37.5 per round average. -2 to hit drops that average to 30, a 20% drop in effective damage. That's certainly solid. So anyhow that's -19% damage from the -2 attack, which is slightly over 1/3 of the weaken effect. Definitely weak but still probably stronger than doing a couple more damage.

Beholder is next... let's see, its Will is actually respectable (better than the Tarrasque's, even 11 levels lower...) and it gets, say, 3 eye ray attacks from its aura, 2 central eye attacks from minors, and 2 eye ray attacks from a standard. Every 6 rounds it gets another 2 eye rays from frenzy, but I'll call that a wash with not doing some central eye rays. Its attacks are only +3, but vs a non-AC defense so we'll stick with the 50% hit rate for now. Some of these rays are not particularly threatening, but I'd say that restrain, unconscious, petrify, death, disintegrate, daze etc are all pretty serious effects. So, 40% of the time hitting and, say, half the time catching something you actually care about is really quite respectable in a group of 5 down to its at-wills. Better than almost any of the other options, and that's even on a high Will monster. Honestly, if just once it prevents someone from being slept before its turn (saving them from a disintegrate crit) or prevents a petrification or death save failure just once... it's really worthwhile. Of course, you could argue that the damage from Cloud of Daggers might have killed the beholder a round sooner, too (entirely possible).

Dracolich next (and last) - will is +12, so that's back to your 60% default. It has an okay bite, nasty breath weapon and the mesmerizing glare is just completely rude. So Bite is +5 vs AC, so still 50% and call it 20 damage (averaging in some stunned hits). The breath weapon is once every 3 rounds, is +3 vs Ref (so still 50%), does 16 and stun, 8 and no stun on miss, hitting say 3 people. Mesmerizing Glare will hit, say, 1 person in the blast 3 (at least once people realize) and is +2 vs. Will for stun. So 45% chance, I guess (it's odd how all the melee classes can have a reason to have a decent Will defense via stat upgrade, kinda nice change). Okay, 60% chance to reduce those to 40%, 40%, 35%... which results in about 4.8 damage less per bite, 8.6 less per breath and instead of... 2.85 people stunned per 3 turns, it'll be 2.49 people stunned. So ~6 less damage taken per round and, say, 3 less people being stunned over the course of the combat... which is worth more damage done and less damage taken.

Also factor in psychic lock, but that's a little complex since it's only one attack roll.

That said, one other thing that reducing hit gives you is that it lets you 'keep up' more easily, if you've got regeneration, temp hp generation, or status effect problems, neutralizing your enemy's action is very valuable for 'locking in' a win.

I'm not saying it's amazing, just that I think you were underrating it. I'm willing to concede I may have been overrating it though, given the above numbers.


----------



## Nifft

rhm001 said:


> To be fair, he was talking about getting away from the enemy, not the party. "Farther away from the guy chasing you" and "Same distance from (or closer to) the rest of the party" are not mutually exclusive.



 It is if you rely on it as a strategy for dealing with skirmishers & lurkers.

Basically:
- If you're not surrounded, there's at least one "front line", where your friends are on one side and you are on the other.
- If your friends are not moving, and you are being chased, you will be moving away from them at some point.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## keterys

Cadfan said:


> *FIGHTER*
> 5 / Sure Strike (this isn't that bad at higher levels, but is never great)
> 
> *RANGER*
> 2 / Careful Strike (sucks because twin strike is better)




Shouldn't Careful Strike not decrease because Twin Strike is better... just Twin Strike should be a lot better? That is, I don't think we should decrease the scores of any powers here when Martial Power (or DDI, or whatever) releases new powers. Unless the entire scale has to change because they've released a lot of broken stuff... but that's an 'And everything moves down 1' type maneuver.

Though I'm tempted to just declare Careful Strike 'N/A', as well. It's bad, but it's mostly that Twin Strike is, frankly, excessively good.

I suspect Sure Strike should be slightly better for a fighter since at least you can use it for heavy blade opportunity for stopping people, and for killing minions. There is at least a non-zero use. I should probably up it 1.



> *WARLOCK*
> 8 / Dire Radiance (can be used to control movement. hit with it, then position yourself to obstruct)
> 7 / Hellish Rebuke




Or the creature can just take the damage, or have already taken the damage from hellish rebuke due to ongoing damage, zones, allies, etc. That said, I'm wondering if I should bump my own rating of Dire Radiance purely for its radiant damage.


----------



## Switchback

Kitirat said:


> I talked to 3 CSR for the fun of it asking how slow is supposed to work.  2 of the 3 said it allows a move of up to 2 and no more each ROUND.  Period.  double moving for 4 or running being the key there.




Wow. The PH is more clear about this than I expected. Here is the wording, P.277



> Slow: Your speed becomes 2. This speed applies to all your movement modes, but it does not apply to teleportaton or to a pull, a push, or a slide. You can't increase your speed above 2, and your speed doesn't increase if it was lower than 2. If your slowed while moving, stop moving if you have already moved 2 or more squares.



What would 'all your movement modes' be if not things like charging, running, double moves. Those are all the different movement modes I would think, the speed of 2 applies to all of them. It can't be increased.




KarinsDad said:


> So yes, I find Illusory Ambush to also be a second rate At Will Single Target power. I just find it slightly more useful than Ray of Frost because it averages more damage (better chance to hit) and since I find Slow to be extremely suboptimal.




I think you overvalue 2 damage (from CoD, unless yours does more). But each party is different. I have a party of 4 with 2 strikers and they can put out so much more DPR than me each round to the point I would far rather have the Illusory Ambush +2/3 bonus to hitting Will for most creatures (especially brutes, solo's, soldiers, elites) and helping my defender out by slapping the -2 attack penalty.



> The job of many of the Per Encounter and Daily powers is control for a Wizard. Hands and Walls control. At Will powers damage (and yes, I know about the "damage is control" claims).




This is why I said the low level control options were less than impressive. Does a striker only strike with his dailies and encounters? No, things like Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, let them do their job every round. Does a defender not defend with his AT-Wills? A class called a controller that uses At-Wills up to around 80% of the time should not be only able to control well on Encounter's and Dailies.


----------



## Mengu

Switchback said:


> What would 'all your movement modes' be if not things like charging, running, double moves. Those are all the different movement modes I would think, the speed of 2 applies to all of them. It can't be increased.




Movement modes refer to swim, climb, burrow, fly, etc. I don't like it either, but unfortunately a slow target is not prevented from charging, running, or shifting. A Slowed Kobold Dragonshield can run 4, shift 1, and charge 2 for a total of 7 squares, and make an attack at -4 (-5 from run, +1 from charge).


----------



## KarinsDad

Kitirat said:


> I talked to 3 CSR for the fun of it asking how slow is supposed to work.  2 of the 3 said it allows a move of up to 2 and no more each ROUND.  Period.  double moving for 4 or running being the key there.
> 
> The 2nd one said it was as you mentioned (can double move for 4).  I think the greater then 2 is taken from the part where if your slowed while moving, if you've moved more then 2 stop.
> 
> In anycase, I've used the majority opinion on slow (max of 2 move, period, save for forced movement) and it has found new and often painful respect.
> 
> It is not the best thing since sliced bread for sure.  But with a max 2 move, it can hold off some (especially skirmishers and lurkers) monsters for 1-2 more rounds.
> 
> I suggest ya try this ruling and you too will like the effect more.




Except that this "ruling" is not what the Slow rule states. The Slow rule states a Speed of 2. The action rules state three actions per round, two of which can be Move Actions, one of those can be a Charge (2 minimum move needed for a Charge). Slow does not limit a PC to one action. It limits Speed.

Sure, if one changes the rules from what is written, Slow can be made more potent. No doubt about it.

I'm just going by what is written in the rules. If they errata it, I would be surprised since regardless of whom you talked with, it really does appear that the designer intent of Slow is to do exactly what is written. There does not appear to be any contrary rules in the PHB.


----------



## Regicide

KarinsDad said:


> As such, since Ray of Frost hits the worst defense and does the least damage, it sucks for the job it is supposed to do (regardless of whether one considers that job to be damage or control).




  I don't know if I should be amused or sad that no one pointed out that slow prevents a monster from running AWAY from you.  I guess it's usefulness depends on how stupid your DM plays the opponents in your campaign.


----------



## Mengu

Regicide said:


> I don't know if I should be amused or sad that no one pointed out that slow prevents a monster from running AWAY from you. I guess it's usefulness depends on how stupid your DM plays the opponents in your campaign.




This is actually the *only* purpose I've seen RoF being used for. But with all the other nicer options, for any non-human, RoF is not likely to be a top two pick.


----------



## Switchback

Mengu said:


> Movement modes refer to swim, climb, burrow, fly, etc. I don't like it either, but unfortunately a slow target is not prevented from charging, running, or shifting. A Slowed Kobold Dragonshield can run 4, shift 1, and charge 2 for a total of 7 squares, and make an attack at -4 (-5 from run, +1 from charge).




Hmm yes. They might have wanted to say "Move action" then in the descriptor if they meant to limit all options to 2 squares. The CSR answers create some confusion. Even so, getting certain monsters to charge attack vs more powerful powers has its uses.

The ideal with RoF is of course to go first, like with most controller options, and then you can use it for its fullest effect to steal one of their turns.


----------



## KarinsDad

Switchback said:


> I think you overvalue 2 damage (from CoD, unless yours does more). But each party is different. I have a party of 4 with 2 strikers and they can put out so much more DPR than me each round to the point I would far rather have the Illusory Ambush +2/3 bonus to hitting Will for most creatures (especially brutes, solo's, soldiers, elites) and helping my defender out by slapping the -2 attack penalty.




The chances to hit on average for Reflex Defenses are nearly identical with Will Defenses (not on any given creature, but overall throughout the MM).

I consider 2 auto-damage on 16 attacks for 32 total points of damage (this happens regardless of hit or miss) to be a lot more useful than stopping 1 opponent from attacking back once in 16 of his attacks (on rounds he is attacked by Illusory Ambush), especially considering that CoD will also often drop multiple attacks by auto-dropping minions.

A PC doing 32 extra points of damage (and possibly killing multiple minions which stops a lot of damage back) versus him stopping one enemy from doing 10 points back once in 16 counterattacks.

It doesn't take much to realize which one has a LOT more utility (and bump Wis up to 16 or 18 and it becomes moreso).

The only reason Illusory Ambush is not totally lame like Ray of Frost is that it does more average damage. It is only partially lame compared to Magic Missile and even moreso to Cloud of Daggers.

Does the math really not mean anything to people?


4E has very few ways to incapacitate opponents. Damage is the most common one. Anything that increases damage decreases the number of enemy attacks per encounter and decreases the number of resources required on a given encounter.


PS. My Wizard PC has Int 20 and Wis 12 for only one point of damage and I still would not take Illusory Ambush because 16 points of damage in 16 attacks (plus minion killing) is vastly preferable to stopping one counterattack one time in 16. Math 101. It's beyond a no brainer for Wizards with Wis 14 or higher. Why gimp yourself?


----------



## Switchback

KarinsDad said:


> The chances to hit on average for Reflex Defenses are nearly identical with Will Defenses (not on any given creature, but overall throughout the MM).




Have you averaged out every monster in the manual? Because other's have and do not agree with you. But the averages are not as important as being able to pick the foes out in a battle that you can hit most easily. 

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=229092



> I consider 2 auto-damage on 16 attacks for 32 total points of damage (this happens regardless of hit or miss) to be a lot more useful than stopping 1 opponent from attacking back once in 16 of his attacks (on rounds he is attacked by Illusory Ambush), especially considering that CoD will also often drop multiple attacks by auto-dropping minions.



Most combats last more in the neighborhood of 7-12 rounds than 16. Of which I am sure the Wizard is not sitting pumping out CoD into one minion every single action. It's a situational type deal as with all powers. The guys you want to be hitting Ambush on are the big hitters. And as you yourself admitted, some monsters have more than one attack, solo's esp, and the penalty hits all of them until the end of your next turn.



> PS. My Wizard PC has Int 20 and Wis 12 for only one point of damage and I still would not take Illusory Ambush because 16 points of damage in 16 attacks (plus minion killing) is vastly preferable to stopping one counterattack one time in 16. Math 101. It's beyond a no brainer for Wizards with Wis 14 or higher. Why gimp yourself?




The math favors attacking Will defense. Especially in the longest battles against the most beefy of creatures that will be the ones standing for many rounds. Getting +3 would be a 15% increase every round when you target the right creatures. It is not the best idea to simply look at a general avg of Will and Reflex. Because you have the option at which defense to attack with different powers. You want to leverage the chances you get to hit the weakest defense. If there happens to be a low Reflex monster in the battle, then you might spend some turns hitting it with a different power. That is the value of being able to target different things.


----------



## keterys

Switchback said:


> Have you averaged out every monster in the manual? Because other's have and do not agree with you.




The link agrees with him. They're practically the same. Now, Fortitude or AC are indeed higher, but Reflex and Will are pretty close.



> But the averages are not as important as being able to pick the foes out in a battle that you can hit most easily.




This is, however, important.



> The math favors attacking Will defense.




By a fraction of a percent.

I agree that having diverse attack options is useful, but I suspect most wizards only get one single target option for at-will.

I wish it was possible to have more. I'd cheerfully take Scorching Burst, Thunderwave, Cloud of Daggers, and Illusionary Foes.


----------



## Switchback

keterys said:


> By a fraction of a percent.
> 
> I agree that having diverse attack options is useful, but I suspect most wizards only get one single target option for at-will.
> 
> I wish it was possible to have more. I'd cheerfully take Scorching Burst, Thunderwave, Cloud of Daggers, and Illusionary Foes.




It's much closer to +1 than zero (at Heroic), which is the difference between an 18 and 20 INT.

But it doesn't play out as a fraction of a percent really. Most battles have mixed types. If you can pick the type with the +3 lower Will then you do. Now the other guy can target the lowest Reflex as well, but that will not tend to be the creatures left standing in melee the longest. 

So in reality, once the minion's have been dealt with (which have been killed mostly with AOE if your good not wasting 7 rounds to take out 7 minions with CoD) then the big guys left standing need to be dealt with and CoD looks less useful here both in its hit % and vs the value of getting them to miss with big attacks. 

I agree the choices for especially non-human wizards are difficult.


----------



## KarinsDad

Regicide said:


> I don't know if I should be amused or sad that no one pointed out that slow prevents a monster from running AWAY from you.  I guess it's usefulness depends on how stupid your DM plays the opponents in your campaign.




This was mentioned several times in this thread (so, you should be neither amused nor sad since people have discussed this). Yes, it is a feature of Ray of Frost. Can it help? Sure. Is it very useful? Probably not, regardless of how stupid or smart DMs play opponents.

If an enemy runs away and alerts other enemies, it really is not skin off of my nose most of the time. I was going to kill those enemies anyway. There is a good chance that they would see it coming anyway (and ambushes are not a real big deal most of the time).

If an enemy runs away with the magic item our group is looking for, as a Wizard I will eventually be at a level where I can stop him with a Hand or Wall spell.

So the utility is there in Ray of Frost (slowing 40% of running away enemies assuming only one enemy runs away at a time), it's just not that big of a deal too often. I'd rather have the utility of auto-killing minions. JMO.


----------



## keterys

Switchback said:


> But it doesn't play out as a fraction of a percent really.




Sure it does. If your only choice is Reflex or your only choice is Will, it's a fraction of a percent. That fraction of a percent is particularly close depending on what you're fighting or at what level. For example, my paragon group fighting a mix of soldiers and controllers can apparently expect to see lower Reflexes than Wills.

If you have the option to use either, then it plays out very differently.



> Now the other guy can target the lowest Reflex as well, but that will not tend to be the creatures left standing in melee the longest.




Not shown by any statistics given. Artillery and Lurkers, for instance, have the worst Will to Reflex ratio and are typically premium targets to kill, using Encounter (or Daily) powers, not at-wills.



> then the big guys left standing need to be dealt with and CoD looks less useful here both in its hit % and vs the value of getting them to miss with big attacks.




The big guys left standing is where CoD does quite well, since brutes and soldiers have almost identical ref/will and don't tend to carry as dangerous status effects (where a penalty to attack shines).



> I agree the choices for especially non-human wizards are difficult.




Yeah, I definitely want a way to get another at-will...


----------



## Tripgnosis

heh, I stopped reading ALL the replies halfway down the page cuz I'm adhd. Actually I'm not, i'm just full of coffee, anyway sorry if I repeat anyone...

IMO furious smash is awesome, cuz , like someone else said, it gives a GREAT bonus to an ally. Not only that but it's a melee attack power that uses your weapons proficiency bonus and it's against FORT and not AC. That's a big deal in my opinion. You get your weapon bonus for attacking, but the defender doesn't get a bonus for his armour. This is rare as far as powers go.

Also, I think Cleave has been a bit under-rated. It's a minion dispatcher for one thing, and it's even more fun with a reach weapon. The secondary target can't be at reach but the primary can be. (yes I know it's not technically a _secondary target_ but you know what I mean). My Halberd wielding bad-ass has been using cleave ALOT. Think of this, too. If you gotta guy near you with a high ac, and a minion near you with a low one. You can target the minion, likely killing him, AND giving yourself a better chance of dealin at least SOMETHING to the heavily armoured guy since you don't have to roll an attack against _him_. All you gotta do is hit your traget, and teh second guy is gonna take damage no matter what his defenses are. Better option than reaping strike if you have that other guy to target...


----------



## Switchback

keterys said:


> Sure it does. If your only choice is Reflex or your only choice is Will, it's a fraction of a percent. That fraction of a percent is particularly close depending on what you're fighting or at what level. For example, my paragon group fighting a mix of soldiers and controllers can apparently expect to see lower Reflexes than Wills.




I get what your saying, but a monster cannot have .75 less Will. It has to be the same or a whole number more or less. Nothing is forcing you to attack Will 50% of the time and Reflex 50%. Options are always good. My daily is Flaming Sphere, and once it gets brought out it becomes almost an At-will to hit reflex at 2d6+INT, so I think it goes good with I.Ambush for instance.

The whole point of this thread is to put powers in a box and judge them I realize, but its much harder to do in 4e reliably.  Because much of the strategy in the game comes in the combats themselves, where in past versions it was more in building your character. A +12 to hit was always a plus 12. But now it matters what defense you hit, when you hit it, what your allies are doing, what other powers you have, etc.

Your Tier point is worthwhile. I think it might be worth considering as well for instance that at low levels, many common monsters (kobolds, orc’s, goblins, little animal critters) just due to the nature of being low level and weak might tend to have higher reflex than average vs higher level creatures that get stronger and more beefier. The old MM’s would call this ‘common, uncommon, rare’ etc for how often they appeared. But humanoid types are probably the most common and you can make good assumptions about them. You can also retrain powers now and thus, there is nothing stopping you from taking one At-Will for a couple levels, then deciding in a few more, another one suits your needs better. If you know your campaign is going to spend the next few months engaging with drow in the underdark that alone might lead you to choose a few things differently.

It's interesting hearing how other players judge things, but I remain totally unconvinced that it is 'incomprehensible' to choose anything but CoD as your single target AT-Will as posited earlier.


----------



## keterys

Switchback said:


> I get what your saying, but a monster cannot have .75 less Will.




Nor can it have .13 less Will. That doesn't change the statistics in question.



> Options are always good.



Agreed.



> The whole point of this thread is to put powers in a box and judge them I realize, but its much harder to do in 4e reliably.  Because much of the strategy in the game comes in the combats themselves



We have to assume a power is used effectively. Simple as that. If a campaign has a particular slant (for example, a heavy undead game would favor radiant powers), that's kinda separate from this particular examination. 



> A +12 to hit was always a plus 12. But now it matters what defense you hit, when you hit it, what your allies are doing, what other powers you have, etc.



Well, it always mattered what your save DC was, what your allies were doing, what other spells/buffs you had, etc.



> vs higher level creatures that get stronger and more beefier.



This trend is not as bad as you think. *points to the statistics*



> You can also retrain powers now and thus, there is nothing stopping you from taking one At-Will for a couple levels, then deciding in a few more, another one suits your needs better.



I actually figured that I'd have Scorching Burst on my wizard until sometime in Paragon when I swapped it out for something else - because by that point my encounter powers (and the incidental AoE of my allies) should be sufficient without drawing on it.



> It's interesting hearing how other players judge things, but I remain totally unconvinced that it is 'uncomprehensible' to choose anything but an exact 2 AT-Will's as posited earlier in the thread.



Agreed  I mean, I'll note that almost anything that's in a range of 2 is largely a taste, implementation, and party thing. And some things require a certain 'spec' (like Trickster vs. Brutal Rogue)

Still, you should have some real warning flags on the 4s and 9s and such, and I'd suggest that the game might actually be a better place if those were changed to slip back into the expected range.


----------



## Mengu

keterys said:


> Still, you should have some real warning flags on the 4s and 9s and such, and I'd suggest that the game might actually be a better place if those were changed to slip back into the expected range.



I agree. If most classes had a 9+ somewhere, I'd be all right with that, but when it's only one or two, I don't like it. I would really like to avoid the 4-'s. Replacing the auto-picks and dead weights will only lead to more fun and interesting options.


----------



## keterys

If anyone feels that the scores I have posted in the beginning do not reflect at least the gist or median of the discussion here, please let me know. Things seem to have settled down and I tried to skim through and update things based on what seemed like a prevailing opinion.

If anyone has advice for adding - or + to any, or if I should just drop those or switch my scale in some way, let me know.


----------



## phil500

keterys said:


> Cleric
> 10 / Righteous Brand
> 
> 
> *WARLORD*
> 7 / Furious Smash





I would say these are both 10's, despite furious smash being MAD.

most players, in paragon/epic levels, will wait for one of these to connect before using dailies


----------



## Matthra

Why do so many people think righteous brand is a good cleric power? Admittedly its better than priest shield but so is just about everything. Let take a look at it from a character op point of view:

The first problem is it attacks AC, statistically the worst defense to attack. Second the buff it gives relies on the classes tertiary ability (wisdom, then charisma, and wayyyyy behind that strength). Third it requires the cleric be in melle to use. Finally, there is a perfectly good ranged version of this power that attacks reflex using the classes primary stat to hit, lance of faith.

I think the lure of the potential plus to hit causes people to miss the fact the power is really quite bad in application.

While I'm on the topic of lemons, let me give viper strike a firm 2 of 10 rating. This is like a ghetto version of hammer and anvil, except even more situational. It requires that you have an ally adjacent, that the ally can make a worthwhile attack of oppurtunity, and that the mob will shift. If you have a warrior adjacent, commanders strike is probably a better choice because hit or miss, he'll get the attack on shift anyway because he marked the target. Mabey if you had a striker set up to maximize OA's (ranger comes to mind), and knew for a fact he was going to shift, mabey then it would be better.


----------



## Nifft

Matthra said:


> Why do so many people think righteous brand is a good cleric power?



 Because it multiplies the effectiveness of your primary attack stat. Not only do you attack with Strength, you then add your Strength bonus to an ally's attack. Any boost you get to Strength shows up twice in the expected damage calculation.

Also, because reliable attack bonuses are very hard to come by, and here's a bonus that could easily be +4 at 1st level and +10 at 30th level.

Cheers, -- N



Matthra said:


> Second the buff it gives relies on the classes tertiary ability (wisdom, then charisma, and wayyyyy behind that strength).



 I don't think we're looking at the same power. If you're a Strength-based Cleric, you don't need any Wisdom at all.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mistwell

keterys said:


> If anyone feels that the scores I have posted in the beginning do not reflect at least the gist or median of the discussion here, please let me know. Things seem to have settled down and I tried to skim through and update things based on what seemed like a prevailing opinion.
> 
> If anyone has advice for adding - or + to any, or if I should just drop those or switch my scale in some way, let me know.




Rather than having things like - and +, but your bottom score being a 6, why not reset it so the bottom score is a 1 and you have no - or + signs in there?


----------



## Matthra

Nifft said:


> Because it multiplies the effectiveness of your primary attack stat. Not only do you attack with Strength, you then add your Strength bonus to an ally's attack. Any boost you get to Strength shows up twice in the expected damage calculation.
> 
> Also, because reliable attack bonuses are very hard to come by, and here's a bonus that could easily be +4 at 1st level and +10 at 30th level.
> 
> Cheers, -- N
> 
> I don't think we're looking at the same power. If you're a Strength-based Cleric, you don't need any Wisdom at all.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Str based clerics are suboptimal, for many of the same reasons i said righteous brand is far from a ten. Almost all attacks are vs. AC, and almost all attacks require the user to be in melle. So a str based cleric has a harder time hitting compared to a wisdom based cleric, and is in the most dangerous position on the battle field, in melle with the mobs. Seems like a poor trade for abilities that are arguably worse than their wisdom based equivalents. However Str v Wis clerics is a debate for a diffrent thread. 

I think its safe to say though for all the reasons I mentioned that righteous brand is undeserving of a ten, It may be single attribute dependent but it attacks vs. AC, the bonus may be greater than lance of faith but your limited in your selection of targets, The build of cleric that can best use this ability is not the strongest cleric build, and the risk it exposes you to is far greater than its ranged counterparts.


----------



## keterys

Mistwell said:


> Rather than having things like - and +, but your bottom score being a 6, why not reset it so the bottom score is a 1 and you have no - or + signs in there?




Sure Strike and Careful Strike were at the bottom before, preventing that... technically still are.

I actually started off doing 0 and higher (and negative if need be), but split out to 1-10 because I figured people would more naturally respond to it. Damn our ape fingers.


----------



## keterys

phil500 said:


> I would say these are both 10's, despite furious smash being MAD.
> 
> most players, in paragon/epic levels, will wait for one of these to connect before using dailies




So, I figured Furious Smash was worse than Righteous Brand - Righteous Brand double uses Strength, lasts through an entire round rather than just one attack. Furious Smash doesn't deal any damage dice (so does very small damage indeed), but does add Charisma to damage on the one attack and targets Fortitude.

I'm not disinclined to increase Furious Smash, but I have to assume Righteous Brand should still be higher than it... I could increase the whole spread though, since I was thinking of reworking the scale anyways.


----------



## keterys

Matthra said:


> I think its safe to say though for all the reasons I mentioned that righteous brand is undeserving of a ten, It may be single attribute dependent but it attacks vs. AC, the bonus may be greater than lance of faith but your limited in your selection of targets, The build of cleric that can best use this ability is not the strongest cleric build, and the risk it exposes you to is far greater than its ranged counterparts.




I can't think of any at-will power more powerful than Righteous Brand... can you give examples of those that are?

A melee cleric is a perfectly viable build, even if it potentially eats up a couple feats (but the melee feats are honestly more efficient and those feats are well spent). The hp difference between them and defenders is rather minor, and a proficiency bonus negates the difference between AC and other defenses.

Unfortunately powers like Cascade of Blades immensely magnify the effect of a power like Righteous Brand.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Torchlyte said:


> All attack powers are insta-death to a minion. A Wizard's basic dagger attack is insta-death to a minion. That doesn't mean the hobgoblin warlord is going to avoid engaging a Wizard in melee.




You are missing a point here.

Cloud of Daggers is insta-death to a minion because even if you don't hit them, on their go they take damage before they take any other actions, thus dying. The only way of avoiding this is if someone else somehow moves them out of the area before their go.

The basic dagger attack (and others) needs to hit in order to kill a minion. Cloud of Daggers will kill a minion regardless of whether you hit - it is just a matter of whether you kill it on your go or at the start of its go.

Cheers


----------



## Roxlimn

I think Ray of Frost is okayish.  It's best used with other powers and other teammates, also best used as a Readied Action.  Chargers often charge from far away - like more than 2 squares away.  If you ready an action to kill that movement, the guy is stuck somewhere where he can't really do anything.

My interpretation of Slow's effect tells me that you can't use the Run action to increase your Speed.  Of course, that's debatable.

Still, it's best used with other powers, tactics, and such.  Ray of Frost can be used to keep an enemy entangled in an Evard's Area, particularly if your Fighters ready Push actions to push them back in as soon as they get out.  Good for Stinking Cloud effects, too.  If you're locking down a Dragon with Hands, and you can spare the Standard Action, you might use it to put Slow.  That way, even if it frees itself, it can't really move or attack very far.

If it targeted Ref, it would probably be too good.


----------



## Zinovia

I think letter grades would be more useful than numeric ones (A,B,C,D,F), with pluses or minuses added for more subtle gradation.  You could also put build notes in (A+ for tactical warlord, B for Inspiring).


----------



## Nifft

Matthra said:


> Str based clerics are suboptimal, for many of the same reasons i said righteous brand is far from a ten. Almost all attacks are vs. AC, and almost all attacks require the user to be in melle. So a str based cleric has a harder time hitting compared to a wisdom based cleric, and is in the most dangerous position on the battle field, in melle with the mobs. Seems like a poor trade for abilities that are arguably worse than their wisdom based equivalents. However Str v Wis clerics is a debate for a diffrent thread.



 Melee clerics play as strong as laser clerics, and multi-class far better. Even mixed-mode clerics -- e.g. using Longtooth Shifter -- are validated by Warpriest.

If you think Weapon vs. AC is harder than Implement vs. Reflex, you don't understand the effect of the weapon proficiency bonus rule.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Roxlimn

In all fairnesss, there is a bit of a defense lag at the Paragon levels.  Most monsters are going to have Ref defenses from 2-3 lower than their ACs, but occasionally the gap can be as high as 6.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> Because of the fact that none of the At Will Single Target powers really do a good job of controlling (including Illusory Ambush with a ~40% to ~60% chance of hitting to decrease an enemy attack by 10%, that means that it's control function actually works ~5% of the time, it's damage function works ~50% of the time), one has to assume that the intent of At Will Single Target Wizard powers is not true control. It's damage.




Numbers can be used in many ways.  The value of Illusory Ambush really depends on two things - your chance to hit the target, and the target's chance to hit you.  It's not a static chance.

For example, if you are running a maxed-out wizard (20 Int to begin, stat bumps at every opportunity, best possible implement for your level), you should have a pretty good chance to hit...and it only gets better if you target a foe who has Will as their weak defense.  A 1st level wizard maxed on attack bonus can hit the typical brute (Will 11) 75% of the time.  With Leather Armor proficiency, the wizard can have a 17 AC, or 18 if a Staff Wizard.  That means the typical brute can hit the wizard roughly 45% of the time (+5 if fire beetle, +6 if dire rat), which reduces to 35% if the Illusory Ambush hits

That means the effect of the -2 from Illusory Ambush is roughly equivalent to a 16% reduction to damage taken (22% reduction in average damage times 75% chance that Illusory Attack hits), assuming you're only being attacked by one foe.  Hopefully, if the defenders are doing their job, the wizard only has to contend with one foe getting past them.

Moving to the Paragon tier at 11th level, there are two Elite Brutes listed for that level in the MM - the Dire Bear (+15 attack, Will 18) and the Ogre Warhulk (+14 attack, Will 21).  The wizard can take the Psychic Lock feat at this point, increasing the penalty from Illusory Ambush to -4.  A +3 implement is a 11th level magic item (which can be made with Enchant Magic Item), and the wizard should have a 23 Int at this point, for a total attack bonus of +14.  That's a 85% chance to hit the Dire Bear, and a 70% chance to hit the Ogre Warhulk.  Averaging it out between the two still works out to roughly 75%.

At this point, the wizard's AC should be increased by +6 from 1st level (+5 level mod, +1 from Int increase), for a total AC of 23 or 24.  Because the foes are Elite, they have an easier time of hitting - roughly 60%.  However, with Psychic Lock, that -4 to hit reduces the chance from 60% to 40%, or a 33% reduction in average damage taken.  With the 75% hit chance, that works out to a 25% overall reduction in the damage taken.

Let's go all the way to the endgame - an Ancient Red Dragon (level 30 Solo Soldier) or the Tarrasque (level 30 Solo Brute).  The wizard should have a +30 to hit at this point (+9 from Int, +6 from implement, +15 from level).  The Tarrasque only has a 32 Will...that's a 95% chance to hit!  The Ancient Red Dragon is tougher with a 42 Will...that's only a 45% chance to hit (Soldiers have high defenses).  The reduction to attacks is either -2 or -4...the Ancient Red Dragon can attack multiple times per round, and Psychic Lock only affects the first attack.  

The wizard's AC is a bit more variable, here - a Wizard of the Spiral Tower with a decent Str and Con can have a light (or even heavy) shield at this point, plus Shield (or Armor) Specialization.  But even a default wizard in leather armor will have a 44 AC (+10 from +6 starleather armor, +9 from Int, +15 from level).  The ancient red has a +37 attack, while the Tarrasque has a +34 attack.  That's anywhere from a 55% to a 70% chance to hit.  Given other possible increases to AC, I'll average that out at 60%.  Also, given the multiple attacks of the dragon, I'll only count half of the effect of the Psychic Lock feat for it, making it a -3.

So, with a 95% chance to reduce the average hit chance of the Tarrasque from 60% to 40%, that works out to roughly a 28% reduction in average damage taken.  Even with the 45% chance to hit the Ancient Red Dragon and reduce its hit chance from 60% to 45%, that's a 11% reduction.  The numbers get better if your defenders are marking the solo (either enforcing a penalty to hit or drawing its attacks to their higher AC).  Still think the control aspect of Illusory Ambush is useless?

Heck, I won't even go into the ultra-AC build for mages (50 AC at level 30) that would change the numbers above to show a nearly 50% reduction in average damage for using Illusory Ambush against the Tarrasque.

Now, granted, not all monsters are weak versus Will.  But that's why wizards have attacks that target a variety of defenses, with a variety of status effects.


----------



## keterys

Ancient Red has a Will of 42, not 29 - you were looking at the level 15 solo dragon's Will


----------



## Fedifensor

keterys said:


> Ancient Red has a Will of 42, not 29 - you were looking at the level 15 solo dragon's Will




Whoops!  That's what I get for working quickly.  I'll fix that now, thanks!


----------



## keterys

Added letter grades.


----------



## Mengu

keterys said:


> Added letter grades.




Why did you remove the number grades? I want them back! I can think about numbers in a much more linear fashion. Now it looks like everything got A's and B's so we can feel good about ourselves. Always hated letter grades... Sorry, nothing personal. But in general, if you are going to grade things, you need to give yourself room for the scale. Letters just don't provide enough of a spread for a good comparison.


----------



## keterys

I have the numbers saved, actually, depending on how folks feel 

I'll let anyone else weigh in, but I'll happily switch back by end of day if no one objects. I do think I'll keep the scale for #s. The main difference between a letter grade and a number grade is that the number implies you can categorically score things (Well, +5 range is +.5 and then it's radiant for another +.5, and it's 2d8 so that's +1 over 1d8, etc), while the letter implies it's a fuzzier scale.


----------



## Fedifensor

keterys said:


> I have the numbers saved, actually, depending on how folks feel
> 
> I'll let anyone else weigh in, but I'll happily switch back by end of day if no one objects. I do think I'll keep the scale for #s. The main difference between a letter grade and a number grade is that the number implies you can categorically score things (Well, +5 range is +.5 and then it's radiant for another +.5, and it's 2d8 so that's +1 over 1d8, etc), while the letter implies it's a fuzzier scale.




I actually prefer the letter scale, because in the end, this is a fuzzy rating system.  With the numbers, people get too hung up on the *exact* score (is it a 7?  7.5?  7.3702?).  The letter grade is easy, and intuitive.  Everyone remembers it from grade school, and I expect less arguments will occur over an 'A' than a '9'.

That said, the letter system needs a bit of adjusting.  Twin Strike is a legal power - rate it, and don't dodge things by giving it an **.  I think it should be a simple A+...and probably the only A+.

In addition, your letter system has far too many A's and B's.  There's only two C's, and not a single D.  You also have 3 "A+" powers (4 if you count Twin Strike).  You need to scale things so the powers are spread out, instead of having 90% of them shoved into the A and B area.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> Numbers can be used in many ways.  The value of Illusory Ambush really depends on two things - your chance to hit the target, and the target's chance to hit you.  It's not a static chance.




Yes, numbers can easily be skewed as you showed. That's why I talk about average foes and not specific groups. If one uses Illusory Ambush versus Brutes in their examples like you did, one can misrepresent Illusory Ambush to make it look real good.

Your Tarrasque example is a bit of a joke. Sure, the Wizard can easily give the Tarrasque a -2 to hit. But he would NEVER EVER do that until late in the combat. First off, he should not readily know that he has a 95% chance to hit the Tarrasque and only a 45% chance to hit the Ancient Red Dragon.

Secondly, he would throw most of his Per Encounter and Daily powers at the Tarrasque and only when he was done doing that would he ever consider using Illusory Ambush.

And, the Tarrasque can give the Wizard a -5 to AC. Suddenly, the Tarrasque is +3 to hit the Wizard. And, the Tarrasque can walk right through the Defender's square in order to get to the Wizard (and it is unlikely that the Wizard could ever Fly out of reach due to Earthbinding). Or, the Tarrasque could attack the Wizard with a Tail Slap and it's +32 to hit Fort attack -2 due to Illusory Damage will still hit the super AC super Int Wizard ~80+% of the time (the Wizard cannot maintain great Defenses across the board).

Yup, the -2 is very helpful in this scenario. This scenario.


But, these are not average encounters. For the 1 in 5 encounters where Illusory Ambush is slightly better (much better chance to hit, but still less damage and still infrequent chance to protect the party with the -2 to attacks boon), there are 4 encounters (and especially the 1 minion encounter) where Cloud of Daggers wipes the floor with Illusory Ambush. The reason is that the chance to hit is about the same between the two in these majority cases, but Cloud of Daggers does more damage. Dead foes do not need a 1 in 16 chance of putting a -2 to hit on them.

Sorry, but offense trumps defense in 4E for the most part. It's all about economy of actions. It's often better to kill 1 foe than it is to damage or hinder 3 foes (unless one can hinder them to the point that they cannot do counterattack actions).

The main advantage that PCs have over NPCs is that when NPCs gang up on a single PC, that PC can be healed and can still fight. When PCs gang up on a single NPC, it typically cannot be healed and eventually just falls. So, NPCs rarely decrease the number of PCs they are fighting from round to round whereas PCs often decrease the number of NPCs they are fighting from round to round.

It's all about economy of actions.

When NPCs do manage to decrease the number of PCs they are fighting from round to round, that's typically when TPKs (or semi-TPKs if some PCs run away) occur.

One PC falling is not often that big of a deal, but when 2 or 3 fall, things can turn real bad for the PCs real quick. Just like it does once most of the NPCs fall in the opposite direction.



Fedifensor said:


> Still think the control aspect of Illusory Ambush is useless?




I did not say that Illusory Ambush was useless. I said it was on average suboptimal. Same for Ray of Frost (which is even more on average suboptimal than Illusory Ambush).

There are always going to be scenarios where one At Will power is preferable to any other. Magic Missile wipes the floor up on all of the other At Wills if the Wizard stays 11+ squares away from his foes (at least from the POV of the Wizard, maybe not from the POV of the entire party).


One thing people forget is that in order to get to super PCs and wipe out the Tarrasque, the PCs have to do a few things first:

1) Wipe out ~290 encounters before getting to 30th level, the vast majority of these where Cloud of Daggers helps combat more than either Ray of Frost or Illusory Ambush.

2) Somehow survive all of these encounters (i.e. no TPKs). For the 20 Int Wizard, sure, he is throwing out strong attacks (I am playing a 20 Int Wizard, so I know, 20 Int does >20% more damage than 18 Int). It also means that at least one and possibly two of the Wizard's other Defenses are suboptimal (the Wizard can only bump 2 stats up on most bump up levels and there are a lot of ability score prerequisites to craft a Super Wizard). For example, the mega-AC 50 Wizard that you are talking about has to give something up in order to get a Heavy Shield and Hide Armor. Str and Con do not grow on trees.

3) The PCs have to have all of these magical items that people doing comparisons so easily hand out. But, if you check the DMG magic item hand out system, this is not the case. A party of 5 just made level 30 this morning PCs if given the recommended items (over many levels) would each have:

2 level 30 items, 1 level 29 item, 1 level 28 item, 1 level 27 item, 1 level 26 item, etc. (assuming they use most of their cash to craft/purchase items as well, otherwise they would have 0.8 level 29, 28, 27 etc. items each).

Will a level 29 Wizard always have +6 Starleather armor, or might he have +6 Feyleather armor? Or, might he have +5 Feyleather armor because he has not yet been able to find Starleather and this armor is the best he had 3 levels ago?

Giving PCs the best equipment and the best feats and the best stats does not make for a sound POV.

That might happen is some games, but I suspect that most DMs do not hand out the optimal items at every single level. Even following the DMG guidelines does not result in optimal items all of the time.

Not all players will be playing mega-PCs. Sure, they will pick good items and feats and ability scores, but they won't be optimized across the board. Want a high Int Wizard, one gives up Fort Defense. Want a high AC Wizard, one gives up Wisdom or Int. Pros and Cons.

Want Illusory Ambush to wipe out weak Will opponents? Fine. You don't get to wipe out quite as many Minions or Leaders or Elites as quickly.

Again, Pros and Cons.


This is why it is always better to talk about average scenarios when discussing powers. Any given power can shine in any given scenario, but it might be drastically suboptimal to another power on average.


----------



## keterys

Twin Strike is obviously a legal power. It's just also far better than any other damaging power, and by enough of a measure that it's difficult for me to rate things in the same 'letter' area... but by the grading system the baseline I established was a B. I don't want the baseline to be a C, because that implies any power that's worse (a D) is actually is mediocre, instead of adequate. B is the 'grade' that a power should aspire for, from a design perspective, as far as I can tell, and the lion's share of well-designed powers should be Bs. 

Maybe my understanding of grading is flawed, though.

C - Pass. Adequate.
D - Mediocre. Fails in some cases, borderline passes in others.

Right?

If Twin Strike didn't exist and someone posted a fighter power that let them swing twice but lose Str to the damage, it would be called out as ridiculous. Though, I think the better example would be eldritch blasting twice. There is a precedent for double hitting powers, but they're all pretty restrictive - Hellish Rebuke, Dire Radiance, and Riposte Strike. 

Weirdly, it's less of a problem if you restrict it to just dual wield but not bows. At least that's some restriction on its use.


----------



## keterys

> +6 Starleather armor, or might he have +6 Feyleather armor




No, it'd be Starleather. They don't make +6 Feyleather  But, yeah, he might have +5 feyleather.


----------



## keterys

Edit: Adjusted scale.


----------



## Cadfan

keterys said:


> Shouldn't Careful Strike not decrease because Twin Strike is better... just Twin Strike should be a lot better? That is, I don't think we should decrease the scores of any powers here when Martial Power (or DDI, or whatever) releases new powers. Unless the entire scale has to change because they've released a lot of broken stuff... but that's an 'And everything moves down 1' type maneuver.



I rated it low because its in direct competition with twin strike.  Both accomplish the same thing.  If you have one, there's no need to have the other.  In a way, I could have ranked Careful Strike at a zero- the fact that twin strike exists means that careful strike need not exist.


----------



## keterys

But that doesn't change things, Cadfan. An infinite number of powers can be added later. If Martial Power adds a fighter 'Rapid Swing' ability that works like TWS, we shouldn't decrease all of the powers already out.

That said, the letter scale for just failing things works out too


----------



## Cadfan

Matthra said:


> Why do so many people think righteous brand is a good cleric power?



Strength based clerics are not suboptimal.  Running a cleric with a starting strength of 18 is entirely reasonable.  Use a feat for proficiency with a bastard sword, and you've got a +7 attack bonus at level 1.  Hitting with Righteous Brand gives an ally a +4 to hit.  This is absolutely enormous, and just gets better as you level up and your strength improves.

Dragonborn Cleric, starting stats
Str 16+2=18
Con 13
Dex 10
Int 11
Wis 14
Cha 12+2=14

That's an entirely viable character, using a non-optimized default array.


----------



## Cadfan

keterys said:


> But that doesn't change things, Cadfan. An infinite number of powers can be added later. If Martial Power adds a fighter 'Rapid Swing' ability that works like TWS, we shouldn't decrease all of the powers already out.
> 
> That said, the letter scale for just failing things works out too



It works well enough for me.  If we have Power A (int v reflex, 1d6+int damage) and power B (int v reflex, 1d8+int damage), and there are no other differences between the powers, the first one probably deserves a zero.  Its grade only makes sense in the context of the other powers available to a class.  In this case, the other powers available to the class include one which is strictly superior.  So, the first one might as well not exist.

In this case, the two ranger powers accomplish the same task.  One is better than the others at all times except

1. Incredibly, insanely high armor class, and 
2. When you only have one arrow.

So, the lesser power is very, very close to worthless in context.


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> *WIZARD*
> B+ / Cloud of Daggers
> B- / Magic Missile
> B- / Ray of Frost
> A / Scorching Burst
> A / Thunderwave
> B+ / Illusionary Foes




My ratings for these (not compared to other class At Will powers):

A / Cloud of Daggers
B+ / Magic Missile
C- / Ray of Frost (Fort save, lowest damage, Slow rarely affects combat, yikes!)
B- / Illusory Ambush (sorry, but if taking only one single target At Will, Magic Missile affects combat more overall by doing more extra damage than IA saves with its -2)

By definition, most Wizards should have an area of effect At Will power. So, these powers have a slightly higher rating just because one of them is practically required. I really cannot see a real helpful Wizard without an At Will AoE except possibly at high level where he has so many Per Encounter (and Daily) area powers that he does not need an At Will one (and even this does not sound like a real strong strategy).

A+ / Scorching Burst
A- / Thunderwave

I use Scorching Burst a lot, probably close to 50% of the time. In 12 encounters, I have used Thunderwave in two rounds (once to great effect saving a fellow PC from a swarm but that required using it twice due to it missing on the first try and with an action point succeeding on the second try, once to no effect trying to move a Dragon right next to my PC).


For my human PC Wizard, I took Cloud of Daggers, Scorching Burst, and Thunderwave.

I could see taking Illusory Ambush, but only as a Human Wizard with Scorching Burst and Cloud of Daggers as the other two At Wills. But if only taking one At Will single target power, Illusory Ambush is not as good as Cloud of Daggers or Magic Missile (on average). It sounds better than it actually is.


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> No, it'd be Starleather. They don't make +6 Feyleather  But, yeah, he might have +5 feyleather.




Thanks. Since I'm not DMing (and since we are still level 2 PCs), I did not carefully read the magic armor rules which indicate that given bonus items automatically also give masterwork qualities.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> Yes, numbers can easily be skewed as you showed. That's why I talk about average foes and not specific groups. If one uses Illusory Ambush versus Brutes in their examples like you did, one can misrepresent Illusory Ambush to make it look real good.



Brutes are a common foe from level 1 all the way to level 30 - they're easy to run, and considered "baseline muscle" per the DMG.  Artillery, Lurkers, and Skirmishers are, on average, also good choices to target with Will.

Now, part of the reason you have multiple at-will powers is to match the attack to the defense.  Half of the wizard at-will powers target Reflex, so adding an at-will that targets Will is a good thing.  If it wasn't for the fact that Fortitude seems to be higher on average than Reflex or Will, Ray of Frost would be a better choice than it currently is.  Will is, by the stats given in this thread, the lowest of the defenses.  Thus, it makes sense to pick an at-will that targets that defense.



> Your Tarrasque example is a bit of a joke. Sure, the Wizard can easily give the Tarrasque a -2 to hit. But he would NEVER EVER do that until late in the combat. First off, he should not readily know that he has a 95% chance to hit the Tarrasque and only a 45% chance to hit the Ancient Red Dragon.



Funny, I was under the impression that the core rulebooks were available for everyone to purchase.  Heck, after a few years of DMing 3.5, I'll often know a creature's strong and weak saves on the top of my head.  Furthermore, the players should be able to figure out the relative value of a defense after a few rounds of attacking it, given that DMs are encouraged to dispense information like, "it didn't hit, but you think it was close".

As to whether the wizard would use Illusory Assault before late in the combat, that's a straw man.  A wizard won't use any at-will in a fight against a solo until he's exhausted his other options.  You don't hold back against the big bad guy.

Finally, though I provided examples for each tier, you only focused on the Epic Tier example.  The Tarrasque certainly isn't the only monster in the MM with a weak Will save, not by far.



> Secondly, he would throw most of his Per Encounter and Daily powers at the Tarrasque and only when he was done doing that would he ever consider using Illusory Ambush.



As we're grading at-will powers, the assumption is that the wizard has already used his other powers, or for some reason doesn't want to use them (maybe the Tarrasque is the warm-up before fighting Orcus).  I could replace "Illusory Ambush" with "Cloud of Daggers" in the quote above, and it would be just as true.



> And, the Tarrasque can give the Wizard a -5 to AC.



If he's not bloodied.  Which, if you're down to using at-wills, the Tarrasque better be bloodied...or you should be running away.  Cloud of Daggers may deal decent damage when used by high-WIS characters, but a party isn't going to chew through nearly a thousand HP with just at-will powers.



> But, these are not average encounters. For the 1 in 5 encounters where Illusory Ambush is slightly better (much better chance to hit, but still less damage and still infrequent chance to protect the party with the -2 to attacks boon), there are 4 encounters (and especially the 1 minion encounter) where Cloud of Daggers wipes the floor with Illusory Ambush. The reason is that the chance to hit is about the same between the two in these majority cases, but Cloud of Daggers does more damage. Dead foes do not need a 1 in 16 chance of putting a -2 to hit on them.



Sorry, you're going to have to back this argument up, instead of just whipping a "1 in 5" number out of thin air.  Against minions, unless the minions are incredibly spread out, Scorching Burst or Thunderwave are both better than any of the single-target powers, so using Cloud of Daggers is a moot point.   Illusory Ambush does respectable single-target damage *and* reduces damage taken.  I'm not saying it's a no-brainer...but neither is Cloud of Daggers.



> Sorry, but offense trumps defense in 4E for the most part. It's all about economy of actions. It's often better to kill 1 foe than it is to damage or hinder 3 foes (unless one can hinder them to the point that they cannot do counterattack actions).



It's not that simple.  I'd rather deal X damage with Scorching Burst to 3 or 4 different foes than 2X damage to one foe with Cloud of Daggers.  Even if 2X is enough to kill one opponent, two rounds of Scorching Burst beats out two rounds of Cloud of Daggers.



> The main advantage that PCs have over NPCs is that when NPCs gang up on a single PC, that PC can be healed and can still fight. When PCs gang up on a single NPC, it typically cannot be healed and eventually just falls. So, NPCs rarely decrease the number of PCs they are fighting from round to round whereas PCs often decrease the number of NPCs they are fighting from round to round.
> 
> It's all about economy of actions.



Which is why different powers have different functions.  AoE powers (Scorching Burst and Thunderwave) wear down the HP of multiple creatures at once.  Cloud of Daggers does strong damage (for an at-will) to one target.  Magic Missile does less damage than Cloud of Daggers (though Bracers of the Perfect Shot can balance this out), but it does so at a longer range and works well with a Warlord's power to grant basic attacks.  Illusory Assault is best when the encounter has one strong creature to worry about, as it inflicts a significant penalty on the creature who dishes out the most damage (or effects, in the case of controllers).  Even Ray of Frost can have uses with the various cold feats.



> When NPCs do manage to decrease the number of PCs they are fighting from round to round, that's typically when TPKs (or semi-TPKs if some PCs run away) occur.



Which is less likely to occur when the creature that does the most damage is taking a penalty to hit.



> I did not say that Illusory Ambush was useless. I said it was on average suboptimal. Same for Ray of Frost (which is even more on average suboptimal than Illusory Ambush).



You also seem to have the baseline assumption that your wizard is pumping Wisdom to the exclusion of other stats.  That's true for an Orb wizard, but not for a Staff or Wand wizard.  With a lower Wisdom, Cloud of Daggers loses much of its luster.  Now, if you're saying there's no reason for a wizard to take any implement except Orb, that's a completely different discussion.



> There are always going to be scenarios where one At Will power is preferable to any other. Magic Missile wipes the floor up on all of the other At Wills if the Wizard stays 11+ squares away from his foes (at least from the POV of the Wizard, maybe not from the POV of the entire party).



That, at least, we can agree on.



> One thing people forget is that in order to get to super PCs and wipe out the Tarrasque, the PCs have to do a few things first:
> 1) Wipe out ~290 encounters before getting to 30th level, the vast majority of these where Cloud of Daggers helps combat more than either Ray of Frost or Illusory Ambush.



That hasn't been proven, and Scorching Burst is more potent than either Cloud of Daggers or Illusory Ambush in the typical encounter.  



> For example, the mega-AC 50 Wizard that you are talking about has to give something up in order to get a Heavy Shield and Hide Armor. Str and Con do not grow on trees.



If the thread survives the database fix on the WotC boards, I'll link to it here.

Edit:  The WotC boards are back up, and you can find it here.  If we're going to discuss that build, let me know and I'll cross-post the build to these forums in its own thread.



> 3) The PCs have to have all of these magical items that people doing comparisons so easily hand out. But, if you check the DMG magic item hand out system, this is not the case.



All a wizard needs for respectable attack and defense scores are three items - all of which can be level 26.  A +6 implement, +6 armor, and a +6 amulet.  Everything else is gravy.  All three are easily acquired before level 30.  Heck, with residuum used as currency, you can just craft them with the Enchant Magic Item ritual.



> Not all players will be playing mega-PCs. Sure, they will pick good items and feats and ability scores, but they won't be optimized across the board. Want a high Int Wizard, one gives up Fort Defense. Want a high AC Wizard, one gives up Wisdom or Int. Pros and Cons.



While true, we're talking about a reasonably optimized character.  If the character is not optimized, then the player isn't going to care about which at-will is best - they're just going to pick for flavor.



> Want Illusory Ambush to wipe out weak Will opponents? Fine. You don't get to wipe out quite as many Minions or Leaders or Elites as quickly.



Straw man, once again.  You get more than one at-will.  Scorching Burst takes care of most of that, and if you're a human (the optimized wizard will be either human or eladrin for the Int bonus) you get three powers to choose from, depending on the situation.


----------



## Fedifensor

> I don't want the baseline to be a C, because that implies any power that's worse (a D) is actually is mediocre, instead of adequate.



Honestly, it IS mediocre in that case.  You only get two (or three if a human) at-will powers, EVER.  No matter how many sourcebooks come out with more powers, the only thing that matters to a player is what the top two or three at-wills are in their eyes.  For example, I would rate Priest's Shield a D because while it has some minimal effect, the other at-wills are going to be a much better choice for general play.



keterys said:


> Maybe my understanding of grading is flawed, though.
> 
> C - Pass. Adequate.
> D - Mediocre. Fails in some cases, borderline passes in others.



A C will get you through school without any academic warnings.  I think a lot more powers on your list fall into that definition than a B.  Also, in school, the + and - adders are a lot less common than the base letter.  For example, if the range for a B is 80 to 89, you'd have 80 for a B-, 81 to 88 for a B, and 89 for a B+.

I would move everything that's a B- to a flat C, move the C- and D+ (Priest's Shield and Hit and Run) to a flat D, and otherwise streamline things so only a few powers have + or - next to the letter.


----------



## Leatherhead

If you are going to grade with letters you should grade on a curve. 

Ideally most powers should be a "C", meaning a power that won't let you down if you pick it and have the stats to support using it. Only powers that are under performing or noticeably better should warrant a "D" or "B" respectively.  "F" and "A" should be reserved for powers that are so far out of whack with the others that they should probably be looked at.

"+" and  "-"  should only be used for conditional powers, denoting if the condition is common or not.


----------



## keterys

Cadfan, if they publish a power that does 1d6+X, then later one that does 1d8+Int, and they're otherwise identical, that shouldn't change the score of the 1d6+X. It should just raise a flag that there is a clear mistake or indicate a clear trend of power creep that people can adapt to depending on what powers they allow. For example, if someone were designing a 'scout' or 'swashbuckler' class and mining powers from the ranger and rogue, they might not include Twin Strike... at which point Careful Strike is no longer a zero.



Fedifensor said:


> Honestly, it IS mediocre in that case.  You only get two (or three if a human) at-will powers, EVER.  No matter how many sourcebooks come out with more powers, the only thing that matters to a player is what the top two or three at-wills are in their eyes.  For example, I would rate Priest's Shield a D because while it has some minimal effect, the other at-wills are going to be a much better choice for general play.




Priest's Shield isn't all _that_ bad compared to, say, Reaping Strike. It's more defensive and it's not particularly impressive, sure, but it's not "Wow, you're serious? You're taking that... uhh, why?"



> A C will get you through school without any academic warnings.  I think a lot more powers on your list fall into that definition than a B.  Also, in school, the + and - adders are a lot less common than the base letter.  For example, if the range for a B is 80 to 89, you'd have 80 for a B-, 81 to 88 for a B, and 89 for a B+.



You're used to some very different grading than I ever was - a C was a way to barely skate by, D was actually failing (but recoverable), and you were _expected_ to do B-caliber.

Moreover, your +/- system is not at all what I experienced (quick googling)
A+ = 97 A = 93 A- = 90    B+ = 87 B = 83 B- = 80    C+ = 77 C = 73 C- = 70    D+ = 67 D = 63 D- = 60      F = 0 to 59.9  
One interesting tidbit from that same googling:
'Many jurisdictions consider a pass to be 50% or D-. However, in Samoa, a pass is 60%. In New York state, it's 65%.   In Texas, it's 70%.'

Sounds like things vary a lot. 



> I would move everything that's a B- to a flat C, move the C- and D+ (Priest's Shield and Hit and Run) to a flat D, and otherwise streamline things so only a few powers have + or - next to the letter.



I'll wait for other people to weigh in, but


----------



## Mengu

Leatherhead said:


> If you are going to grade with letters you should grade on a curve.
> 
> Ideally most powers should be a "C", meaning a power that won't let you down if you pick it and have the stats to support using it. Only powers that are under performing or noticeably better should warrant a "D" or "B" respectively. "F" and "A" should be reserved for powers that are so far out of whack with the others that they should probably be looked at.
> 
> "+" and "-" should only be used for conditional powers, denoting if the condition is common or not.




If you must use letters, this is the way I'd prefer to see it. Most powers will be D's, C's, and B's. A few will be A's and F's. Bell curve.


----------



## keterys

Actually, we should see a weighted curve - the bad stuff shouldn't get published and if you're only choosing 4 things to pass through, you should focus on the better stuff 

But, easy enough to change. But I'll do that later after I see how people respond. No reason to bounce around with changing things if I might switch back or decide that people are more fiddly on letters than numbers


----------



## Fedifensor

keterys said:


> Priest's Shield isn't all _that_ bad compared to, say, Reaping Strike. It's more defensive and it's not particularly impressive, sure, but it's not "Wow, you're serious? You're taking that... uhh, why?"



Which is why I would rate it a D, not an F.  Some minor use, but subpar in the vast majority of situations compared to the other choices.



> You're used to some very different grading than I ever was - a C was a way to barely skate by, D was actually failing (but recoverable), and you were _expected_ to do B-caliber.



I was a C student in high school.  Granted, a C student with a 1280 SAT who was on our school's Academic Decathalon team (there were two each of A, B, and C students on the team), but still a C student.  It's not anything to brag about, but I was still able to get into the college I wanted.  That's all that mattered to me at the time.



> Moreover, your +/- system is not at all what I experienced (quick googling)
> A+ = 97 A = 93 A- = 90    B+ = 87 B = 83 B- = 80    C+ = 77 C = 73 C- = 70    D+ = 67 D = 63 D- = 60      F = 0 to 59.9
> One interesting tidbit from that same googling:
> 'Many jurisdictions consider a pass to be 50% or D-. However, in Samoa, a pass is 60%. In New York state, it's 65%.   In Texas, it's 70%.'



It may have changed over the years.  I graduated high school in the 80's.  Plusses and minuses were only used when a grade was on the edge between two levels.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> You also seem to have the baseline assumption that your wizard is pumping Wisdom to the exclusion of other stats.  That's true for an Orb wizard, but not for a Staff or Wand wizard.  With a lower Wisdom, Cloud of Daggers loses much of its luster.  Now, if you're saying there's no reason for a wizard to take any implement except Orb, that's a completely different discussion.




Assumption?

Hardly. My Int 20 Wizard has a Wisdom of 12. He is a Staff Wizard. If he gets to level 30, his Wisdom will be 18 and that is only because I will be taking Demigod and bumping Wisdom up then.

Bump Int every time.

Bump Dex 4 times (plus 2 all stats bumps)

Bump Wis 3 times (one of which is Demigod, plus 2 all stats bumps).

Final stats: Dex 18 Int 30 Wis 18

His Cloud of Daggers only does 1 point more than Ray of Frost or Illusory Ambush would and he STILL is better off taking it.

Why? 1) It autokills minions. 2) It averages more damage. Even if it is only one per attack, that's one per attack.

With a higher Wisdom than my Wizard, it is even more viable.


----------



## keterys

Well, for grading purposes, I am assuming an orb wizard for both thunderwave and cloud of daggers, a trickster rogue for sly flourish, etc.

Anyhow, for actual math:
Assuming a 60% hit chance for either and, say, 6 casts, cloud of daggers will deal 6 * Wis Mod more damage than illusionary foes, -ignoring the ability to push things through it-. 

At 1st level with Int 18, Wis 12 or 15:
IF: (1d6+4)*6*.6 = 27 avg
CoD: Same + (1 or 2) * 6 = 33 or 39 avg (+22% or +44%)

At 6th level with Int 19, Wis 13 or 16, and a +2 implement:
IF: (1d6+6)*6*.6 = 34 avg
CoD: Same + (1 or 3) * 6 = 40 or 52 avg (+18% or +65%)

At 11th level with Int 21, Wis 14 or 18, and a +3 implement:
 IF: (1d6+8)*6*.6 = 41 avg
 CoD: Same + (2 or 4) * 6 = 53 or 65 avg (+29% or +59%)

At 16th level with Int 22, Wis 15 or 19, and a +4 implement:
 IF: (1d6+10)*6*.6 = 49 avg
 CoD: Same + (2 or 4) * 6 = 61 or 73 avg (+24% or +49%)

At 21st level with Int 24 (DG 26), Wis 16 or 21 (DG 18 or 23), and a +5 implement:
 IF: (2d6+(12 or 13)*6*.6 = 68 (DG 72) avg
 CoD: Same + (3 or 5 (DG 4 or 6)) * 6 = 86 or 98 (DG 96 or 108) , 26% or 44% (DG +33% or +50%)

At 26th level with with Int 25 (DG 27), Wis 16 or 22 (DG 18 or 24) and a +6 implement:
 IF: (2d6+(13 or 14)*6*.6 = 72 (DG 76) avg
  CoD: Same + (3 or 6 (DG 4 or 7)) * 6 =  90 or 108 (DG 100 or 118), 25% or 50% (DG +32% or +55%)

Note that more hardcore orb wizards will have a higher Wis than that and even a casual user might choose to up Wis more than 2 of the available 6 times, as I did it.

Anyhow, that should be as rigorous an example as needed or desired, I'd hope. If you want to give Will an extra 3% hit rate, you can, but it doesn't make a big difference and I'd contend is not necessarily a trend that will stay consistent across new monsters (Fortitude, unfortunately, pretty much will).


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> His Cloud of Daggers only does 1 point more than Ray of Frost or Illusory Ambush would and he STILL is better off taking it.
> 
> Why? 1) It autokills minions.



Which is the biggest draw of the power, and Scorching Burst is _still _going to be a better overall minion killer, because you can hit multiple targets with it (especially once Spell Accuracy comes into play and you can drop it on friends safely).  



> 2) It averages more damage. Even if it is only one per attack, that's one per attack.
> 
> With a higher Wisdom than my Wizard, it is even more viable.



Of course it does more damage...because that's all it does.  Illusory Ambush does damage AND reduces incoming damage (and reduces the chance of being hit with status effects that are based on a hit roll).  Furthermore, as you go up in levels, encounter powers (and daily powers, in tough fights) are going to provide a larger percentage of the damage you dish out, making the damage from at-will powers pale in comparison.


----------



## keterys

Just a note from my higher level (12th) game... Scorching Burst wasn't used once all night, and every fight had some minions (3 fights: 4, 4, and 6 minions respectively). Encounter powers (and I think a daily in one fight) took care of them. Thunderwave did see some use (4 or so times I think) - I believe Scorching Burst would have been used once, but she couldn't do it without provoking at that moment.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> Which is the biggest draw of the power, and Scorching Burst is _still _going to be a better overall minion killer, because you can hit multiple targets with it (especially once Spell Accuracy comes into play and you can drop it on friends safely).




This is true. As a minion killer, Scorching Burst becomes strong when Spell Accuracy is available. But, Cloud of Daggers is still automatic whereas Scorching Burst is not.

The two main disadvantages with taking Scorching Burst with Illusory Ambush (instead of with Cloud of Daggers) is that instead of having a high damage single target and a moderate damage AoE, one is instead using a moderate damage single target and a moderate damage AoE, and one does not have an auto-minion killer. Both Scorching Ray and Illusory Ambush can miss. Cloud of Daggers can only miss killing a minion opponent if that foe is somehow removed from the area.

The main advantage with taking Scorching Burst with Illusory Ambush is that the caster has a Reflex attack and a Will attack which allows for some cases where he hits more often, but for less damage per hit.



Fedifensor said:


> Of course it does more damage...because that's all it does.  Illusory Ambush does damage AND reduces incoming damage (and reduces the chance of being hit with status effects that are based on a hit roll).




Actually, Cloud of Daggers also controls a square for a round (up to 2 rounds with an Orb). A DM who allows non-minions to just willy nilly walk through CoD spells is not really roleplaying them properly and following the rules:



> Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed.




This rule does not necessarily allow a creature to know how much damage a given CoD area does, nor what the spell even does unless the power is actually affecting the creature. All a non-affected creature knows is what it can perceive, that there are whirling daggers of force (unless it makes some form of skill check or has other knowledge).

Now, there could be times when a creature would want to take the chance and move through a CoD (such as when marked with Divine Challenge and it cannot get to the Paladin), but as a general rule of thumb, CoD controls a square for a round.

And, it does this minor amount of terrain control every single time it is used (unlike Ray of Frost and Illusory Ambush whose extra abilities depend on several external factors as to their utility). Combined with Thunderwave or other forced movement powers, CoD can allow a Wizard to smack a creature multiple times with it. Combined with good party tactics, it can prevent flank, slow up enemies, etc.


And yes, Illusory Ambush does what you say: ~6% of the times it is used (60% chance to hit * 10% chance of it actually affecting the outcome). This actually jumps up to ~11% of the time versus a specific creature if a creature can do two attacks in a round, but that is fairly rare.

If Illusory Ambush is used 4 times on average in encounters, then it stops a single enemy attack 1 encounter in 4 on average.

So, it tends to help out a tiny bit (saving one Healing Surge and possibly preventing one condition) once per day (assuming 4 encounters a day).

Whoop de doo! Hold the presses! 



Fedifensor said:


> Furthermore, as you go up in levels, encounter powers (and daily powers, in tough fights) are going to provide a larger percentage of the damage you dish out, making the damage from at-will powers pale in comparison.




Which is only slightly relevant as to which At Will powers are more useful.

There are still only (typically) 5 or 6 Per Encounter powers, even at high level. Some of those might not be applicable in a given encounter, or the player might hold some in reserve, just in case a new encounter spills into the current one with no 5 minute break.

Even at 2nd level, we have had 3 or 4 times where we went from encounter x to encounter x+1 without a break. I suspect that happens sometimes in most games. Players (or DMs) who try to force breaks every single time are, IMO, metagaming a bit too much.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> And yes, Illusory Ambush does what you say: ~6% of the times it is used (60% chance to hit * 10% chance of it actually affecting the outcome). This actually jumps up to ~11% of the time versus a specific creature if a creature can do two attacks in a round, but that is fairly rare.
> 
> If Illusory Ambush is used 4 times on average in encounters, then it stops a single enemy attack 1 encounter in 4 on average.



You know, I did an entire post showing the math on this, and you're still going back to your 6% number, skipping several things.  There's the synergy with Psychic Lock (which becomes a no-brainer if you have a psychic at-will power), the value increases when you target a foe weak to Will attacks, causing an attack to miss also allows the target to avoid status effects that occur on a hit, and the value increases considerably when the enemy uses attacks that affect multiple targets.  All these things occur in addition to the power's damage capability - it's not an either/or situation.

Furthermore, the value of IA is also based on how hard it is for the enemy to hit without that penalty.  In an extreme case, when the enemy normally needs a 16+ to hit you, the -4 penalty of IA + Psychic Lock makes it so the enemy needs a natural 20.  That seriously changes the average damage/round numbers.




> There are still only (typically) 5 or 6 Per Encounter powers, even at high level. Some of those might not be applicable in a given encounter, or the player might hold some in reserve, just in case a new encounter spills into the current one with no 5 minute break.



On the other hand, several daily powers last multiple rounds - Flaming Sphere can be up for an entire combat.  As for whether an encounter power is appropriate - I don't know about you, but I choose my encounter powers based upon which ones have the most widespread applications, because I know they will be used in every combat.



> Even at 2nd level, we have had 3 or 4 times where we went from encounter x to encounter x+1 without a break. I suspect that happens sometimes in most games. Players (or DMs) who try to force breaks every single time are, IMO, metagaming a bit too much.



It's metagaming to catch your breath and patch up your wounds after a group of monsters has just tried to kill you?  If Jim the mage knows he needs a brief breather to refresh his spells, and that there's goblins in the next room, do you think he's going to charge straight in, or take the 5 minutes to go in with his full capabilities?


----------



## Minigiant

One thing that is not considered is the tier. 

For example the wizard's CoD is awesome in the heroic tier but once you get to paragon, At will damage begins to stink and plucking minions one by one is a bad idea since they will get a real chance to beat up an ally with their paragon additions. By 13th level or so, a wizard might have many stronger enc AOE spells and might not have a decent group to fire on once he gets down to at wills only. Magic missile is nice in heroic but bad damage in paragon and probably a decent ranged shot again in epic.

But RoF gets better with age because it at least slows the enemy. With feats it'll also grant CA and vulnerability. IA has a rider effect to and it gets Psychic Lock to boost it. Thunderwave  gets range two ways in the paragon tier.

It's say the in Heroic at damage and accuracy is most important. Effects and  movement are the priorities in paragon. And in epic where you are mainly enc and dailies, one at will will be for damage and the other fills a hole in your strategy.


----------



## Nifft

Minigiant said:


> One thing that is not considered is the tier.
> 
> For example the wizard's CoD is awesome in the heroic tier but once you get to paragon, At will damage begins to stink and plucking minions one by one is a bad idea since they will get a real chance to beat up an ally with their paragon additions.



 At Paragon tier, CoD is the incorporeal-killer. It deals either full damage +1d10 or +2d10 (depending on how you interpret the feat) to foes who have below average hit points.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Cadfan

keterys said:


> Cadfan, if they publish a power that does 1d6+X, then later one that does 1d8+Int, and they're otherwise identical, that shouldn't change the score of the 1d6+X. It should just raise a flag that there is a clear mistake or indicate a clear trend of power creep that people can adapt to depending on what powers they allow. For example, if someone were designing a 'scout' or 'swashbuckler' class and mining powers from the ranger and rogue, they might not include Twin Strike... at which point Careful Strike is no longer a zero.



Right, but I only grade powers in relation to other powers within the same class.  If Power X were given to two different classes, it would probably get two different grades, one for each class.


> Priest's Shield isn't all _that_ bad compared to, say, Reaping Strike. It's more defensive and it's not particularly impressive, sure, but it's not "Wow, you're serious? You're taking that... uhh, why?"



Priest's Shield is also the only cleric melee at will that provides some benefit over a standard attack even if you haven't got an ally double teaming the monster you're fighting.

Re: Ray of Frost

You can't judge this power without taking it in the context of the Wintertouched and the... whatever its called I forget paragon feat.  In that context, it is very good.  Plus, it synergizes with other cold spells- they create areas of difficult terrain, Ray of Frost slows monsters who must then slowly traverse the difficult terrain.

Re: Cloud of Daggers

Yes, it is a perfectly serviceable single target minion killer.  In fact, its a perfectly serviceable single target spell, and I like it overall.  But remember context again.  Its part of a class that is absolutely loaded with effects which butcher minions.  Past the first few levels, a wizard will very rarely be hurting for a way to slaughter minions.  So while I don't disparage Cloud of Daggers, I don't think it is a must-take spell.

Re: Arcane Ambush

If you hit 50% of the time, and the monster hits your friend 50% of the time, then the overall chance that the secondary effect of -2 attack will cause a miss is 50% chance of you hitting times 20% percentage of the enemy's chance of hitting that was lost = 10% chance of totally negating an enemy's attack, per attack made.  Given typical enemy damage, this is quite serviceable.  Its particularly nice against enemies with multiple attacks per round, ie, elites and solos, who aren't wizard's strong point otherwise.  I consider it another serviceable spell.  Also, synergizes great with Psychic Lock.


----------



## keterys

Cadfan said:


> Right, but I only grade powers in relation to other powers within the same class.  If Power X were given to two different classes, it would probably get two different grades, one for each class.




Fair - just not helpful for me from a standpoint of designing new powers or poaching existing powers  In such a vacuum I would just order the powers for the class, so you'd know the #1 power was the best, these two were tied for #2, and that one is #3. And that other guy got booted out of the competition for either taking steroids or failing to pass the qualifiers.



> Priest's Shield is also the only cleric melee at will that provides some benefit over a standard attack even if you haven't got an ally double teaming the monster you're fighting.




Yep.



> You can't judge this power without taking it in the context of the Wintertouched and the... whatever its called I forget paragon feat.  In that context, it is very good.




Each of the energy types has some notable advantages and I'm sure they'll even get more over time (Creep-y). Cold so far seems to have the best for raw output, though, it's true.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> You know, I did an entire post showing the math on this, and you're still going back to your 6% number, skipping several things.  There's the synergy with Psychic Lock (which becomes a no-brainer if you have a psychic at-will power), the value increases when you target a foe weak to Will attacks, causing an attack to miss also allows the target to avoid status effects that occur on a hit, and the value increases considerably when the enemy uses attacks that affect multiple targets.  All these things occur in addition to the power's damage capability - it's not an either/or situation.




That's true.

I was considering Heroic level. The 6% jumps to 11% at Paragon level with Psychic Lock. 1 Illusory Ambush out of 9. So, I can definitely see the value of switching Cloud of Daggers with Illusory Ambush once Psychic Lock is taken. However, there are also many other good Paragon level feats, so I suspect that it is the rare player who would take Psychic Lock at 11th level just for this (but it could happen).

And yes, against a given weaker will foe, this might be 7% that jumps to 13% once Psychic Lock is taken.

And, you are also right about attacks that affect multiple PCs. In fact, most creatures with Blasts including Dragons tend to have weaker Will saves in the MM. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe the designers wanted to give them a weak spot.



Fedifensor said:


> Furthermore, the value of IA is also based on how hard it is for the enemy to hit without that penalty.  In an extreme case, when the enemy normally needs a 16+ to hit you, the -4 penalty of IA + Psychic Lock makes it so the enemy needs a natural 20.  That seriously changes the average damage/round numbers.




Let's not talk about extreme cases. They're silly and illustrate nothing. The game is now (supposed to be) designed so that these types of extreme cases should rarely happen anymore.

As an example, the Tarrasque is so poorly designed that it is now the mathematical joke of the MM.

Fort 49, Will 32

What a freaking joke!  What moron designer put together a creature with a 17 delta between two if its defenses?

That's 85% of the D20 ratio. This totally ignores the entire "the game is now mathematically balanced" mantra that the 4E designers were talking about last year.

I can see making a Tarrasque with high Fort and low Will. But, this is just plain ridiculous (which is also why using a Tarrasque in your examples make them seem less credulous for a serious discussion as compared to using more standard creatures).



Fedifensor said:


> On the other hand, several daily powers last multiple rounds - Flaming Sphere can be up for an entire combat.  As for whether an encounter power is appropriate - I don't know about you, but I choose my encounter powers based upon which ones have the most widespread applications, because I know they will be used in every combat.




Every combat? Wow. You and I really do play the game differently. I use up my Per Encounter power (only have one at the moment, Force Orb) maybe 1 combat in 3.

Part of the reason for this is that it's rare to get two opponents standing side by side to use Force Orb, but it's not as rare to have 2 opponents 2 squares apart to use Scorching Burst. I'd rather hit 2 opponents with Scorching Burst than 1 opponent with Force Orb (because my chance to hit at least one of them is high and I also average more damage).

However, another part of this is that Force Orb only does an extra 4.5 points of damage if used against a single target vs. Cloud of Daggers. I prefer to save Force Orb for an opportune time in an encounter, or for those times when one encounter spills into another.

Don't get me wrong. If 2 or 3 opponents are just standing together right on top of each other, I'll let Force Orb loose. But, I don't use it most encounters.

The fact that it is not a Burst is a bit of a downside to it.



Fedifensor said:


> It's metagaming to catch your breath and patch up your wounds after a group of monsters has just tried to kill you?  If Jim the mage knows he needs a brief breather to refresh his spells, and that there's goblins in the next room, do you think he's going to charge straight in, or take the 5 minutes to go in with his full capabilities?




It's metagaming to do it every single time. It's playing the rules, not roleplaying the characters.

As an example, in our last game, we ended the night with one of the NPCs running away and the rest dispatched. He is about 40 feet away, around a corner and the PCs are convinced that he is going to get reinforcements. So, we kept initiative in the same order and are chasing after him. Even if we run into a room of enemies, they should be unprepared enemies instead of ones waiting in ambush.

I'm fine with people resting between encounters. What I consider metagaming is people ALWAYS doing that, regardless of the circumstances and the motivations of their characters. If people do this, then yes they are metagaming. IMO.

No different than waiting for your powers, health, and endurance to all come back in City of Villains for a few minutes before taking on the next opponent 50 feet away every single time. If people do this for DND (every time), they might as well be playing a MMORPG.


Let me put it another way. In 3E, we almost NEVER rested 5 minutes from one room to the next in a dungeon. So, the ONLY reason to do so in 4E is the recovery rules. Hence, anytime that someone is having their PC act in a given way every single time due to these rules and not due to the motivations of the PCs, they are metagaming. They are playing the rules, not roleplaying the PCs. Granted, the motivations of the PCs should be to rest up often between encounters. But, not every single time regardless of circumstances. IMO.


----------



## keterys

I use and my players use their encounter powers pretty much every combat. As they should.

They don't necessarily "rest" 5 minutes, but they 'search room, search the bodies, and apply some bandages' and poof, 5 minutes pass and they get their powers back.


----------



## Holy Bovine

keterys said:


> I use and my players use their encounter powers pretty much every combat. As they should.
> 
> They don't necessarily "rest" 5 minutes, but they 'search room, search the bodies, and apply some bandages' and poof, 5 minutes pass and they get their powers back.




My experience as well.  And it has been like this for ages - my players _always_ stop to loot and heal after a big fight.

Regarding Righteous Brand - would it be unwise then to build a cleric without a Str bonus?  One player in my group has a very 'cloistered' cleric build and no STR bonus.  We are converting from 3E so I'm allowing people to mix up their ability scores if they want.  Would a +0 Str cleric still be good?  Would it hamper the party too much if he had the other 3 at wills and not Righteous Brand (the PC is human)?


----------



## keterys

Str-less clerics are a perfectly valid build. There are some great Wis powers and you can only spend so many points. Righteous Brand pretty much requires a heavy Str investment to really pay off.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> I was considering Heroic level. The 6% jumps to 11% at Paragon level with Psychic Lock. 1 Illusory Ambush out of 9. So, I can definitely see the value of switching Cloud of Daggers with Illusory Ambush once Psychic Lock is taken. However, there are also many other good Paragon level feats, so I suspect that it is the rare player who would take Psychic Lock at 11th level just for this (but it could happen).



I plan to take Psychic Lock ASAP for my high-AC human wizard build (who I plan to use as a secondary character in LFR).  It really depends on your build and your goals.  I don't think it is as rare as you feel it is, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.



> As an example, the Tarrasque is so poorly designed that it is now the mathematical joke of the MM.



True, but it's still there, and it's one of only three solos that would threaten a level 30 party (or four if I go down to a lower level to get the Runescribed Dracolich), so it's worth noting.  And there's no way I'm using Orcus as an example, when fighting him is a once in a lifetime encounter that requires special circumstances for the PCs to win.



> I can see making a Tarrasque with high Fort and low Will. But, this is just plain ridiculous (which is also why using a Tarrasque in your examples make them seem less credulous for a serious discussion as compared to using more standard creatures).



I gave several other examples...there were only two level 30 creatures in the MM, and I used both.  I'm not picking a ridiculous example when I use all the available creatures for that level as examples...and I also gave two examples for each of the other two tiers.



> Every combat? Wow. You and I really do play the game differently. I use up my Per Encounter power (only have one at the moment, Force Orb) maybe 1 combat in 3.
> 
> Part of the reason for this is that it's rare to get two opponents standing side by side to use Force Orb, but it's not as rare to have 2 opponents 2 squares apart to use Scorching Burst. I'd rather hit 2 opponents with Scorching Burst than 1 opponent with Force Orb (because my chance to hit at least one of them is high and I also average more damage).



That's why my wizard chose Icy Terrain as his level 1 encounter power.  Easier to hit multiple targets, has a controlling effect (prone), and can block foes due to the difficult terrain.  I expect that it will be used every combat.

It gets down to play style.  I see encounter powers as the big guns of an encounter, and I want the flexibility to use those big guns so I'm not stuck relying exclusively on at-will powers.



> It's metagaming to do it every single time. It's playing the rules, not roleplaying the characters.



I think keterys and I are on the same page, here.  Search room, search bodies, apply bandages, agree on where to go next...and you've just done a short rest.



> As an example, in our last game, we ended the night with one of the NPCs running away and the rest dispatched. He is about 40 feet away, around a corner and the PCs are convinced that he is going to get reinforcements. So, we kept initiative in the same order and are chasing after him. Even if we run into a room of enemies, they should be unprepared enemies instead of ones waiting in ambush.



My group would chase the enemies for a different reason...if reinforcements are warned, we're likely to be attacked in the next 5 minutes, which means we won't have time to apply bandages and do the other typical short rest activities.  You don't take a break when you know you're about to be attacked.  But that's a situation forced upon you by the circumstances, not a deliberate choice to press on.



> No different than waiting for your powers, health, and endurance to all come back in City of Villains for a few minutes before taking on the next opponent 50 feet away every single time. If people do this for DND (every time), they might as well be playing a MMORPG.



Okay, you get points for mentioning CoH/CoV...even though I haven't been able to play at all since 4E was released, I've been a player since Beta.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> I think keterys and I are on the same page, here.  Search room, search bodies, apply bandages, agree on where to go next...and you've just done a short rest.




And, I agree that this is fine for the most part in many circumstances.


I just find that if it happens every time, I'm playing a MMORPG.

It's the way 4E is designed.

1) The designers assume that dungeon doors are typically closed.

2) The designers assume that nearby encounters (i.e. monsters) are typically stone cold deaf. When I drop a fireball, every monster within this section of the dungeon should be alerted.

3) The designers assume that every PC wants to loot bodies immediately every time. No. I want to move on.

4) The designers assume that every PC wants to search areas immediately every time. No. I want to move on.

5) The designers assume that every PC wants to rest after each fight. No. I want to move on unless someone is seriously hurt.

6) The designers assume that every player wants to use up every Encounter Power in every single encounter.

Personally, I want to kick the snot out of every monster within range as fast as possible. Then come back and loot bodies and search walls.

That way, I know I am mostly safe when I get around to those tasks. Seriously, who is going to come along and steal the loot behind us most of the time?

Sure, I have no problem stopping if the group used up a lot of encounter powers and resources, or needs healing and wants to do so. But, I don't want to be doing this every single time.

That is no different then earlier editions where the Thief stopped to search every single wall and door and room and floor and ceiling time after time after time. Boring. Let's cut to the chase people.

The problem with the "Rest every time" mentality is that it assumes that all players want to play their PCs that way.

That's a poor assumption, but one which drills directly into the ruleset and one which is Pavlo Dog training the entire 4E DND gaming community that this is the one and only way the game should be played (and like Lemmings, the DND 4E community is going "yup, yup. that's the way to play DND"). If people do not use up all of their Encounter Power each encounter and do not rest between encounters, they are playing wrong.

Yikes!



Fedifensor said:


> But that's a situation forced upon you by the circumstances, not a deliberate choice to press on.




And this is the key to the problem. This is not always the case. It is not always forced by circumstances.

Sometimes, people do just want to press on.

I don't want to give the monster in the next room over 5 minutes so that he can get his armor on.

I want to be a Navy Seals team: hit fast and hit hard, sort it all out later. Not the Bobbsey Twins on vacation strolling through the dungeon.

The game is designed to discourage this perfectly reasonable in character decision (which in 3E, was a perfectly reasonable in character decision and done quite often by some groups).


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad, as far as I can tell you're making some assumptions of the designers that aren't true.

One big thing that would help you understand is that you're intended to fight a whole section of dungeon at once, often enough.

That is to say, maybe the doors are open or closed, but when you fireball one section, you may draw everyone who can hear it. In one of my combats last night, the very first thing that happened is reinforcements got called in from the next two nearest rooms. They'd dealt with three rooms worth of stuff, found a magic item, and were actively looking for a ritual scroll to recover... 

The encounter powers exist to be used almost every encounter. You can certainly press onwards, and you'll see that many of the wotc playtest reports they do so, but barring strings of easy encounters, you should need to catch your breath every now and then. Or just have a fair distance between encounters. Like not next door. Placing big encounter areas at least five minutes apart is an easy solution for letting people get their powers back


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> I want to be a Navy Seals team: hit fast and hit hard, sort it all out later. Not the Bobbsey Twins on vacation strolling through the dungeon.



Even Navy Seals need to reload their guns...



> The game is designed to discourage this perfectly reasonable in character decision (which in 3E, was a perfectly reasonable in character decision and done quite often by some groups).



I disagree.  If they wanted to discourage the refreshing of *encounter* powers, they wouldn't have made a short rest only take 5 minutes, with characters allowed to take as many short rests as they want.  Now, daily power refreshes are discouraged, by only allowing one extended rest per 12 hours.


----------



## keterys

Well, they did make it five minutes instead of one minute... I imagine people would more freely rest for one minute in a 'reloading our guns' kinda fashion.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> That's why my wizard chose Icy Terrain as his level 1 encounter power.  Easier to hit multiple targets, has a controlling effect (prone), and can block foes due to the difficult terrain.  I expect that it will be used every combat.




Yup. I seriously contemplated taking Icy Terrain. It was a real toss up.



Fedifensor said:


> It gets down to play style.  I see encounter powers as the big guns of an encounter, and I want the flexibility to use those big guns so I'm not stuck relying exclusively on at-will powers.




I hear that.

Icy Terrain is just so weak damage-wise and the control aspect of it lasts for such a short period that it hardly seems worth the effort. At least in our games, melee enemies close real quick and a prone / difficult terrain combo doesn't do much to movement if it just knocks down an opponent who is already standing right next to the Defender. It does give the Defender a bonus to hit if he gets an action before the foe(s), but that assumes that the Defender does get an action before the foe(s) and that the Defender wants to attack that particular foe(s).

Against Ranged opponent, Icy Terrain merely damages them. The prone aspect does virtually nothing except give them a boost to AC from our ranged attacks.

If Icy Terrain just had a little more umph to it, then I would have taken it.

As is, none of the first level Wizard Encounter powers are impressive. None of them do serious control.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> Icy Terrain is just so weak damage-wise and the control aspect of it lasts for such a short period that it hardly seems worth the effort. At least in our games, melee enemies close real quick and a prone / difficult terrain combo doesn't do much to movement if it just knocks down an opponent who is already standing right next to the Defender. It does give the Defender a bonus to hit if he gets an action before the foe(s), but that assumes that the Defender does get an action before the foe(s) and that the Defender wants to attack that particular foe(s).



Icy Terrain shines in many situations, but the best use is when there's a chokepoint on the map that your Defenders are holding.  If necessary, ready an action to use Icy Terrain right before your defenders act - that will ensure they take advantage of the enemies being prone.  Likewise, if it is an issue, ranged PCs can hold their action to fire right after the enemy stands up.

The biggest thing Icy Terrain does, besides the damage, is keep melee foes from advancing on you in their next turn.  Even after they take an action to stand, the difficult terrain keeps them from shifting, and slows their movement down enough so you've bought an extra turn from being engaged in melee.  The damage, while only equivalent to Scorching Burst, hits multiple foes...and is more accurate than other powers if you have the Wintertouched feat.



> Against Ranged opponent, Icy Terrain merely damages them. The prone aspect does virtually nothing except give them a boost to AC from our ranged attacks.



Fortunately, the majority of foes are melee-oriented.


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> KarinsDad, as far as I can tell you're making some assumptions of the designers that aren't true.
> 
> One big thing that would help you understand is that you're intended to fight a whole section of dungeon at once, often enough.




Help me understand???

Not according to KotS.

Not according to the DMG XP and encounter guidelines.

If the team uses up their per encounter resources for each single individual encounter in KotS and an entire section of the dungeon attacks them, they could be toast.

Sometimes, using an encounter (or daily) power can be overkill (e.g. like using it on a bloodied foe and taking him to -7, -2 is sufficient).



keterys said:


> That is to say, maybe the doors are open or closed, but when you fireball one section, you may draw everyone who can hear it. In one of my combats last night, the very first thing that happened is reinforcements got called in from the next two nearest rooms. They'd dealt with three rooms worth of stuff, found a magic item, and were actively looking for a ritual scroll to recover...
> 
> The encounter powers exist to be used almost every encounter.




Who says that encounter powers exist to be used almost every encounter? They are designed to be used a maximum of once per encounter each, but nothing indicates that they exist to be used almost every encounter.

That's a design assumption on your part. And to me, one that sooner or later will bite the PCs if followed religiously.

To me, encounter powers exist to change the course of battle as required if possible. They are slightly more powerful powers as per PHB page 54. That is why you only get one of each. My design assumption here is different than yours.

In 3E, I always gave my players "big gun" magical items. For example, a Wand of 5D6 Fireball with 4 charges for 3rd level PCs. The reason is so that they could go to the well when they needed to do so. Empower the players to use up stronger limited resources.


That to me is the primary goal of the 4E Encounter and Daily powers (and not just the Daily powers). Go to the well powers, not use them up to help combat go quicker every time powers. Sure, do that sometimes when it seems appropriate. Just not: round 1, Encounter Power, round 2, Encounter Power, round 3, Encounter Power practically every time.


4E doesn't have as many magical items options in the go to the well area. Typically, it is only a few per day per PC.

The primary options they have are Per Encounter and Daily go to the well powers. If players use up their Encounter powers in every encounter, they shouldn't be surprised if they are suddenly forced to use up one or more Daily powers (or even TPKed) if they are suddenly faced with two or three back to back or simultaneous encounters.

Note: I have no problem with people using up Encounter powers in an encounter. It's often a good tactic. I have an issue with people thinking that using up all or most of their encounter powers every single encounter and resting between encounters is the only or preferable way to play.



keterys said:


> You can certainly press onwards, and you'll see that many of the wotc playtest reports they do so, but barring strings of easy encounters, you should need to catch your breath every now and then.




I also agree that the team needs to catch their breath every once in a while. I have said that multiple times now. Rest when you need to is fine.

But, I don't want everyone on my team using up most or all of their encounter powers every single encounter and then demanding to rest every single time. I disagree that the team should do this. Teams who do that are metagaming. Again, IMO.



keterys said:


> Or just have a fair distance between encounters. Like not next door. Placing big encounter areas at least five minutes apart is an easy solution for letting people get their powers back




So now, you are saying that instead of the players being Lemmings and conforming the PC actions to the recovery rules, the DM should be a Lemming and conform his dungeon design to the recovery rules.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> Even Navy Seals need to reload their guns...




While moving to their next destination. It hardly takes 5 minutes to reload.


----------



## Leatherhead

KarinsDad said:


> While moving to their next destination. It hardly takes 5 minutes to reload.




Navy Seals check for traps and scout ahead whenever they go somewhere, they don't blindly and constantly rush in headlong into dangerous situations like adventures do. 


Also, I have said it before and I will say it again: It isn't metagaming to rest after someone gets banged up, but it is metagaming to press on because mathematically you should be able to handle it.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> While moving to their next destination. It hardly takes 5 minutes to reload.



It does in 4th edition...


----------



## Arbitrary

Most of the time I see no reason not to allow the party to take their 5 minutes for a short rest and most of the time they don't have a problem taking an extended rest either.

Most of the time.


----------



## keterys

KarinsDad said:


> Not according to KotS.




Really, cause I'm looking at it right now and _very much according to KotS_. Are you a player or DM? I guess either way I shouldn't spoiler too much, but I'm seeing lots of encounters sprawled over multiple rooms, lines for handling if someone runs away, etc.



> Not according to the DMG XP and encounter guidelines.



p41 talks about building a single encounter from multiple events that players will go through without a short rest

p60 talks about including more than just a single room, but other areas branched off from it. 

p61 talks about having monsters come from 3 different corridors at once.

p113 Example fight has enemies from two other rooms coming to reinforce the inhabits of one.



> If the team uses up their per encounter resources for each single individual encounter in KotS and an entire section of the dungeon attacks them, they could be toast.



So they should retreat? Honestly, once you've taken out a few rooms together at once, I've found that as a DM or Player you're fine to take a few minutes and take a breather. It even helps the game by stopping daily 'for encounter' powers from getting a little weird.



> Sometimes, using an encounter (or daily) power can be overkill (e.g. like using it on a bloodied foe and taking him to -7, -2 is sufficient).



Sure, but you still have an awful lot of powers at higher level. Use your at-wills when they're a better option than something else... but do expect to get your encounter powers back. If your DM is preventing you from getting them back or a player is preventing them from being recovered, that will result in the game being less fun, most likely, due to scarcity of options and potentially getting in over your head down on resources.



> Who says that encounter powers exist to be used almost every encounter? They are designed to be used a maximum of once per encounter each, but nothing indicates that they exist to be used almost every encounter.



p54 PHB: 'An encounter power can be used once per encounter'
p41 DMG: 'Typically, encounters are separated by a short rest and some amount of travel time'
'In any event, starting a new encounter without the benefits of a short rest after the last one makes the new encounter more challenging'
'If you're designing encounters in which you expect characters to move from one to the next without a rest, treat the two events as a single encounter. If the characters surprise you by running on to a new encounter without resting, it might be worth scaling back the new encounter a bit.'



> That's a design assumption...



...that is spelled out quite clearly in the rules, as far as I can tell.



> That is why you only get one of each. My design assumption here is different than yours.



You get one at 1st level. You can only learn the game so fast. You might get another at 2nd. You definitely get one at 3rd. And 7th. 11th. When you've got 4 encounter attack powers, you're quickly using them as much or more than at-wills.



> In 3E, I always gave my players "big gun" magical items. For example, a Wand of 5D6 Fireball with 4 charges for 3rd level PCs. The reason is so that they could go to the well when they needed to do so. Empower the players to use up stronger limited resources.



Encounter powers aren't big gun abilities. They're Rage 7/day type powers.



> But, I don't want everyone on my team using up most or all of their encounter powers every single encounter and then demanding to rest every single time. I disagree that the team should do this. Teams who do that are metagaming. Again, IMO.



It's not metagaming to know that you need to bandage your wounds between battle and that you need to catch your breath or your exertions will make it more difficult in the next battle. If you have a pressing need to go faster - for example, a time table, an assassin, a fleeing monster, etc - then sometimes you do that, and perhaps you'll end up burning daily powers, items, actions points, etc in those circumstances.



> So now, you are saying that instead of the players being Lemmings and conforming the PC actions to the recovery rules, the DM should be a Lemming and conform his dungeon design to the recovery rules.



The DM should design for a good game. I believe that includes not putting a TPK worth of enemies within one encounter's worth of space, yes. I would suggest that you'd probably run a better game if you learned how pacing for the new system works and modeled encounters around it. The DMG has a lot of good advice to help in that respect.


----------



## KarinsDad

keterys said:


> p54 PHB: 'An encounter power *can be* used once per encounter'




Note: "can be". Not "should be" or "designed to be" like you claimed.

If they had meant should be, they would have written it:

'An encounter power can and should be used once per encounter'

Instead, they are not trying to tell people how to play.



keterys said:


> p41 DMG: 'Typically, encounters are separated by a short rest and some amount of travel time'
> 'In any event, starting a new encounter without the benefits of a short rest after the last one makes the new encounter more challenging'
> 'If you're designing encounters in which you expect characters to move from one to the next without a rest, treat the two events as a single encounter. If the characters surprise you by running on to a new encounter without resting, it might be worth scaling back the new encounter a bit.'
> 
> ...that is spelled out quite clearly in the rules, as far as I can tell.




Nope. Nowhere there does it state that "The encounter powers exist to be used almost every encounter". Not one rule you quoted here discusses how often Encounter Powers should be used.

So, that's still a design assumption on your part.

The sentences you quoted here talk about how the DM should set up typical encounters and what he might consider doing if his players surprise by not being Encounter Lemmings.

Personally, I think telling the DM to fudge is bad advice.

If the new system is really balanced, it is balanced to handle players moving on to the next encounter without a rest WITHOUT the DM resorting to fudging.

And, most players will only do that if they have not used up most of their per encounter powers and/or are not wounded, so it's a bit of a moot point.

The next encounter might be more challenging, but nothing stops the players from retreating or pulling out their big gun Dailies.



keterys said:


> Encounter powers aren't big gun abilities. They're Rage 7/day type powers.




PotAto, potato. Rage sounds like big gun to me.

"Oh shoot, that's a boss. Frag him."

If a PC has used up all of his Encounter powers already in the encounter on the mooks, he will be forced to use At Will or Dailies on the Boss.


----------



## Fedifensor

KarinsDad said:


> So, that's still a design assumption on your part.



To be fair, since most of the posters seem to be lining up with his perception of encounter powers, maybe the assumption is on your part?  From what I've seen so far (and I admit my 4E actual play experience is limited, being that the rules have only been out a month), you're meant to use your encounter powers in encounters without holding back, while keeping the daily powers in reserve for the big threats.

Regardless of assumptions, the only thing that matters is how the rules are written, and how your DM views those rules when he designs adventures for your group.  Which may explain the different perceptions on this issue.


----------



## keterys

Rage 7/day if you have 4 encounters per day = rage every encounter. With some to spare.

At any rate, I think this is sufficiently off topic for this discussion. If you want to continue it in a separate topic, feel free, though I'm more than content to just agree to disagree... and would probably just prefer it that way.

I glanced through a grading wiki today, and back over the scores I assigned on the first page, and I'm pretty happy with how things stand for now based on that reading. I think it could use a little work, but I want to put this to rest for now and plow through encounters.

If there's a clamor for adjustments, I will make them, however.


----------



## KarinsDad

Fedifensor said:


> From what I've seen so far (and I admit my 4E actual play experience is limited, being that the rules have only been out a month), you're meant to use your encounter powers in encounters without holding back, while keeping the daily powers in reserve for the big threats.
> 
> Regardless of assumptions, the only thing that matters is how the rules are written, and how your DM views those rules when he designs adventures for your group.  Which may explain the different perceptions on this issue.




No, I think it is because I am a resource control player. Don't waste them. Use them effectively. If you didn't need them and didn't use them in a given encounter, that's ok.

As an example, we had an encounter a few weeks back. 5 on 8 (but 4 were minions). We wiped the floor with the opposition in 3 or 4 rounds. The Paladin got slightly injured. Nobody else did and nobody else used up any Encounter Powers except the Eladrin Warlock (who btw, the player of which was not there and he was being played by another player) who used both his Encounter Attack Power and his Fey Step.

A foe got away, so we chased him and ran into a really big nasty encounter. The Warlock got surrounded at one point and knocked unconsious. After the battle, we were talking about it and the player of the Warlock was asking why we continued on and didn't rest. We said because we didn't want that foe to get away. He said, "But if I would have had my encounter powers, I could have teleported away and zapped them. I would have never gone unconscious. I used them right away because the game is designed to use your Encounter powers every encounter".

No, it's not. The game is designed to allow players to chose what they want to do and when they want to do it. Using which abilities when is a player choice. Even if someone decides to use Encounter powers every single encounter, that is their choice. Not WotC design.

In the first encounter, he chose to use both Encounter abilities. He didn't have to (especially the Fey Step which was just haphazardly used). He burned through his Encounter abilities and about 8 rounds later, paid the price for doing so. Pros and Cons.

This is just a discussion on different ways to play the game. The game is not designed either way. The game is designed to allow choices.

And, that includes choices on which powers to take in the first place (more or less, the original conversation here).


----------



## Leatherhead

KarinsDad said:


> No, I think it is because I am a resource control player. Don't waste them. Use them effectively. If you didn't need them and didn't use them in a given encounter, that's ok.
> 
> As an example, we had an encounter a few weeks back. 5 on 8 (but 4 were minions). We wiped the floor with the opposition in 3 or 4 rounds. The Paladin got slightly injured. Nobody else did and nobody else used up any Encounter Powers except the Eladrin Warlock (who btw, the player of which was not there and he was being played by another player) who used both his Encounter Attack Power and his Fey Step.
> 
> A foe got away, so we chased him and ran into a really big nasty encounter. The Warlock got surrounded at one point and knocked unconsious. After the battle, we were talking about it and the player of the Warlock was asking why we continued on and didn't rest. We said because we didn't want that foe to get away. He said, "But if I would have had my encounter powers, I could have teleported away and zapped them. I would have never gone unconscious. I used them right away because the game is designed to use your Encounter powers every encounter".
> 
> No, it's not. The game is designed to allow players to chose what they want to do and when they want to do it. Using which abilities when is a player choice. Even if someone decides to use Encounter powers every single encounter, that is their choice. Not WotC design.
> 
> In the first encounter, he chose to use both Encounter abilities. He didn't have to (especially the Fey Step which was just haphazardly used). He burned through his Encounter abilities and about 8 rounds later, paid the price for doing so. Pros and Cons.
> 
> This is just a discussion on different ways to play the game. The game is not designed either way. The game is designed to allow choices.
> 
> And, that includes choices on which powers to take in the first place (more or less, the original conversation here).





I think you should get past the heroic tier and see how the game goes with holding back on encounter powers. Also I believe any encounter that doesn't spend approximately 1/4 of someones total healing surges is an atypical one. So a character going unconscious is actually something to be expected, where an encounter with only one person getting barely scratched would be abnormal.


----------



## KarinsDad

Leatherhead said:


> I think you should get past the heroic tier and see how the game goes with holding back on encounter powers.




Well, there are several things to consider here:

1) Monsters gain a lot more hit points than PCs at higher levels.

2) PCs have 4 to 6 Encounter Attack powers at Paragon level and above (and can have several Encounter Utility powers as well).

3) Monster Defenses tend to increase by 1 per level whereas PC bonuses to hit do not without using special powers.

So sure, when PCs get more Encounter Powers and the monsters have a lot more hit points, the synergies are more important and the best synergies come from Encounter and Daily powers.

However, I suspect that even at higher levels, some players will not always blow through all of their Encounter powers every encounter, especially Minion encounters.



Leatherhead said:


> Also I believe any encounter that doesn't spend approximately 1/4 of someones total healing surges is an atypical one.




It depends on party makeup. A party that concentrates on AC and other defenses tend to use fewer healing surges. A party with more than a single Leader will use fewer healing surges. A party where the low defense PCs use ranged attacks from cover will use fewer healing surges. A party with multiple high CON PCs will have more healing surges to use.

But I agree, healing surges is the main limiting factor on number of encounters per day. Our max so far is 7 in a single day (and we also had a 5 in a day with resources to spare).



Leatherhead said:


> So a character going unconscious is actually something to be expected, where an encounter with only one person getting barely scratched would be abnormal




Sure it was abnormal. That was why we considered it no great shakes to move on without resting.

As for unconscious, we have had few of those except in the first few gaming sessions. Even against tough foes, we don't really expect it much anymore (although the DM does get hot with the dice on occasion). The reason is that once people got used to their PC's abilities and limitations, and those of the other PCs, combat started flowing pretty smoothly. Out of the last 11 combats, we have had three PCs fall unconscious (and one of those was due to extremely bad luck). We have two Strikers and a Wizard, so that helps whittle down opponents quickly. It's all about Action Economy.


----------



## LittleElvis

I'm mainly into Paladins thus far, and I have to disagree a bit with some of the rankings I've seen on these.

A-/9 for Holy Strike
B+/8 for Valiant Strike
(when you have both Holy _and _Valiant, then Valiant's value goes up to A-/9)
B-/6 for Enfeebling Strike
B-/6 for Bolstering Strike

First, I think the STR-based at-will are, per se, far better than the CHA-based ones. I've playtested with both types and the STR based ones are more effective and definitely more fun.

Holy Strike is the King. It gives Paladins a way to become effective DPR dealers, and only gets better with age; you can still benefit from it at high levels. It benefits from either Weapon Focus or Astral Fire feat and your WIS (at Epic level that's +3 and +WIS), and critters vulnerable to radiant take more damage. And you can make a critter vulnerable to Radiant 5 with a 5th level Daily power. Basically, if you want to feel like you're helping the party deal damage, you _really_ need this one.

However, Valiant Strike is about equal to Holy Strike, especially in Heroic before you've pumped your WIS. 

Basically, Holy Strike is almost _always_ better than Valiant Strike against one adjacent opponent as long as you have at least +1 from WIS and as long as the opponent isn't either a Minion or real low on hp (do the math, and you will find this). Yes, the +1 to damage is mathematically better than the +1 to hit at  low levels in DPR against all level-appropriate opponents (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless). With a WIS mod of +2 or higher, Holy Strike really tends to outpace Valiant against 1.

Valiant Strike is almost always better against 3 or more adjacent opponents, until maybe later with a high WIS mod to go with Holy. Holy can be roughly equivalent to Valiant vs 3 if you maximize your Holy Strike potential, though; in that case, the DPR might be about equal, but the +15% to hit is more attractive. Against 4 or more opponents, it's always advantage Valiant. However, Holy would obviously best Valiant against 3+ if the target is vulnerable to Radiant and your Holy bonus damage is decent, or if you have a Holy Avenger.

Against 2 adjacent opponents, Holy and Valiant are about equal. It depends on the weapon type, magic enhancement, WIS bonus, if you have Weapon Focus or Astral Fire, etc. The closer your two attacks are in damage dealt, and the higher the damage dealt by the two, the better Valiant is vs. Holy Strike vs 2 adj opponents. And the reverse is true for Holy being better than Valiant vs. 2. It depends. If you don't want to do the math, flip a coin. If you maximize the Holy Strike potential, it is probably better vs 2, though.

So they are about equal, but Holy Strike has a very nice potential to give you much better DPR, and thus it shines a little brighter (_wah, wah_). They make a great team, though, as you can pick and choose which one fits the situation and your stats and items.

Bolstering is okay if your WIS mod is at least +3, and in some cases it can even be a life-saver. But offensively it has no special value at all. If you're surrounded by strikers (and without much in the way of healing from the rest of the party) and you are THE party's tank, then Bolstering's value goes way up. But you can still be a tank without it. And its value really drops as you gain in levels and hp.

Enfeebling ... oh man, that is a boring one. But it can help keep you or an ally from getting hit, and thus has some value. Again, no particular offensive value whatsoever, so Holy/Valiant are better overall. It's okay. It's best against a controller who is about to AoE your party, or an opponent with a really nasty effect to its attacks that you want to avoid at all costs. It can be useful. But I feel sorry for anyone playing a CHA-Paladin that has to use it all the time until you get a bunch of Encounter and Daily powers that you can replace it with. Unless it's an attack that you really want to avoid or you desperately need to stall your death, you would've been better off getting the extra damage of Holy Strike or the + to hit from Valiant Strike against most opponents. But it's not bad at all against a really tough opponent.


----------



## Najo

KarinsDad said:


> And, I agree that this is fine for the most part in many circumstances.
> 
> 
> I just find that if it happens every time, I'm playing a MMORPG.
> 
> It's the way 4E is designed.
> 
> 1) The designers assume that dungeon doors are typically closed.
> 
> 2) The designers assume that nearby encounters (i.e. monsters) are typically stone cold deaf. When I drop a fireball, every monster within this section of the dungeon should be alerted.
> 
> 3) The designers assume that every PC wants to loot bodies immediately every time. No. I want to move on.
> 
> 4) The designers assume that every PC wants to search areas immediately every time. No. I want to move on.
> 
> 5) The designers assume that every PC wants to rest after each fight. No. I want to move on unless someone is seriously hurt.
> 
> 6) The designers assume that every player wants to use up every Encounter Power in every single encounter.
> 
> Personally, I want to kick the snot out of every monster within range as fast as possible. Then come back and loot bodies and search walls.
> 
> That way, I know I am mostly safe when I get around to those tasks. Seriously, who is going to come along and steal the loot behind us most of the time?
> 
> Sure, I have no problem stopping if the group used up a lot of encounter powers and resources, or needs healing and wants to do so. But, I don't want to be doing this every single time.
> 
> That is no different then earlier editions where the Thief stopped to search every single wall and door and room and floor and ceiling time after time after time. Boring. Let's cut to the chase people.
> 
> The problem with the "Rest every time" mentality is that it assumes that all players want to play their PCs that way.
> 
> That's a poor assumption, but one which drills directly into the ruleset and one which is Pavlo Dog training the entire 4E DND gaming community that this is the one and only way the game should be played (and like Lemmings, the DND 4E community is going "yup, yup. that's the way to play DND"). If people do not use up all of their Encounter Power each encounter and do not rest between encounters, they are playing wrong.
> 
> Yikes!
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the key to the problem. This is not always the case. It is not always forced by circumstances.
> 
> Sometimes, people do just want to press on.
> 
> I don't want to give the monster in the next room over 5 minutes so that he can get his armor on.
> 
> I want to be a Navy Seals team: hit fast and hit hard, sort it all out later. Not the Bobbsey Twins on vacation strolling through the dungeon.
> 
> The game is designed to discourage this perfectly reasonable in character decision (which in 3E, was a perfectly reasonable in character decision and done quite often by some groups).




If this were the case then why are player's rewarded with action points and magic item daily uses when they do not stop to rest. Why does shadowfell keep have multiple situations where monsters run to get help or pull patrols and allies from other rooms and corridors. 

D&D 4e wants players to keep moving and play the game heroically.


----------



## Najo

I like to add I disagree that magic missile is subpar compared to cloak of daggers and the other wizard at-wills.

Magic missile has the highest average damage due to its bell curve from 2d4 + int mod. It's range allows the wizard to remove himself from danger and not become a liability for the group. It doesn't create an area of threat to the players (like scorching burst or cloak of daggers). When the wizard is being chased or ran down, magic missle is going to give the wizard more turns of casting spells since the distance between them and their enemy is double that of the other at-wills. . 

All of the wizard's at-wills are good. Magic missile rock


----------



## Leatherhead

Najo said:


> If this were the case then why are player's rewarded with action points and magic item daily uses when they do not stop to rest. Why does shadowfell keep have multiple situations where monsters run to get help or pull patrols and allies from other rooms and corridors.
> 
> D&D 4e wants players to keep moving and play the game heroically.




You can still use a short rest and gain milestones. The DMG specifically states you gain them for every two encounters between an extended rest on page 123.

And KotSF has running monsters to provide an incentive for characters to actually get into the dangerous fray so the characters can intercept them or kill them quicker instead of just hanging back to shoot them from safety.


----------



## Roxlimn

As you level up, I don't think you should keep Cloud of Daggers.  Its value as a minion killer is virtually meaningless once you hit mid-Paragon levels.  Those are the levels wherein you get large-area autodamage from SpellStorm Mage and Blood Mage, and your area effects are so widespread, you'll probably wipe out the minions by accident, just by doing your thing.

I rate Thunderwave highly because it does something you can't normally do with your Encounter powers - push away a bunch of guys attacking you.  That's a pretty important function, and I like having it for that purpose.

Likewise, I rate Magic Missile highly because it does more single target damage than any other power without any particular attribute investment (just some cheap item), it's got huge range for kiting, and it boosts the damage Warlords do with extra-action powers.  That's what I need for a power I'll rarely be using anyway.

After some consideration, I think I rate Ray of Frost well.  Certainly, it's a strong option if you already have Burning Blizzard and Wintertouched and Lasting Frost for other reasons (like if you're majoring in cold spells anyway).  I reviewed the Monster Manual for Fort defenses, and while they were sometimes higher than AC, sometimes they were also lower - even significantly lower.  You won't want to target Brutes and Soldiers with this because they have good defenses against it.  You want to target those with Ref defense spells.  You use a Fort defense spell against Lurkers, Skirmishers, and Artillery, against which they are very, very good (in general, not RoF specifically).  It also helps that Ray of Frost specifically targets lower HP enemies when it targets lower Fort defense enemies, and in those enemies, Will and Ref are sometimes concurrently high.

If you include extra damage from Vulnerability: Frost, Burning Blizzard, and such like, then you're doing an extra 8 damage at Epic, and even an extra 7 starting Paragon, which isn't such a bad deal for what are essentially rider benefits (you got those feats for other powers).


----------



## keterys

LittleElvis said:


> A-/9 for Holy Strike
> B+/8 for Valiant Strike
> (when you have both Holy _and _Valiant, then Valiant's value goes up to A-/9)
> B-/6 for Enfeebling Strike
> B-/6 for Bolstering Strike
> 
> However, Valiant Strike is about equal to Holy Strike, especially in Heroic before you've pumped your WIS and perhaps gotten Astral Fire.




I'd imagine paladins are going to want to just use weapon focus instead of astral fire, honestly. 

Looking at whether to upgrade Valiant:
It's always at least a +1 to hit, which is definitely solid. If it's more than a +2 to hit, you're probably attacking a minion, or only getting the bonus for like a round. At which point I'd wonder how much better it was than Cleave, and I'd say Cleave is better than it for minion killing. So how does it compare for attack bonus... I'd say that Piercing is more reliable for hitting. Valiant has no other benefits than the attack bonus and doesn't hit for that much so I don't think it will ever compare to Holy Strike, especially not against undead or with items like a holy avenger. I could upgrade it to a B though.



> if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless




It's not worthless, it's just pretty lackluster. 



> Valiant Strike is almost always better against 3 or more adjacent opponents




I'd contend that the paladin is not fighting 3 or more opponents at once while using at-wills all that often outside Heroic tier. Most of the chaff tends to go away in the early rounds.

That said, assuming you're fighting 3 non-undead opponents, ignoring extra crit damage:
6th: 1d8 + 4 Str + 2 Enh + 1 Focus base, +3 Dmg for Holy, 60% hit with Holy, 75% hit with Valiant - Holy: 8.7 avg, Valiant: 8.625 avg
16th: 1d8 + 5 Str + 4 Enh + 2 Focus base, +4 Dmg for Holy, Same hit %s - Holy: 11.7, Valiant: 11.625
26th: 1d8 + 7 Str + 6 Enh + 3 Focus base, +5 Dmg for Holy and +1d10 for Holy Avenger, Same hit %s - Holy: 18.6, Valiant: 15.375

And yeah, radiant vulnerability really makes Holy shine.



> Bolstering is okay if your WIS mod is at least +3, and in some cases it can even be a life-saver. But offensively it has no special value at all. If you're surrounded by strikers (and without much in the way of healing from the rest of the party) and you are THE party's tank, then Bolstering's value goes way up. But you can still be a tank without it. And its value really drops as you gain in levels and hp.




Agree that its value decreases, but it is a strong contender at low level especially for races with a Wis bonus. 



> Enfeebling ... oh man, that is a boring one. But it can help keep you or an ally from getting hit, and thus has some value.




Yep, it is the most defender-ish of the bunch.



> Again, no particular offensive value whatsoever, so Holy/Valiant are better overall.




As a defender, the paladin's job is not necessarily offense, of course.


----------



## KarinsDad

Roxlimn said:


> After some consideration, I think I rate Ray of Frost well.  Certainly, it's a strong option if you already have Burning Blizzard and Wintertouched and Lasting Frost for other reasons (like if you're majoring in cold spells anyway).  I reviewed the Monster Manual for Fort defenses, and while they were sometimes higher than AC, sometimes they were also lower - even significantly lower.




I am still working on my spreadsheet with all of the monsters in it (I only have 182 at the moment, it takes a while to add them), but I have 6 columns in it: Low Fort, Low Reflex, Low Will, High Fort, High Reflex, and High Will. When I set the definition of that to be Low is 4 or more less than the other two or High is 4 or more greater than the other two, it comes out:

2 Low Fort
7 Low Reflex
7 Low Will
32 High Fort
3 High Reflex
0 High Will

Low Fort almost never happens, just like High Will almost never happens.

Note: one creature shows up as two of these (e.g. Low Will and High Fort), in this case, the Tarrasque (which I think is dumb to have a 17 delta on a D20 system between Fort and Will).

High Fort happens a lot.



Roxlimn said:


> You won't want to target Brutes and Soldiers with this because they have good defenses against it.  You want to target those with Ref defense spells.  You use a Fort defense spell against Lurkers, Skirmishers, and Artillery, against which they are very, very good (in general, not RoF specifically).  It also helps that Ray of Frost specifically targets lower HP enemies when it targets lower Fort defense enemies, and in those enemies, Will and Ref are sometimes concurrently high.




The problem is that I for one do not often know what type of creature I am fighting. Is it a Brute that ran into melee, or a Skirmisher, or a Soldier, or a Minion? Is it an Artillery in the back there, or a Lurker, or even a Controller?'

Are any of them Elite? Is it a Solo, or did we just accidentally alert two groups?

Don't know. So, deciding on which Defense to attack is a bit of quesswork unless I make some type of skill roll.


----------



## keterys

Najo said:


> Magic missile has the highest average damage due to its bell curve from 2d4 + int mod.




Magic missile can do decent damage due to bracers of perfect shot, not due to its bell curve. Cloud of Daggers will do more damage than it, even with bracers of perfect shot, even with getting the occasional extra hit from a warlord. It's certainly the wizard's #2 damage dealer, and it almost does as much damage as a longbow in anyone's hands at all who pumps Dex. Anyone with proficiency at least. Without using an at-will.



> All of the wizard's at-wills are good. Magic missile rock




Magic Missile is a solid option for many wizards who want the extra range and are willing to use an item slot to empower it. It is, however, a basic "baseline" at-will that can be disparagingly compared to making basic attacks with a longbow, but with magic missile suffering from not being able to get weapon focus. Some of the other at-wills offer slightly more once you factor in feats or appropriate builds, but may not be for everyone.

I do think magic missile + scorching burst will be the 'old reliable' mage build.


----------



## Cadfan

keterys said:


> So how does it compare for attack bonus... *I'd say that Piercing is more reliable for hitting.* Valiant has no other benefits than the attack bonus and doesn't hit for that much so I don't think it will ever compare to Holy Strike, especially not against undead or with items like a holy avenger. I could upgrade it to a B though.



Piercing Strike probably IS more reliable for hitting, but I think this outlines a flaw in your project.  Piercing Strike is in the possession of a different character class with a different role.  Rating Valiant Strike with reference to the usefulness of Piercing Strike is like rating Cleave down because it compares unfavorably to Thunderwave.

Anyways, in my experience Valiant Strike can be worked to give you about a +2 attack most of the time.  And if it isn't giving you at least that, you have other at will powers.  I rate it highly.


----------



## keterys

Some day we'll have more powers to compare against, but especially for at-wills it is very trivial to set them all on the same scale. Thunderwave is indeed better than Cleave and if presented with that as an option for an at-will, a fighter should take it.

Hopefully it never is offered to fighters, though. That would be... disappointing. That said, the swordmage may well have a similar option - I believe we've already seen that it gets a close burst 1 option.

Your opinion is noted, Cadfan, as it was before, but if doing things your way, there would simply be a list from 1-4 (or 1-3, etc) for each class with the theoretical order for each power. What you want is not pertinent to this particular exercise and really only helps for choosing at-wills for a player, not for design or DM. I'd contend that for a player you'd be better off making a list of builds and optimal choices for each type... and that may well be worth doing, but is outside the scope of what I'm trying to do 

I will say that I'd not be surprised if a significant number of DMs allow people to take 'cross-class' at-wills until we see more power options. Like Valiant Strike for a fighter or Priest's Shield of a paladin, that kind of thing.


----------



## Roxlimn

*KarinsDad:*

Your criteria for evaluating the spreadsheets are flawed.  The at-will choices on consideration in the PHB only target Ref, and the illusionary at-will is considered on its Will targeting alone (that being unique).

Thus, if you want to weigh Ref vs. Fort, you only have to count whether a monster either has better Ref than Fort or better Fort than Ref.  Extremely high counts of Fort relative to Ref don't count because as long as Fort is higher, you aren't going to be using that power anyway, regardless of how high the Fort happens to be.  That's the only criterion.

If you use this more practical measure, you'll come up with better numbers and that will reflect itself in play.



> The problem is that I for one do not often know what type of creature I am fighting. Is it a Brute that ran into melee, or a Skirmisher, or a Soldier, or a Minion? Is it an Artillery in the back there, or a Lurker, or even a Controller?'
> 
> Are any of them Elite? Is it a Solo, or did we just accidentally alert two groups?
> 
> Don't know. So, deciding on which Defense to attack is a bit of quesswork unless I make some type of skill roll.




That's probably why you should be taking a bunch of skills.


----------



## MwaO

LittleElvis said:


> Holy Strike is the King. It gives Paladins a way to become effective DPR dealers, and only gets better with age; you can still benefit from it at high levels. It benefits from Astral Fire feat and your WIS (at Epic level that's +3 and +WIS), and critters vulnerable to radiant take more damage. And you can make a critter vulnerable to Radiant 5 with a 5th level Daily power. Basically, if you want to feel like you're helping the party deal damage, you _really_ need this one.




The benefit of Astral Fire is generally the same as Weapon Focus and they don't stack - they both give a feat bonus to damage. Astral Fire is nice in that it works on all your radiant powers, but it won't work on your other at-will.



LittleElvis said:


> Yes, the +1 to damage is mathematically better than the +1 to hit at  low levels in DPR against all level-appropriate opponents (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless).




It depends on the hit/damage that you do. If you're attacking an AC 16, sure. If you're attacking an AC 20 Hobgoblin Soldier, not so much. Most characters will hit it on a 13 for 9



LittleElvis said:


> Enfeebling ... oh man, that is a boring one. But it can help keep you or an ally from getting hit, and thus has some value. Again, no particular offensive value whatsoever, so Holy/Valiant are better overall. It's okay. It's best against a controller who is about to AoE your party, or an opponent with a really nasty effect to its attacks that you want to avoid at all costs. It can be useful. But I feel sorry for anyone playing a CHA-Paladin that has to use it all the time until you get a bunch of Encounter and Daily powers that you can replace it with.




The advantage of Enfeebling Strike is that with your mark, that's a -4 to hit anyone but you. You're taking them out of the combat by forcing them to attack the high defenses Paladin at a penalty of -2. As an example, against a Berserker Human, you hitting them means that they'll only hit you about 30-35% of the time instead of 40-45%.


----------



## keterys

And nothing like a party setup of Paladin Enfeebling, Cleric Sacred Flaming, and Wizard Illusory Ambushing to really grind a solo into ineffectiveness in the late rounds. (Yawn)


----------



## LittleElvis

apearlma said:


> It depends on the hit/damage that you do. If you're attacking an AC 16, sure. If you're attacking an AC 20 Hobgoblin Soldier, not so much. Most characters will hit it on a 13 for 9




Actually the +1 damage and -1 to hit is almost perfectly identical vs AC 20.

Let's use a longsword (+3) and give STR of 18 (+4) and WIS of 12 (+1). In reality, you'd probably have a better WIS if you're a STR-Pal, making this comparison a bit unrealistic. But just for the sake comparing ...

DPR:
Holy Strike [7 x 9.5] + 13(crit) = 79.5; 79.5/20=3.975
Valiant Strike [8 x 8.5] + 12(crit) = 80; 80/20=4.000

Now let's make it a WIS of +2
Holy Strike [7 x 10.5] + 14(crit) = 87.5; 86.5/20=4.375

Now WIS of +3
Holy Strike [7 x 11.5] + 15(crit) = 95.5; 95.5/20= 4.775

So yeah, Holy Strike is pretty much always better against one level-appropriate opponent at lower levels if you're getting at least +1 to damage from WIS. Chances are you're getting more than +1 to damage, though, leaving it a no contest of Holy > Valiant vs 1. You shouldn't be facing many AC 20s at level 1 anyway, and even then it's almost certainly better (because you're almost certainly getting more than +1 from WIS if you're a STR-Pal).


----------



## LittleElvis

apearlma said:


> The advantage of Enfeebling Strike is that with your mark, that's a -4 to hit anyone but you. You're taking them out of the combat by forcing them to attack the high defenses Paladin at a penalty of -2. As an example, against a Berserker Human, you hitting them means that they'll only hit you about 30-35% of the time instead of 40-45%.




I agree, it has some value against a big nasty. But just with Divine Challenge, you're probably forcing it to attack you anyway. Does it want -2 vs your high AC or -4 vs someone else's lower AC and DC damage? Even without Enfeebling, it's going to attack you the vast majority of the time. And if it doesn't, it's taking -2 to hit and taking DC damage. That's not a bad deal for you either.


----------



## Mengu

LittleElvis said:


> DPR:
> Holy Strike [7 x 9.5] + 13 = 79.5; 79.5/20=3.975
> Valiant Strike [8 x 8.5] + 12 = 80; 80/20=4.000
> 
> Now let's make it a WIS of +2
> Holy Strike [7 x 10.5] + 14 = 87.5; 86.5/20=4.375
> 
> Now WIS of +3
> Holy Strike [7 x 11.5] + 15 = 95.5; 95.5/20= 4.775



Just have to fix the math:

Wis 12 Holy Strike needing 13+: (8/20) x 9.5 = 3.8
Wis 14 Holy Strike needing 13+: (8/20) x 10.5 = 4.2
Wis 16 Holy Strike needing 13+: (8/20) x 11.5 = 4.6

1 adj. opponent Valiant Strike needing 12+:  (9/20) x 8.5 = 3.825
2 adj. opponent Valiant Strike needing 11+:  (10/20) x 8.5 = 4.25
3 adj. opponent Valiant Strike needing 10+:  (11/20) x 8.5 = 4.675

A rather important advantage of Valiant Strike is that you don't have to be attacking your Marked target. This way you keep one target busy with your mark, and one by pounding on it continually. I can see a more damage focused Paladin going for Holy Strike more often, but I think the powers are very close in usefulness.


----------



## LittleElvis

keterys said:


> That said, assuming you're fighting 3 non-undead opponents, ignoring extra crit damage:
> 6th: 1d8 + 4 Str + 2 Enh + 1 Focus base, +3 Dmg for Holy, 60% hit with Holy, 75% hit with Valiant - Holy: 8.7 avg, Valiant: 8.625 avg
> 16th: 1d8 + 5 Str + 4 Enh + 2 Focus base, +4 Dmg for Holy, Same hit %s - Holy: 11.7, Valiant: 11.625
> 26th: 1d8 + 7 Str + 6 Enh + 3 Focus base, +5 Dmg for Holy and +1d10 for Holy Avenger, Same hit %s - Holy: 18.6, Valiant: 15.375




Let's look at the level 6 scenario.

You're definitely using at least a 1d10 weapon by that point. Let's make it a bastard sword. We're assuming a +3 WIS modifier, which you may not have (and if you only have +2, Valiant clearly wins). Let's give Holy the advantage of the +3 WIS, though.

60% hits with Holy and 75% hits with Valiant is about right. That's an AC of 21 at Level-6.

6th level average damage per non-critical hit in the above scenario using a Bastard Sword is 15.5 vs. 12.5.

Actual DPR is ...

Valiant: [12.5 x 14] + [17 + 7 for crit] = 199/20 = 9.95
Holy: [15.5 x 11] + [20 + 7 for crit] = 197.5/20 = 9.875

Valiant by a nose. Against 4+ opponents not vulnerable to Radiant, obviously Valiant wins there. If your WIS bonus is only +2, then it's 9.95 for Valiant vs. 9.325 for Holy.

I would also argue that if you're surrounded by three opponents, you not only take the higher DPR in Valiant, but you also are less likely to 'roll the dice' and you'd rather take the more reliable damage (75% vs 60% chance to hit), especially if one of them is a minion or bloodied because you want to take him out. Then after you wipe out one of them, you go back to Holy Strike vs 2 in this scenario, unless one of them is again knocking on death's door and you want the more reliable hit.

Valiant is also slightly better at the level 16 scenario using the Bastard sword (or perhaps something better than 1d10), and hits more reliably.

DPR:
Valiant: [16.5 x 14] + [21 + 14 for crit] = 266/20 = 13.3 
Holy: [20.5 x 11] + [25 + 14 for crit] = 264.5/20 = 13.225

If you've got a Holy Avenger at 26, you're certainly going to be using Holy Strike over Valiant.


----------



## LittleElvis

Mengu said:


> Just have to fix the math:
> 
> Wis 12 Holy Strike needing 13+: (8/20) x 9.5 = 3.8
> Wis 14 Holy Strike needing 13+: (8/20) x 10.5 = 4.2
> Wis 16 Holy Strike needing 13+: (8/20) x 11.5 = 4.6
> 
> 1 adj. opponent Valiant Strike needing 12+:  (9/20) x 8.5 = 3.825
> 2 adj. opponent Valiant Strike needing 11+:  (10/20) x 8.5 = 4.25
> 3 adj. opponent Valiant Strike needing 10+:  (11/20) x 8.5 = 4.675
> 
> A rather important advantage of Valiant Strike is that you don't have to be attacking your Marked target. This way you keep one target busy with your mark, and one by pounding on it continually. I can see a more damage focused Paladin going for Holy Strike more often, but I think the powers are very close in usefulness.




I think you actually made the math less correct . I included the possibility of a critical hit in the DPR. 

Great point about Valiant, though. A maximized Holy Strike is still probably useful more often, because if you've got a good WIS bonus it's probably better vs 2, and almost always better vs 1, while being roughly equivalent to vs 3, and gets synergy with 'Sign of Vulnerability' once/day and deals Radiant damage.

If you have both Holy and Valiant, then I think they are about equal as they give you good options as a team (choosing which one fits each situation). If you can only have one or the other, then I think Holy is just a bit better per se. But not by a lot, and of course in many cases Valiant edges it out.


----------



## Mengu

LittleElvis said:


> I think you actually made the math less correct . I included the possibility of a critical hit in the DPR.



Ahh, ok, that's what those numbers are... *shamed*


----------



## LittleElvis

keterys said:


> I will say that I'd not be surprised if a significant number of DMs allow people to take 'cross-class' at-wills until we see more power options. Like Valiant Strike for a fighter or Priest's Shield of a paladin, that kind of thing.




Although Paragon Multi-Classing does allow that option at level 11, of course. I'm playing two Pals right now. One is a Human STR-Pal whose goal in life is to get Righteous Brand from Cleric as an at-will power (to go with Holy and Valiant) at level 11.

That would great to play with a DM who allowed that to happen more easily, though. If I was DM'ing, I might create a feat available at level 11 or 12 for swapping an at-will power with that of your multi-class. Or if I was feeling more generous, I'd let the feat available at level 8 or 10 allow that.


----------



## MwaO

LittleElvis said:


> Actually the +1 damage and -1 to hit is almost perfectly identical vs AC 20.
> 
> Let's use a longsword (+3) and give STR of 18 (+4) and WIS of 12 (+1). In reality, you'd probably have a better WIS if you're a STR-Pal, making this comparison a bit unrealistic. But just for the sake comparing ...
> 
> DPR:
> Holy Strike [7 x 9.5] + 13(crit) = 79.5; 79.5/20=3.975
> Valiant Strike [8 x 8.5] + 12(crit) = 80; 80/20=4.000
> 
> Now let's make it a WIS of +2
> Holy Strike [7 x 10.5] + 14(crit) = 87.5; 86.5/20=4.375
> 
> Now WIS of +3
> Holy Strike [7 x 11.5] + 15(crit) = 95.5; 95.5/20= 4.775




Let's make the comparison a little more realistic...you're picking the ideal situation for you, which is unlikely to hold at even 1st level...and you're comparing apples and oranges, not what I was talking about, which is the benefit of a +1 to damage vs a -1 to hit. Not what the benefit of a +1 to hit is compared with a moving target dependent on stats.

Let's use a bastard sword (+3)(or WF, doesn't really matter which one as crits adjust automatically) and look at AC 20 and power attack, with a Holy Strike at +2 extra damage.

DPR:
Holy Strike (7*11.5) + 17(crit) = 97.5; 97.5/20 = 4.875
Holy Strike (5*13.5)(PA) + 19(crit) = 86.5; 86.5/20 = 4.325


----------



## KarinsDad

Roxlimn said:


> *KarinsDad:*
> 
> Your criteria for evaluating the spreadsheets are flawed.  The at-will choices on consideration in the PHB only target Ref, and the illusionary at-will is considered on its Will targeting alone (that being unique).
> 
> Thus, if you want to weigh Ref vs. Fort, you only have to count whether a monster either has better Ref than Fort or better Fort than Ref.  Extremely high counts of Fort relative to Ref don't count because as long as Fort is higher, you aren't going to be using that power anyway, regardless of how high the Fort happens to be.  That's the only criterion.
> 
> If you use this more practical measure, you'll come up with better numbers and that will reflect itself in play.




Way ahead of you. My spreadsheet analyzes all types of criteria. That was just one simple example.

I was merely pointing out to you that Low Fort almost never happens, unlike your claim to the contrary.


----------



## Roxlimn

*KarinsDad:*

As far as I can tell, I posted, "sometimes Fort is lower than AC, even significantly lower."

What about that tells you that I'm comparing Fort to Ref or that I used your criteria to do so?  That seems fairly clear that I was comparison Fort defense to AC defense, not Ref.


----------



## LittleElvis

apearlma said:


> Let's make the comparison a little more realistic...you're picking the ideal situation for you, which is unlikely to hold at even 1st level...and you're comparing apples and oranges, not what I was talking about, which is the benefit of a +1 to damage vs a -1 to hit. Not what the benefit of a +1 to hit is compared with a moving target dependent on stats.
> 
> Let's use a bastard sword (+3)(or WF, doesn't really matter which one as crits adjust automatically) and look at AC 20 and power attack, with a Holy Strike at +2 extra damage.
> 
> DPR:
> Holy Strike (7*11.5) + 17(crit) = 97.5; 97.5/20 = 4.875
> Holy Strike (5*13.5)(PA) + 19(crit) = 86.5; 86.5/20 = 4.325




Well I know it's hypothetical, but that's extremely unrealistic and, really unlike my example, certainly "picking the ideal situation for you." You're using _Power Attack _against a high AC opponent (why?) while using a one-handed weapon with power attack (uncommon), _and_ you don't have Weapon Focus while do you have power attack? That's not happening in reality, because it's plainly not optimized. However, give that power attack guy a Maul (more realistic) and he would beat the non-PA guy even against a high AC.

We were definitely talking about +1 to damage versus +1 to hit, and as I pointed out, the +1 to damage is better against opponents realistic for your level, and almost never significantly bested by the +1 to hit (the AC has to be unrealistically high for +1 to hit to be significantly better).

The higher the opposing AC, the less you want to trade to-hit bonuses for damage bonuses, obviously. But against your high AC 20 example at first level, the +1 to damage is still nearly identical to the +1 to hit in the situation most common for a Paladin (18 STR and a longsword).

I also did not compare an apple and an orange, because I did compare +1 to damage vs +1 to hit. That's explicitly what we were talking about.

A -1/+1 or -2/+2 does increase your average DPR against opponents appropriate for your level. The example I gave was a realistic one. Using a longsword with 18 STR at level 1 and comparing +1 to hit vs +1 to damage. Even against the AC 20, they're almost perfectly identical in DPR. With AC lower than 20, +1 damage wins. At AC 20, they're really equal. Higher than AC 20, +1 to hit gets better.


----------



## LittleElvis

Here's a situation a little more friendly to the +1 to hit argument. Level 1, 18 STR, Warhammer or Battleaxe. Let's make the opposing AC 18, which is still a bit to the high side high.

+1 Damage: [8 x 10.5] + 15 = 99/20 = 4.950
+1 To Hit: [9 x 9.5] + 14 = 99.5/20 = 4.975

Almost identical vs a high'ish AC. +1 damage being somewhat better vs. more common opponents.

For fun, compare that to a longsword:

+1 Damage: [9 x 9.5] + 13 = 98.5/20 = 4.925
+1 to hit: [10 x 8.5] + 12 = 97/20 = 4.850

And with a magical +1 Longsword ...

+1 Damage: [10 x 10.5] + 14 = 119/20 = 5.950
+1 to hit: [11 x 9.5] + 13 = 117.5/20 = 5.875

So of course it does depend on what kind of weapon you are using, Enhancement and feat bonuses, etc. 

And of course it's true that once you get Weapon Focus (or if you use a higher DPR weapon), the benefit of the +1 to hit goes up somewhat vs the +1 to damage. 

To go back to the original discussion, with a +2 or better WIS bonus from Holy Strike, it's still going to be your winner vs 1 opponent almost all of the time. Even with +1 WIS bonus, it's better a very, very healthy majority of the time at lower levels of play (except vs opponents with very low hp or insanely high AC).


----------



## KarinsDad

Roxlimn said:


> *KarinsDad:*
> 
> As far as I can tell, I posted, "sometimes Fort is lower than AC, even significantly lower."
> 
> What about that tells you that I'm comparing Fort to Ref or that I used your criteria to do so?  That seems fairly clear that I was comparison Fort defense to AC defense, not Ref.




In a discussion of Wizard At Will powers, AC doesn't matter. I assumed you had a typo in your message because you were talking about how wonderful Ray of Frost is.

Ray of Frost is not wonderful. We have the early part of this thread here on how subpar it is, even after throwing two feats at it.


So, if you were indeed talking about AC (which is not very productive in a discusion on Wizard At Will powers), most weapons get a +2 ranged (where the attacker is more safe) or +3 melee to hit (where the attacker is less safe) weapon proficiency bonus.

Wizard attacks do not get this bonus.

So yes, Fort can be lower than AC and often is.

But who cares unless one subtracts 3 from the AC in order to compare the AC to the Fort. At that point, one is comparing Defender (good attacker vs. AC) vs. Wizard (good attacker vs. Fort): AC vs. Fort.

At that point, the number of "Significantly Lower Fort (i.e. adjusted by 3 and 4 or more than that lower) vs. AC" creatures out of the first 182 is exactly 1. Even comparing AC-3 straight up vs. Fort yields 34 creatures (most of them 1 lower) out of 182.

One cannot just compare AC to Fort because PCs that use weapons get bonuses to hit. One has to adjust AC and then compare.


1 out of 182 significantly lower. Yup, that is "sometimes", but not too often.

Hardly an endorsement of what you were stating.

Fort is almost never significantly lower than any Defense one compares it to. One of the other Defenses is better than Fort for a Wizard (or any attacker) to target the vast majority of the time.


That is one reason (out of several) why Ray of Frost is suboptimal.


----------



## MwaO

LittleElvis said:


> Well I know it's hypothetical, but that's extremely unrealistic and, really unlike my example, certainly "picking the ideal situation for you." You're using _Power Attack _against a high AC opponent (why?) while using a one-handed weapon with power attack (uncommon), _and_ you don't have Weapon Focus while do you have power attack? That's not happening in reality, because it's plainly not optimized. However, give that power attack guy a Maul (more realistic) and he would beat the non-PA guy even against a high AC.




As I noted, they're the same thing, Bastard Sword/WF. I'm doing the -2 so it is obvious how the math works. When you insert a -1, you're still better off swinging at an AC 20 guy with the +1 to hit.

And no, Maul guy wouldn't. He ends up doing significantly worse damage against AC 20, even with the extra +1 damage.

+4 = 4*(7+4+2+3)+21 = 85/20 = 4.2
+6 = 6*(7+4+2)+18 = 96/20 = 4.8



LittleElvis said:


> Yes, the +1 to damage is mathematically better than the +1 to hit at  low levels in DPR against all level-appropriate opponents (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a feat that gives you +2 damage for -2 to hit called Power Attack--it would be worthless).




I'm not the person who said '*all* level-appropriate opponents'


----------



## Stalker0

Guys, you can't do just a straight up comparison of average damage between holy strike and valiant strike, because in many situations all you care about is hitting.

For example, with the bloodied mechanic, I can tell when a guy is really hurt. And its easy to judge when a creature has just a few hitpoints left. In those situations, it doesn't matter that the average damage of holy strike is higher...I just care about hitting the creature because hit = death. In these situations, which are not uncommon in my experience, valiant strike is the clear choice.

I've got nothing against holy strike mind you, but remember that attack bonuses do a lot more than just bump up average damage.


----------



## keterys

Attack bonuses certainly kill minions faster  Also, thy sometimes carry riders (sneak attack, combat superiority, etc)

If Sure Strike could be used for OA innately, it would even be a tolerable power because of combat superiority.

That said, the number of hits where you would have killed with either Valiant or Holy Strike is probably fairly small in the grand scheme of things. Bloodied tends to be a pretty large hp range if we're talking at-wills. Especially paladin at-wills.


----------



## LittleElvis

apearlma said:


> As I noted, they're the same thing, Bastard Sword/WF. I'm doing the -2 so it is obvious how the math works. When you insert a -1, you're still better off swinging at an AC 20 guy with the +1 to hit.
> 
> And no, Maul guy wouldn't. He ends up doing significantly worse damage against AC 20, even with the extra +1 damage.
> 
> +4 = 4*(7+4+2+3)+21 = 85/20 = 4.2
> +6 = 6*(7+4+2)+18 = 96/20 = 4.8
> 
> I'm not the person who said '*all* level-appropriate opponents'




Well AC 20 is not a level-appropriate opponent for a 1st level character.

Regarding the Maul, I was saying to compare a Maul-wielder with Power Attack vs. the Bastard Sword guy without power attack vs 20 AC, because, that's actually a realistic comparison of two things that might happen in reality. And yes, even vs AC 20 and using power attack, the Maul is better in terms of DPR. Just trying to come up with something realistic.

You've also said twice now that Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus are the same, but they are not. Even at 1[W], the Bastard sword does better DPR as it does more damage on a crit. With 2[W] or higher[W] the Bastard sword also is obviously better than weapon focus.


----------



## LittleElvis

Stalker0 said:


> Guys, you can't do just a straight up comparison of average damage between holy strike and valiant strike, because in many situations all you care about is hitting.




That's actually been said many times already above. Valiant is better, period, if you're attacking a minion or someone with a few hp. That's one of its selling points.


----------



## Minigiant

I still say a wizard's at will is heavily influenced by the tiers. I can expect them to retrain power right before jumping tiers so their at wills differ in power at different levels.


Cloud of Daggers B+/B/C
CoD is awesome at the heroic tier. Later on autokilling minions 1 at a time is too dangerous and insubstantials are rarer, usually low HP, and vulnerable to something other than force. 


Magic Missile B-/B/B+
Like CoD but less minion kill and better range. Chances are when you are using this, your attack resources are low so you might as well be 15 squares away.

Ray of Frost C+/B+/B
RoF targets a bad defense so you'll need a boost to spam slow on non shrimisher/lurker. The 2 cold feats help, especially if you have an cold vs Ref encounter or daily.

Scorching Burst A/A-/A-
Kills 50-75% of the minions of a group without using an encounter or daily by turn 2? Where do I sign? Too bad by level 15, wizard should have so many AOEs.

Thunderwave A all around 
Nice at heroic, range gets better at paragon. Chance are that you use this every time you get damaged.

Illusionary Ambush B/B+/A
Your only anti artillery at will power and the only one that hits Will. Not bad vs Solos either.


----------



## Roxlimn

Creatures whose Fort defenses are lower than Ref defenses:

Astral Stalker
Phane
Fire Archon Emberguard
Fire Archon Ash Disciple
Banshrae Dartswarmer
Banshrae Warrior
Shadowhunter Bat
Fire Bat
Beholder Eye of Flame
Beholder Eye Tyrant
Berbalang
Bone Claw
Cambion Hellfire Magus
Dark Creeper
Dark Stalker
Chain Devil
Succubus
Displacer Beast
Dopplegangers
Black Dragons
Green Dragons
Spiretop Drake
Needlefang Drake Swarm
Pseudodragon
Spitting Drake
Drider Shadowspinner
Drow
Eladrin
...
...

I'm not bothering to finish the list.

There are a good number of monsters whose Ref defenses are higher than their Fort defenses.  Thus, for these monsters, it's better to use a Ray of Frost than a Ref attack at-will.


----------



## KarinsDad

Roxlimn said:


> There are a good number of monsters whose Ref defenses are higher than their Fort defenses.  Thus, for these monsters, it's better to use a Ray of Frost than a Ref attack at-will.




Err, so?

The issue is:

1) There are more monsters (a lot more monsters) with higher Fort Defenses than Reflex Defenses then there are ones with higher Reflex Defenses than Fort Defenses.

2) Wizards only get 2 (or 3 if Human) At Will powers.

3) People who play Wizards want both single target and area At Will powers.

4) Unless a given DM is generous in handling out information (even with skill checks) as to whether a given monster is Brute, Soldier, Minion, etc., the players of Wizards will not have a strong idea as to the best attack to use in any given circumstance. The player might have an educated guess at best.


All bases cannot be covered. So, the best strategy is to use higher frequency At Will powers (such as vs. Will and vs. Reflex) and fill the vs. Fort powers out of Encounter and Daily powers. Doing it the other way is an option, but it is a suboptimal option, especially at lower levels. When a PC starts gaining more Encounter Powers and uses fewer At Will powers within encounters, it becomes less suboptimal to switch to a vs. Fort. At Will power.


----------



## Darkthorne

*Commander's Strike?*

OK, I'm runnning a Warlord and I am not sure of the value of this power UNLESS you have a higher Int than Str AND if you have someone in the group that can hit & dish out more damage than you (and do you need to be in melee as well?). Am I missing something? Wolf pack can give you & an ally a +2 to hit (also helps rogues immensely), Furious Smash attacks Fort instead of AC which is very good against mobile/high int targets as they probably have a decent AC as well gives you some damage and a decent bonus to hit & damage, viper's strike allows a opportunity attack if the shifts which is pretty good in my opinion.


----------



## Stalker0

Darkthorne said:


> OK, I'm runnning a Warlord and I am not sure of the value of this power UNLESS you have a higher Int than Str AND if you have someone in the group that can hit & dish out more damage than you (and do you need to be in melee as well?).




I think you just answered your own question.


----------



## blargney the second

Commander's Strike = _snake's swiftness_.  It was useful in 3e, it's useful in 4e.
-blarg


----------



## Darkthorne

I think it should be a lower grade as it's much more restrictive to be of use, only useful IF there is a high str ally to use it with. Also not nearly as good as Snake's Swiftness used to be. Snake's Swiftness allowed either any type of ranged or melee attack and was cast by a mage at range so if you were up against something with SR this is a value add to any noncaster. Commander's Strike only allows an ally a basic melee attack and you have to be in melee as well(?) If this can be one at range then I can see value being added.


----------



## keterys

Snake's Swiftness didn't add bonus damage. Let's say you've got a longsword and board tactical warlord with Str 16, Int 18 in a group with a Str 18 greatsword fighter.

So, you get +2 attack and +6 damage. More if you add in bracer's of mighty striking - which you really should if you're grouped with a warlord doing this.


----------



## Darkthorne

Still seems restrictive & stat dependant. Also shouldn't the damage be +8? If even with the 16 Str you could be either the highest or tied as the highest for Str in which case you would want to use any other power w/ a bonus effect (Furious Smash gives you Str+Cha damage +cha to hit on his next attack which doesn't have to be a basic one). The one perk of this power I could see is if you are statused by something (weakened etc) where someone's basic attack is way better than your at wills


----------



## KarinsDad

Darkthorne said:


> OK, I'm runnning a Warlord and I am not sure of the value of this power UNLESS you have a higher Int than Str AND if you have someone in the group that can hit & dish out more damage than you (and do you need to be in melee as well?). Am I missing something?




It depends a bit on party makeup.

Basic Attack damage for a Defender might be quite high.

And, Int does not need to be greater than Str. If the ally does better average damage and has a better change to hit then than Warlord, giving him another attack plus Int damage can often be better than the Warlord +2 to hit of Wolf Pack.

If an enemy doesn't shift, Viper's Strike is pretty weak too (also, VS might incentivize an enemy to attack the Warlord because a Marked foe might figure he'll get attacked in either case).

And Furious Strike is Meh damage.

Commander's Strike can be the best of the lot depending on party makeup.


----------



## Darkthorne

I don't understand the logic of saying giving a defender/high str pc a basic attack (commander's strike which bonus damage = 16 Int 3 for example & losing yours) instead of giving anyone in melee a bonus to hit & dam = 16 cha 3 to any melee attack of theirs + you also do your 16 str 3 damage as well. 1 is useful only when giving a high str melee PC a +3 to damage against AC, while the other (using same stats) is giving a +3 to hit & damage to possibly any defense (more odds of hitting if against a low defense) using any melee power and you also get to add in your str damage from your attack


----------



## Darkthorne

As for Wolf pack that can give combat advantage due to flanking so that also boosts the damage possibility if you have a rogue


----------



## small pumpkin man

Darkthorne said:


> I don't understand the logic of saying giving a defender/high str pc a basic attack (commander's strike which bonus damage = 16 Int 3 for example & losing yours) instead of giving anyone in melee a bonus to hit & dam = 16 cha 3 to any melee attack of theirs + you also do your 16 str 3 damage as well. 1 is useful only when giving a high str melee PC a +3 to damage against AC, while the other (using same stats) is giving a +3 to hit & damage to possibly any defense (more odds of hitting if against a low defense) using any melee power and you also get to add in your str damage from your attack



Yes, but Commanders Strike just works, and requires no action on the part of the other character, Furious Smash requires you to hit fort and then on their turn the other character has to make an attack to get the bonuses

They're actually used in different situations, Commanders Strike is just a good useful at will, whereas Furious Smash is what you use to set up another character's daily.


----------



## keterys

Darkthorne said:


> Still seems restrictive & stat dependant. Also shouldn't the damage be +8? If even with the 16 Str you could be either the highest or tied as the highest for Str in which case you would want to use any other power w/ a bonus effect (Furious Smash gives you Str+Cha damage +cha to hit on his next attack which doesn't have to be a basic one). The one perk of this power I could see is if you are statused by something (weakened etc) where someone's basic attack is way better than your at wills




Should be +6 = +4 from Int, +1 from him having higher Str, +1 from him using a 2h weapon. The +2 attack is +1 from fighter and +1 from str. The gap widens if the fighter also has weapon focus and such and the warlord doesn't, but I wasn't going to count on that. Feel free to add the +2 from the bracers, though, to get +8.

Furious Smash doesn't have a damage die, which is particularly important at later level when it means you don't get weapon focus, enhancement bonus, power bonus to damage, etc. It ends up being a lot less damage. Its main strength is giving an attack bonus for someone else's important powers.


----------



## MwaO

LittleElvis said:


> Well AC 20 is not a level-appropriate opponent for a 1st level character.




Encounter level 1 for 5 PCs is 500 xp of monsters. A perfectly reasonable encounter would be a Hobgoblin Soldier + 2 Hobgoblin Minions + 2 goblin skirmishers + 2 Goblin Cutters(minions) = 501 XP.

As a 1st level character, you're expected to be able to fight n+2 monsters who are not solos in standard fights - heck, you're supposed to be able to fight n+5 monsters in hard fights.

Perhaps that's the reason you're so enthralled by damage vs to hit - you've been softballing during your playtests...



LittleElvis said:


> You've also said twice now that Bastard Sword and Weapon Focus are the same, but they are not. Even at 1[W], the Bastard sword does better DPR as it does more damage on a crit. With 2[W] or higher[W] the Bastard sword also is obviously better than weapon focus.




Effectively...

If you're doing say 10 more hit points on average per 20 swings with a bastard sword because you used Power Attack, you're doing the same 10 more hit points on average with a longsword. The difference in average damage per round is the same. i.e. 101-91 = 10. 100-90 = 10. 10 = 10.

When we start talking about 2[W] or higher, it is an entirely different set of numbers, because you're doing so much more damage on average as a base and therefore the value of a +1 to hit goes up.


----------



## KarinsDad

Darkthorne said:


> I don't understand the logic of saying giving a defender/high str pc a basic attack (commander's strike which bonus damage = 16 Int 3 for example & losing yours) instead of giving anyone in melee a bonus to hit & dam = 16 cha 3 to any melee attack of theirs + you also do your 16 str 3 damage as well. 1 is useful only when giving a high str melee PC a +3 to damage against AC, while the other (using same stats) is giving a +3 to hit & damage to possibly any defense (more odds of hitting if against a low defense) using any melee power and you also get to add in your str damage from your attack




With Commander's Strike , the ally gets an extra attack on the Warlord's turn. The ally still get his normal actions on his normal turn. The ally does not lose his normal turn.


That Commander's Strike attack is typically better to hit than what the Warlord himself can do.

That attack has +Int damage.

Take an example of the Warlord at 16 Int, +6 to hit for ~8 damage and a Fighter is +7 to hit for ~10 damage, the Fighter gets an extra attack at +7 to hit for ~13 damage.

+7 ~13 is greater than +6 ~8.


If the Warlord used Wolf Pack Tactics, he would be +8 ~8 damage (vs. +7 ~13) and Commander's Strike is still often better (there is no guarantee that the Fighter still gets the flank, or would not have had the flank anyway).


If the Warlord used Viper Strike, he would be +6 ~8 damage (vs. +7 ~13) and Commander's Strike is still often better (there is no guarantee that the Fighter would get an opportunity attack or a flank).


And Furious Smash is hardly helpful at all. Two attacks by the Fighter (one of them with a boost to damage) is typically a lot better than a boost to hit and damage IF the Warlord hits for a minor amount of damage.


----------



## LittleElvis

apearlma said:


> Encounter level 1 for 5 PCs is 500 xp of monsters. A perfectly reasonable encounter would be a Hobgoblin Soldier + 2 Hobgoblin Minions + 2 goblin skirmishers + 2 Goblin Cutters(minions) = 501 XP.
> 
> As a 1st level character, you're expected to be able to fight n+2 monsters who are not solos in standard fights - heck, you're supposed to be able to fight n+5 monsters in hard fights.
> 
> Perhaps that's the reason you're so enthralled by damage vs to hit - you've been softballing during your playtests...




Considering that I'm playing in two campaigns, observing a third, playtesting against different sorts of opponents, and obviously calculating things like DPR, no that's actually not the case.

Actually one of the main tests I ran were different level 1 Paladins against a level 6 Cave Bear with an AC of 20. The STR Pals were able to do a lot more damage to them before getting killed than the CHA Pals, fwiw, although that's a different topic.

You are of course right that a 1st level character can face AC of 20 (or a bit higher) if the DM wants him to, and there are fair opponents that will be at that level. It's not a common opponent, though. There will be a lot more cases where the +1 to damage at first level is better than the +1 to hit (for a Paladin, at least, which is what the original discussion revolved around). Granted, to be clearer and more correct, I should have said "the overwhelming majority of level-appropriate opponents," rather than "all."

Of course, it's situational, though. Something like power attack is better against lower AC opponents than higher AC opponents, which was close to your original point--obviously true.

However, you incorrectly implied that vs an AC 20 Hobgoblin soldier, +1 to hit is better than +1 to damage, and you implied that this was clearly the case. In reality, it's about equal, depending on all of your stats, weapons, etc. I also overstated my case a bit to begin with.


----------



## NorthSaber

LittleElvis said:


> However, you incorrectly implied that vs an AC 20 Hobgoblin soldier, +1 to hit is better than +1 to damage, and you implied that this was clearly the case. In reality, it's about equal, depending on all of your stats, weapons, etc. I also overstated my case a bit to begin with.




I haven't ran any simulations or extensive playtests but I find this hard to believe. We've played 4e something like three sessions, so my experience is limited, but so far about 80% of the enemies we've encountered have been minions, against whom the damage is irrelevant. 

The more bad-ass enemies have been on the receiving end of our encounter- and daily abilities, which are only cool if they hit, and often have other effects besides simple damage. 

At very low levels, damage has more impact - so to speak - than chance to hit, but the margin becomes narrower the higher the target's AC gets. Attack bonuses increase slower, if I have understood correctly, than enemy defenses, so sooner or later attack bonuses will trump damage bonuses. (Plus nobody wants to miss with their dailies or encounter-powers...)


----------



## Darkthorne

KD,
For losing the turn I was referring to the Warlord not attacking & still leaving myself open to being hit. Also in my case I have the higher Str than our fighter (he's con higher than I). While his fighter is probably close to equal terms as me for hitting things, against certain foes my attack vs Fort is easier to hit with (yes I know I need to hit) could give his 1st lvl daily a +10 to hit & damage of 25 plus me doing my 3 damage originally for 28 against the target. That's +3 to hit AC & 8 extra damage on average for a 1st level daily, 1st lvl encounter powers work to be about the same damage but gain the +3 anyhow. I would upgrade this power (CS) if you could use it at range or if any melee at will could be used with it (opening its usefulness to non high str PC's as well).


----------



## Malisteen

Commander's strike is somewhat situational. It's better if your party's defender is a fighter, for the extra mark. It's better if your party's striker is melee based, rather then ranged, letting you give them a 2nd chance at their bonus damage if they missed on their turn. It's better if your 5th member is another defender or melee striker. It's better if you have a reach weapon (which is in turn better if your party has two or more high AC heroes in it, to make up for your lower AC from lack of a shield, and to give you someone to hide behind).

That said, it's usually great for a tactical warlord, unless you're playing in a group where you're the only leader, your defender is a Str-dumping Chaladin, and you've got multiple ranged strikers.


In a normal group, with at least one Str-based defender or melee striker, Commander's attack nets a high int taclord a decent damage boost, and gives you another chance to take advantage of your several short duration attack boosts.

IE: at first level your average eladrin taclord drops warlords favor once an encounter. Provided it hits, you'll be giving one ally +4 to hit until the end of your next turn. They attack with the bonus on their turn, and then on your next turn you can follow up with commander's strike for another attack benefiting from that +4 to hit. There are multiple short duration ally attack boost powers to take advantage of throughout a Taclord's progression, and the Battle Captain Paragon Path provides an extra two to three of these per encounter.


As a Taclord, this is hard to pass up. It's not as obvious a choice as Furious Smash is for a Chalord.  Of course, that's something of a false comparison.  If you're a tactical warlord, furious smash is rather terrible for you, just as commander's strike is rather lame for an inspiring warlord.  Thunderwave isn't a terrible power just because it's lackluster for Wis-Dumping staff wizards, is it?

Commander's strike isn't amazing like the ranger's doublestrike power, or the cleric's righteous brand, or most of the wizard at-wills, but is still rather good. And sure, it's rather situational depending on your party make-up... But your a warlord. If any class should be taking the other party memebers into account when selecting powers, it's you. If it doesn't fit your party, or if your party composition changes, just retrain it.  NBD.


----------



## Carpe DM

Here are some observations.  Pardon the use of game terms, but really, the Paladin is an MMORPG tank, and so tanking terminology ("peeling," etc.) is the most precise.

1. Paladin At-Wills are highly situational.  Rather than rating them overall, I think it's useful to note the situations in which each is superior.

a. Bolstering Strike: Against multiple opponents, if tanking.
b. Enfeebling Strike: Against a single opponent, or if peeling.  (Enfeebling Strike + Divine Challenge is a pretty good peel).
c. Holy Strike: Against a single opponent, if solo (or striker is down).  Holy Strike especially if undead.
d. Valiant Strike: I suppose this is best for clearing minions.  I have not found much use.  Yes, you connect.  Yes, Paladins have a problem connecting because of their multiple hit stats.  But the side effects of Bolstering / Enfeebling are better if you have strikers available.

2. Certain moves become much better in combination.  Furious Smash, for example, has been maligned.  But in our group, the Furious Smash / Piercing Smite has been a killer opener for our Warlord / Paladin.  Every critter in the tangle is now marked, and all minions must be on the Paladin or die.

Commanders' Strike -> (Paladin drops a minion) -> Raven Queen's Blessing has also been a very, very effective combo.

So I think that, in general, it is best to rate Warlord at-wills in conjunction with their potential for combination play.

best,

Carpe


----------



## Darkthorne

Ok, I now can see the value add when tied with Warlord's Favor, was overlooking/misreading the "until the end of your next turn" bit.
Thanks


----------



## Roxlimn

*KarinsDad:*

That's a matter of strategic opinion.  There are a fair number of creatures in the MM whose Fort is defenses are lower than Ref defenses.  With Knowledge skills, you can discern proper targeting.

Lower Ref defenses are more common.  That much is true.  So you take a primary at-will that targets Ref.  After that, you hedge your bets and get an at-will that targets Fort.

It makes no sense to devote limited Encounter slots to Fort attacks unless they're THAT good, and even then it still makes sense to cover bases with the at-wills.


----------



## KarinsDad

Roxlimn said:


> *KarinsDad:*
> 
> That's a matter of strategic opinion.  There are a fair number of creatures in the MM whose Fort is defenses are lower than Ref defenses.  With Knowledge skills, you can discern proper targeting.




Yes. There are ~30% of the creatures with a Fort lower than Reflex. But, there are only about 10% where Fort is the lowest of Fort, Reflex, and Will. Hence, taking an At Will vs. Fort doesn't make a lot of sense when the other two Defenses tend to be lower.


And yes, with Knowledge skills, you can (sometimes) discern proper targeting.

DC 25 Heroic Tier creature
DC 30 Paragon Tier creature
DC 35 Epic Tier creature

It's quite doable, but not guaranteed. The majority of the time, such a roll will fail except at Epic level (unless the Wizard devotes extra bonuses to his skills such as Skill Focus). For example, the chances at first level for an 18 Int Wizard even with Skill Training is only 25%. At 10th level against a Heroic Tier creature, it is 50%. But, at 10th level, PCs will often be going against Paragon Tier creatures and it will again drop to 25%.

And, the chance for success is only semi-decent against creatures that correspond to the knowledge skills the Wizard actually has Skill Training in. If the Wizard does not have the skill, the chance of success is slim.



Roxlimn said:


> Lower Ref defenses are more common.  That much is true.  So you take a primary at-will that targets Ref.  After that, you hedge your bets and get an at-will that targets Fort.




The problem is that the only Fort At Will in the game totally sucks (to hit vs. most creatures, and damage) until Paragon level that it doesn't make sense to gimp yourself against most creatures in order to gain a slight edge against a few. It's not always possible to target an enemy with an AoE power without targetting allies as well.

A Human could take Ray of Frost along with two other At Wills. This is terribly suboptimal for Heroic non-Humans.



Roxlimn said:


> It makes no sense to devote limited Encounter slots to Fort attacks unless they're THAT good, and even then it still makes sense to cover bases with the at-wills.




It does make sense to devote an Encounter power to Fort once the Wizard has 3 Encounter Attack powers. Before that, I agree that it does not. The difference between At Will and Encounter powers is that the Wizard only get 2 or 3 At Will whereas he can get 5 or 6 Encounter Attack powers. Hence, it makes more sense to devote 1 (or even 2) Encounter powers instead of 1 At Will to anti-Fort.


At lower levels, the difference between Fort and Reflex is typically 3 or less. It doesn't make sense to worry about low Fort creatures too much until much higher levels when the difference between can be really significant (like 4 or 6 where it really makes a huge difference to pick the proper power). But even then, it is a very very low percentage of the creatures (like < 2%). Who cares about that?

Hence, a Wizard can ignore having a way to attack low Fort creatures until nearly Paragon level and it will make little difference in the game. At that point, he can either retrain an At Will to Ray of Frost, or use up an Encounter Power. It makes little difference, especially considering that he has typically at best a 50% chance of figuring out the weakness of a foe anyway.


----------



## Benly

What's the justification behind grading Hit And Run at D? It does what it says on the box: it hits an enemy and lets you bail out. Certainly you'll usually want to use Twin Strike instead, but it's not a bad power at all - I've ended up using it a couple times when the battlefield situation has unexpectedly changed due to controllers or lurkers mixing it up.

I grant that Nimble Strike is better, but it's a ranged power. If you're in melee when it hits the fan, you're going to have a lot more difficulty using Nimble Strike to bail out than Hit And Run. Hit And Run I would mark a C at worst - it's nothing spectacular, it's going to spend most of its time sitting in your toolbox, but occasionally you'll be glad you have it and when you need it it'll perform admirably.


----------



## keterys

It only works on a single target for one square, is strictly worse than nimble strike, and has little to offer for it above taking a basic attack (which can gain from bracers of mighty striking, +1 charge, etc). 

It may see occasional use, but the most likely reason is because melee rangers have no other option. When the Martial Power book comes out with a couple more options, its use will probably be extremely low.

It's possible it should move up from D, though. Anyone else agree?

P.S. Totally think Nimble Strike should have just worke on both melee and ranged.


----------



## Benly

If Nimble Strike did work on both melee and ranged, then yes, Hit and Run would be a clunker. As it is, it's not a great at-will power but I wouldn't rate it "barely passable".


----------



## keterys

If one existed that was just like Nimble Strike, but melee only instead, would that change your opinion? *curious*


----------



## Benly

keterys said:


> If one existed that was just like Nimble Strike, but melee only instead, would that change your opinion? *curious*





I feel that if Hit And Run were wholly redundant, it would merit a downgrade. As it is, it serves a function that the melee ranger doesn't otherwise get, and it's a useful function. I fully agree that Nimble Strike does the same thing except better - so does Eyebite. The melee ranger doesn't get either of those.


----------



## keterys

That doesn't matter - we know what a power can and/or should do, so from a _design_ standpoint it's subpar. Lack of other options doesn't make it higher quality or suggest that other powers shouldn't be better than it.

Comparing to Nimble Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and even Priest's Shield... it seems worse.

Looking at the grading criteria:
C - Okay. This power is certainly adequate but pales somewhat in comparison to other powers.
D - Poor. This power is certainly usable (and may even excel in certain rare situations), but is definitely lacking compared to other options.

It seems to fit fine - it is usable, excels in rare situations, and is lacking compared to other options and pales in comparison to other powers.


----------



## Goumindong

It seems worse, but a shift isn't that valuable for a ranged ranger. Since it might get them out of an OA for attacking in melee, but it won't prevent another as the enemy closes(or shifts into the space you left).


----------



## Benly

keterys said:


> That doesn't matter - we know what a power can and/or should do, so from a _design_ standpoint it's subpar. Lack of other options doesn't make it higher quality or suggest that other powers shouldn't be better than it.
> 
> Comparing to Nimble Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and even Priest's Shield... it seems worse.




Yep. It's worse than Nimble Strike and Wolf Pack Tactics, which each do much the same thing. That's why they're rated B and I suggest it should be rated C. It doesn't do what it does badly - it just doesn't do it as well as those powers do, which is why they have a higher grade. If it did it badly, it would rate a D.

I consider it better than Priest's Shield for a bailout situation and obviously worse for a stand-and-fight situation.


----------



## keterys

It was C- until not all that long ago, so I'm not averse to upping it again, just being rigorous:

The following options would all be not as good as nimble strike, but better than hit and run:
1) Shift 1 after the attack
2) The first square you move does not provoke 
3) If you take a move, you may shift 1 first

Its closest neighbor is Priest's Shield - which gives +1 AC to you and an adjacent ally, which honestly might be almost as useful for avoiding damage even in bailout rounds 

Anyhow, I'll up to C- for now back where it was. Poor D, no company at all.


----------



## Benly

keterys said:


> It was C- until not all that long ago, so I'm not averse to upping it again, just being rigorous:
> 
> The following options would all be not as good as nimble strike, but better than hit and run:
> 1) Shift 1 after the attack
> 2) The first square you move does not provoke
> 3) If you take a move, you may shift 1 first
> 
> Its closest neighbor is Priest's Shield - which gives +1 AC to you and an adjacent ally, which honestly might be almost as useful for avoiding damage even in bailout rounds
> 
> Anyhow, I'll up to C- for now back where it was. Poor D, no company at all.





Well, I'm not violently opposed to seeing it at D or anything. It was just a bit confusing as it didn't seem to merit a D to me.


----------



## Crashy75

A request. I've found this to be quite helpful.  Do you think you could do class abilities such as cantrips?


----------



## tuxgeo

*Side issue: is Holy Lantern At-Will a joke?*



keterys said:


> This exercise was primarily focused on establishing guidelines for power design. It generated some interesting debate and is probably useful for DMs and players alike for comparing powers. While this post deals with at-wills, you may be interested in the daily or encounter powers here.
> 
> All powers are graded assuming they are used effectively - if a power requires a second person in melee to work, don't take it in a party with no other melee. In many cases you'll find that personal preference varies from these grades - while a power may be extraordinary in theory or combined with the right build or party, take the power that is most fun for you!
> 
> Grades
> A - Excellent. This power brings something special to the table in terms of tactical ability or damage output. It may be too powerful, especially in the hands of the wrong class.
> B - Good. This is a solid power. Most powers should fall into this grade.
> C - Okay. This power is certainly adequate but pales somewhat in comparison to other powers.
> D - Poor. This power is certainly usable (and may even excel in certain rare situations), but is definitely lacking compared to other options.
> F - Compares extremely poorly to other powers and should likely be improved or ignored.



<Grading of LEVEL 1 At-Will attacks snipped for space> 
OK, I finally have the books, so now I have a question. 
All of the powers discussed so far have been LEVEL 1 At-Wills. There are a few other Utility At-Wills at higher levels. (The Rogue has a bunch, mostly Move actions.) 

  My question is about the Cleric LEVEL 6 At-Will, "Holy Lantern": it lasts for 10 hours once it has been used, and apparently cannot be dismissed; and a Cleric can only have one active at a time. This sounds very much like a Daily to me: cast it once, then not be able to dismiss it, and not be able to cast it again until its 10-hour duration has expired. (The text does not mention any way to dismiss it.) 
  Were the WotC designers intending this as a Daily, but made it At-Will to give it the green color in the book -- thereby making a hidden reference to "Green Lantern?" (Or has this already been discussed?)


----------



## Mistwell

Maybe I missed it (this is a long thread), but I cannot seem to find the brief explanation post for all the at-will powers.

For example, just to use Cleric as an example, for the Grading Encounter Powers and Grading Daily Powers posts, we had:



> Encounter 1 Powers:
> *CLERIC*
> C / Cause Fear
> A- / Divine Glow
> B / Healing Strike
> B / Wrathful Thunder
> 
> My rough order/appraisal:
> Divine Glow is a decent close blast that hits enemies only and can give multiple allies a bonus to attack.
> Healing Strike does decent damage, marks, and has a decent heal.
> Wrathful Thunder does low damage, but adds daze which is a very solid status.
> Cause Fear is a bit too specialized and it's too easy to just move back. It can trigger some nice OAs, but I think it's the worst of the lot.
> 
> Encounter 3 Powers:
> *CLERIC*
> A / Blazing Beacon (Only in parties with ranged allies)
> A- / Command
> C+ / Daunting Light
> B- / Split the Sky
> 
> Daunting Light does solid damage, radiant, over adequate range. The combat advantage is useful, but not really powerful. Split the Sky looks really nice, until you realize the enemy is just going to stand and charge. I've seen it use a couple times and that's happened every time. Command lets you daze and choose between prone or slid a fair ways, which is a very powerful controlling combo. No damage, though. Blazing Beacon provides a sizable +4 bonus to all ranged attacks against a target for a turn, which can be used for many attacks in a round by most members of the party, including action points, dailies, etc, so gets to be top of the pile.
> 
> Daily 1 Powers:
> Quick note on damage - I'm assuming a baseline of 3W (or 3d8 - 3d10) damage for powers as I go through them, and I'm assuming some little bit added onto that 3 dice.
> 
> *CLERIC*
> B- / Avenging Flame
> A / Beacon of Hope
> C+ / Cascade of Light
> A- / Guardian of Faith
> 
> Cascade of Light is short range and under most circumstances I don't expect that vulnerability to add up to that much extra before it's saved against. If it's trivial to 'game' the vulnerability for a ton of damage with conjurations, zones, and ongoing damage, let me know.
> Avenging Flame's ongoing damage can really rack up or force a creature to take no action for a round or two, which is quite nice. Unfortunately it gets no ongoing damage on a miss.
> Beacon of Hope hits a nice large area and can add a metric ton of healing over the course of an encounter, and even potentially does a healthy amount up front. The weaken can hit several enemies which is also a solid kicker.
> Guardian of Faith is particularly good against undead. Its abilities as a blocker were updated away, but not requiring a sustain action and especially when working with a fighter or some other penalty or difficulty moving (Pin the Foe, what have you) it can really do very good damage over the course of an encounter.
> 
> Daily 5 Powers:
> *CLERIC*
> A / Consecrated Ground
> C+ / Rune of Peace
> A / Spiritual Weapon
> A / Weapon of the Gods
> 
> Consecrated Ground: Automatic damage to enemies only, surge-free healing to half health (useful after combat nothing else) - especially amusing on a high level PC getting dropped in the area and immediately waking up at the start of its turn. Every time. Oh, and it's movable.
> Rune of Peace: vs Will. Guaranteed that target cannot attack for one round, which is extremely nice, though it doesn't set up other attacks like daze or blind, and is obviously worse than stun. Damage really low.
> Spiritual Weapon: Guaranteed combat advantage on one target (switchable) each round for an entire battle. And, hey, damage while you're at it.
> Weapon of the Gods: An extra d6 per attack from someone on an entire battle is actually quite respectable damage, but it gets really gross when you factor in the -2 AC that can be shifted from target to target as you kill them.




Is there something like that for the at-wills?  If not, could you put it in the initial post?


----------



## keterys

Suppose that would be pretty necessary, rather than asking someone to read 8 pages of discussion at this point 

I would definitely like to do it soon, but I'm a bit behind. I mean, I've got encounter 17s and daily 15s just sitting on my spreadsheet waiting to translate from my shorthand into legiblese.


----------



## Barakkas Asmos

I think Commander's Strike is one of the most underrated at-wills: It's granting an extra attack (incl. Bonus) for the cahracter with the best damage output and it's very variable.


----------



## Thordain

Barakkas Asmos said:


> I think Commander's Strike is one of the most underrated at-wills: It's granting an extra attack (incl. Bonus) for the cahracter with the best damage output and it's very variable.




I totally agree. I think commander's strike is very strong. An 18 int taclord using commander's strike with a 20 str fighter is a very strong combination.


----------



## keterys

Commander's strike is quite good - it is very comparable to Sly Flourish. Add a stat to damage and all that. Its restrictions are more severe but it's got great perks if you sacrificed Str some or have certain allies (not cha pallies or trickster rogues generally)


----------



## eamon

This is a bit of thread necro here, but I was wondering if anyone thought it worthwhile to discuss the additions in martial power?  (I guess the same goes for the encounter and daily threads, but I'll keep my necrotic action to a minimum ;-) )


----------



## Mengu

Here is my take for the new stuff since this list was initially made.

*ARTIFICER*
B+ / Aggrevating Force
B- / Thundering Armor

*BARBARIAN* (it's hard to judge these because eventhough they are at-will powers, they have some daily power effects built into them, which are hard to ignore when making a selection)
B / Howling Strike
B / Pressing Strike
B+ / Recuperating Strike

*CLERIC*
B+ / Lance of Faith
C- / Priest's Shield
A+ / Righteous Brand
A- / Sacred Flame

*DRUID*
C- / Call of the Beast
B+ / Chill Wind
B / Flame Seed
B / Grasping Claws
B+ / Pounce
B+ / Savage Rend
B / Storm Spike
B- / Thorn Whip

*INVOKER*
B- / Avenging Light
A- / Divine Bolts
B- / Grasping Shards
B+ / Sun Strike
A+ / Vanguard Lightning

*FIGHTER*
B- / Cleave
B- / Reaping Strike
F / Sure Strike (could be worked into a build that lets you use at-wills for OAs or purely as a minion killing maneuver)
B / Tide of Iron
B+ / Brash Strike
A / Crushing Surge
A- / Dual Strike
B+ / Footwork Lure

*PALADIN*
B- / Bolstering Strike
B / Enfeebling Strike
B+ / Holy Strike
B / Valiant Strike

*RANGER*
F / Careful Strike
C- / Hit and Run
B / Nimble Strike
A+ / Twin Strike
B / Circling Strike
C / Predator Strike

*ROGUE*
B- / Deft Strike 
B+ / Piercing Strike
B- / Riposte Strike
B- / Sly Flourish
B+ / Disheartening Strike

*SWORDMAGE*
B / Booming Blade
B- / Frigid Blade
B / Greenflame Blade
C+ / Lightning Lure
B+ / Swordburst

*WARLOCK*
B+ / Dire Radiance
B- / Eldritch Blast
B+ / Eyebite
B+ / Hellish Rebuke
B- / Spiteful Glamor

*WARLORD*
B- / Commander's Strike
B+ / Furious Smash
B- / Viper's Strike
B / Wolf Pack Tactics
D / Brash Assault
C / Opening Shove

*WIZARD*
B+ / Cloud of Daggers
B- / Magic Missile
B- / Ray of Frost
A / Scorching Burst
A / Thunderwave
B / Illusory Ambush


----------



## keterys

Yay, Mengu  I'll update the first post if people discuss the values.


----------



## Zelc

Forgive me if this has already been answered.  Where would Sure Strike and Careful Attack be if they added Str/Dex to damage, and where would they be if they added Wis to damage?  Probably slightly below the add 2 attributes to damage powers, right?

@Mengu: Why do you have Dual Strike as A- when Twin Strike is A+?  They're the same power, and the only thing fighters are missing are Hunter's Quarry and only 1 die size of damage on each hand thanks to double weapons.  It's still really good for pumping out damage.


----------



## Mengu

Zelc said:


> @Mengu: Why do you have Dual Strike as A- when Twin Strike is A+? They're the same power, and the only thing fighters are missing are Hunter's Quarry and only 1 die size of damage on each hand thanks to double weapons. It's still really good for pumping out damage.




Main reason is because with Dual Strike, you can't target two opponents, you must attack the same target. Secondly, the reason Twin Strike is so good is because it makes it much more likely to deal the Hunter's Quarry damage once per round. If fighters had such a feature that applied once per round to a target that's hit, this would bump the power up to an A (not an A+ because twin strike still has the advantage in minion clearing). The fighter's schtick is being able to mark things, and dual strike does not let them mark multiple targets. If it did, that alone might have pushed the power to an A+. As it stands, I think Dual Strike is an A- compared to Twin Strike which we graded an A+.


----------



## epochrpg

I think I just came up with a decent fix for Careful Attack and Sure Strike to at least upgrade them to Cs or Bs, without being unbalanced.

+2 to hit, -2 to damage.  Essentially it is an inverse power attack.  

Lets look at it now.  You have 18 dex using a longbow.  Normally you have +6 hit 1d10+4 damage.  Careful attack gives you +8 hit for 1d10 dmg.  -4 damage for +2 to hit?  The higher your dex, the worse it sucks.  Lame.

Now the fixed version.  Careful attack gives you +8 hit for 1d10+2 dmg.  Compare to twin striking giving +6 to hit twice, each doing 1d10 dmg.  

Assume an enemy has AC 17.  A regular attack does an average of 4.5 damage.  The Careful attack does an average of 3 damage.  The Fixed Careful attack does an average of 5 damage.  Twin Strike does an average of 5 damage as well.  

Now lets take a higher level example.  The character is level 20, has a +6 dex bonus, and a +3 weapon.  he has +21 to hit and does 1d10+9 dmg with a regular attack.  With Careful attack (RAW) he has +23 to hit and does 1d10+3 damage.  Fixed Careful Attack he has +23 to hit and does 1d10+7 dmg.  Twin Strike has two +21 attacks each doing 1d10+3 damage.  

Assume the enemy has an AC of 32.  His regular attack does an average of 7 damage.  Careful attack (RAW) does 4.8 damage.  Fixed Careful Attack does 7.2 damage.  Twin Strike does 8 damage.

This fix keeps them relatively balanced, makes the at will still better than a regular attack, and continues to be useful even at level 20.


----------



## burntgerbil

Disheartening strike feels like it should be an A. A- at least. If you are a ruthless ruffian it is patently better than sly flourish. The -2 to all attacks the enemy makes is enormous. I will follow up after more play.


----------



## Evilhalfling

and for the Druid?


----------



## Mengu

burntgerbil said:


> Disheartening strike feels like it should be an A. A- at least. If you are a ruthless ruffian it is patently better than sly flourish. The -2 to all attacks the enemy makes is enormous. I will follow up after more play.




-2 penalty is the same as Illusory Ambush, that's mainly why it's a B. Brutal Scoundrals gain their strength bonus to every sneak attack, instead of just rattling ones like Ruthless Ruffians, so I'm not sure if that's enough of an incentive to bump it up a knotch. I felt it was better than Sly Flourish, but not better than Piercing Strike, that's the other reason why it's sitting at a B. If more people agree Disheartening Strike helps the rogue do his job as well as Piercing Strike, I'll consider bumping it up to a B+.


----------



## MwaO

Mengu said:


> Main reason is because with Dual Strike, you can't target two opponents, you must attack the same target. Secondly, the reason Twin Strike is so good is because it makes it much more likely to deal the Hunter's Quarry damage once per round. If fighters had such a feature that applied once per round to a target that's hit, this would bump the power up to an A (not an A+ because twin strike still has the advantage in minion clearing). The fighter's schtick is being able to mark things, and dual strike does not let them mark multiple targets. If it did, that alone might have pushed the power to an A+. As it stands, I think Dual Strike is an A- compared to Twin Strike which we graded an A+.




You don't need a power that works once a round. There are better things than that:

Dual Strike 1w/1w
Marking Scourge +wis
Pitfighter or Lawbreaker's Doom(Dragon 370) - +wis
Either Tempest or Battlerager with temp hit points +2
WF +2

At 11th level, it isn't at all improbable that a character could do:
1w+14/1w+14 with an at-will and a non-magical weapon. Dual Strike also means that you mark and then swing again, so you have a chance of using Marking Scourge/Lawbreaker's Doom.


----------



## eamon

Mengu said:


> *FIGHTER*
> B- / Cleave
> B- / Reaping Strike
> F / Sure Strike (could be worked into a build that lets you use at-wills for OAs or purely as a minion killing maneuver)
> B / Tide of Iron
> A- / Brash Strike
> A / Crushing Surge
> A- / Dual Strike
> B+ / Footwork Lure




I'd say footwork lure isn't any better than tide of iron.  Brash strike too is probably at best a B+.  It's fine for some builds, but the combat advantage hurts; and it's not as flexible as cleave/tide of iron.  It's primary advantage is great damage output, but it's worse than cleave vs. minions, and a Con-build will want crushing surge - so it's facing stiff competition.  I agree that Crushing surge is excellent, a solid A.  Dual strike is indeed worse than twin strike, though obviously some builds will value it above all other fighter powers.


----------



## eamon

Mengu said:


> *RANGER*
> F / Careful Strike
> C- / Hit and Run
> B / Nimble Strike
> A+ / Twin Strike
> B / Circling Strike
> B- / Predator Strike



Predator strike looks poor.  No enhancement bonus to damage?  Mediocre attack bonus?  It's almost certainly only viable at high levels, when the beasts attack bonus catches up somewhat, but the damage will never be great.  I might be missing some feats or trick that improve it, however.  Certainly at low levels it's not much good.




> *ROGUE*
> B- / Deft Strike
> B+ / Piercing Strike
> B- / Riposte Strike
> B- / Sly Flourish
> B / Disheartening Strike



I agree.  I'd still value piercing strike higher, but disheartening is certainly better that the rest.



> *WARLORD*
> B- / Commander's Strike
> B+ / Furious Smash
> B- / Viper's Strike
> B / Wolf Pack Tactics
> C+ / Brash Assault
> C / Opening Shove



Both new powers are indeed mediocre.  If Brash Strike actually ever works, an opponent won't fall for it again, and then it's just a melee basic attack.  Essentially, it can only ever be better than a melee basic attack if enemies are stupid, and the basic attack of an enemy is less useful against you than your allies basic attack against him.  That's rare; monster basic attacks are good and PC attacks are poor.  You'll generally only win if somehow your AC is very good, or the monster's AC is poor, or you have a rogue or ranger that for some reason didn't get sneak attack/ hunter's quarry in.  However, most rogues/ranger will try that every round, so even with a rogue or ranger in the party, this power is situational and still only any good against unwise opponents.  I'd say Brash Assault is worse than opening shove - maybe a D, no better.  Opening shove is weird, but at least in some circumstances it might be a real benefit. Brash Assault is almost never any good.


----------



## blargney the second

eamon said:


> I'd say Brash Assault is worse than opening shove - maybe a D, no better.  Opening shove is weird, but at least in some circumstances it might be a real benefit. Brash Assault is almost never any good.



I was looking at Brash Assault for my tactical warlord, and it's kind of a strange power.  Much like the fighter's Combat Challenge, it forces the DM to make a tough decision right in the middle of a fight where he's probably got other stuff on his mind.  Iff he's willing to play along with it, it'd be hilarious to see the interaction of BA with the fighter's challenge!  (3 basic attacks to the monster's one.)

That's a big iff though...
-blarg


----------



## Nail

*This thread is BADLY in need of an index or re-worked "first post". *

Could someone point me to the thread grades for the MP At-Wills?


----------



## Nail

keterys said:


> Yay, Mengu  I'll update the first post if people discuss the values.



Yes please!


----------



## Mengu

apearlma said:


> You don't need a power that works once a round. There are better things than that:
> 
> Dual Strike 1w/1w
> Marking Scourge +wis
> Pitfighter or Lawbreaker's Doom(Dragon 370) - +wis
> Either Tempest or Battlerager with temp hit points +2
> WF +2




Valid points (if a bit situational), I might bump it up to an A, depending on other feedback.



eamon said:


> I'd say footwork lure isn't any better than tide of iron.




But in practice, it is. The fighters with Tide of Iron can't seem to use it very well to provide flanks. But Footwork Lure can easily open up great flank opportunities to the rogue, without exposing the rogue as much to the enemy line. Mechanically, they do the same thing, but tactically, Footwork Lure is a knotch better.



eamon said:


> Brash strike too is probably at best a B+. It's fine for some builds, but the combat advantage hurts; and it's not as flexible as cleave/tide of iron. It's primary advantage is great damage output, but it's worse than cleave vs. minions, and a Con-build will want crushing surge - so it's facing stiff competition.




It depends on the build. For a battlerager who is giving up weapon talent and a point of proficiency, it perfectly makes up for the lost attack bonus. I may have been a little too excited about this fix for Sure Strike. I'll consider knocking it down to B+.



eamon said:


> Predator strike looks poor. No enhancement bonus to damage? Mediocre attack bonus? It's almost certainly only viable at high levels, when the beasts attack bonus catches up somewhat, but the damage will never be great. I might be missing some feats or trick that improve it, however. Certainly at low levels it's not much good.




At low level, your Wisdom modifier is what makes up for the enhancement bonus to damage, and you can usually give your beast companion a flank. It didn't seem too different than Sly Flourish, but I guess not using a weapon, you're not getting any weapon focused magic or feats, which makes it a bit worse. I'll gladly knock this down to a C.



eamon said:


> Both new powers are indeed mediocre. If Brash Strike actually ever works, an opponent won't fall for it again, and then it's just a melee basic attack. Essentially, it can only ever be better than a melee basic attack if enemies are stupid, and the basic attack of an enemy is less useful against you than your allies basic attack against him. That's rare; monster basic attacks are good and PC attacks are poor. You'll generally only win if somehow your AC is very good, or the monster's AC is poor, or you have a rogue or ranger that for some reason didn't get sneak attack/ hunter's quarry in. However, most rogues/ranger will try that every round, so even with a rogue or ranger in the party, this power is situational and still only any good against unwise opponents. I'd say Brash Assault is worse than opening shove - maybe a D, no better. Opening shove is weird, but at least in some circumstances it might be a real benefit. Brash Assault is almost never any good.




Brash Assault makes me scartch my head also. I haven't seen it or anything like it in action though, that's why I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. For a moment let's assume monsters will always take the attack. I think it becomes a question of how outnumbered you are. If you and an ally are outnumbered 4 to 2, that means enemies take 4 attacks against your 2. Changing that ratio to 5 attacks verses 3 is beneficial.  However if you outnumber the enemy 2 to 1, you're giving them an extra attack, changing your ratio to 3 to 2 which is advantageous for the enemy.

Once the DM figures this out, it's easy enough to make the quick calculation and essentially always screw the player. I'll knock it down to a D.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Mengu

Made some of the discussed changes.

Link to new at-wills

I also added Druid powers, so please take a look at those as well. Most of them seem pretty average when I balance the pros against cons (which is impressive from a design PoV), but I may be missing something.


----------



## yesnomu

Mengu said:


> Made some of the discussed changes.
> 
> Link to new at-wills
> 
> I also added Druid powers, so please take a look at those as well. Most of them seem pretty average when I balance the pros against cons (which is impressive from a design PoV), but I may be missing something.



I dunno, I think Chill Wind merits at least a B+. It targets Fort and does less damage than Scorching Burst, but the sliding is pretty boss. Minions don't usually have super-high Fort, so I wouldn't rate it much worse than SB in that respect either.

I think Savage Rend deserves an A-. It's a melee basic attack, so it can be used on OAs, and a slide can be just as tactically useful as CA if a defender is nearby. Definitely better than Grasping Claws, you don't want enemies staying near you.

EDIT: And Chill Wind works nicely with Lasting Frost/Wintertouched. Area cold spells are niiiice.


----------



## keterys

Chill Wind is, frankly, pretty amazing. The loss of a stat mod is painful, but you can do some really nice things with that many slides. It still kills minions fine and the damage is low enough you don't have to care about hitting your party defender with it really.

Shame about it targeting Fort and the Fort imbalance, though.


----------



## Mengu

yesnomu said:


> I dunno, I think Chill Wind merits at least a B+. It targets Fort and does less damage than Scorching Burst, but the sliding is pretty boss. Minions don't usually have super-high Fort, so I wouldn't rate it much worse than SB in that respect either.
> 
> EDIT: And Chill Wind works nicely with Lasting Frost/Wintertouched. Area cold spells are niiiice.




I went back and forth between a B and a B+ for it. The lack of stat bonus to damage can mean, you are missing out on 8+ points of damage assuming you manage to hit 2 things in the area, and gain two slide 1's instead. Sliding is nice when you can be precise about it, but 8+ points is a lot of damage, especially at heroic levels. I think the power becomes better at higher levels. But I do like the fact that you can dump it on friendlies without worrying too much about the damage, and if you happen to hit, you can slide them to advantageous positions as well. I'll bump it to a B+.



yesnomu said:


> I think Savage Rend deserves an A-. It's a melee basic attack, so it can be used on OAs, and a slide can be just as tactically useful as CA if a defender is nearby. Definitely better than Grasping Claws, you don't want enemies staying near you.




On second look, I should have graded it a B+, it definitely is also better than Tide of Iron. It's even slightly better than footwork lure, so I can see an A-. But when I look at the other A powers, it does fall a bit short. The scale is not quite granular enough for that much accuracy, I'll make it a B+ for now.


----------



## yesnomu

Also, WTF at Pressing Strike being a C+. It's Tide of Iron + a better Deft Strike put together, and it does extra damage when raging. I mean, what else do you want it to do, make you breakfast?!

My dragonborn barbarian uses it all the time to get into flanking positions or extend his movement (which is nice when you wear chain). I don't regret not getting Howling Strike at all, he does plenty of damage already.


----------



## Yurius

*Twin Strike Rules*



Falling Icicle said:


> Nah, if you look carefully, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of either attack, so it's actually kinda crappy, IMO. Once your ability modifier exceeds 5, on average you'll be doing more damage with a basic attack than with Twin Strike...




Elven TWF Ranger 4th Level (Feats: Double Weapon Proficiency, Weapon Focus [double weapon/heavy blade], Lethal Hunter), +1 Lightning Double Weapon.  Twin Strike, Hit and Run, Evasive Strike, Cut and Run, Sudden Strike, Yield Ground.

My elf dances like Gene Kelly in Brigadoon around all the baddies and Twin Strike makes it much much worse.

1) Move in.
2) Minor action to designate quarry.
3) Twin strike (1d8+1d8+2/1d8+2) for an average of 17 damage (I hardly miss since the elf's speed allows me to get into flanking position with my Fighter and Elven Accuracy is always useful).
4) Action point: Favorite Encounter power to strike (average damage: +14-18 more for a total of 31-35 in 1 round; assuming that I hit with all attacks, again flanking) and get away (I have a good Wis allowing me to shift like Blagojevich at a FBI fund raiser). Crit hits make all these powers much worse and since I am rolling so many d20s chances are one will be.
If any of the baddies decide to chase my ranger, well then they probably get hit by my fighter since they were marked or I just yield ground after their first hit and dance away.

I have played this PC in many different LFR mods and he totally rules.  Love the dancing elf ranger.


----------



## MwaO

Mengu said:


> -2 penalty is the same as Illusory Ambush, that's mainly why it's a B. Brutal Scoundrals gain their strength bonus to every sneak attack, instead of just rattling ones like Ruthless Ruffians, so I'm not sure if that's enough of an incentive to bump it up a knotch. I felt it was better than Sly Flourish, but not better than Piercing Strike, that's the other reason why it's sitting at a B. If more people agree Disheartening Strike helps the rogue do his job as well as Piercing Strike, I'll consider bumping it up to a B+.




Don't forget, a Ruthless Ruffian doesn't need CA to get the bonus to damage. And in that context...

One of the big advantages of Disheartening Strike in combo with Ruthless Ruffian is that a Rogue can do 1d8+Dex+Str and the -2 to hit as an at-will. That's clearly better than a Paladin's Enfeebling Strike or Wizard's Illusory Ambush.


----------



## Mengu

yesnomu said:


> Also, WTF at Pressing Strike being a C+. It's Tide of Iron + a better Deft Strike put together, and it does extra damage when raging. I mean, what else do you want it to do, make you breakfast?!
> 
> My dragonborn barbarian uses it all the time to get into flanking positions or extend his movement (which is nice when you wear chain). I don't regret not getting Howling Strike at all, he does plenty of damage already.




Valid point, hadn't made the Deft Strike comparison. It should probably be a B or B+. Anyone else want to weigh in?



apearlma said:


> Don't forget, a Ruthless Ruffian doesn't need CA to get the bonus to damage. And in that context...
> 
> One of the big advantages of Disheartening Strike in combo with Ruthless Ruffian is that a Rogue can do 1d8+Dex+Str and the -2 to hit as an at-will. That's clearly better than a Paladin's Enfeebling Strike or Wizard's Illusory Ambush.




B+ it is then.


----------



## Mengu

Added Invoker

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/233943-grading-will-powers-13.html#post4583301

*INVOKER*
B- / Avenging Light
A- / Divine Bolts
B- / Grasping Shards
B+ / Sun Strike
A+ / Vanguard Lightning

Avenging Light is pretty much like Eldritch Blast, slightly worse because it targets Fortitude, but makes up for it with a little extra damage if there is an adjacent bloodied ally.

Divine Bolts is an A power like most other powers which do decent damage to multiple targets, but it's on the lower end of the curve, and takes a -.

Grasping Shards is an average power. Comparable to Ray of Frost, less damage, multiple targets.

Sun Strike is a great power. Sliding opponents around from a safe distance to provide flanks is a good pseudo-leader power.

Vanguard Lightning is basically as good as scorching burst, except there are fewer creatures resistant to lightning, than fire, and it has an additional small bonus. Not sure if it should be an A or A+, it's only a very small bit better than Scorching Burst.


----------



## reticent

I'd say Vanguard Lightning is just a very solid A.  A+ should probably be reserved for those choices that are both build defining and likely to be used at every opportunity.

VL will probably show up in the large majority of Invoker builds but I'm guessing it will be pretty rare that it will be the most used at will in any given encounter.


----------



## keterys

Well, Vanguard Lightning is just flat out better than Scorching Burst... but yes there's only so much give there in the grading scale. 

I do think Grasping Shards is better than you give it credit for - it kills minions just as well as Scorching Burst, does radiant which is good against undead, and area slow is solid (much more so than single target). At 21st+ level it's potentially better than Scorching Burst when it picks up the d10, but Fort is most annoying then and slow least effective so probably not.


----------



## Ahglock

Just curious with the designers saying after the invoker preview that they think the wizards at wills are a bit sub-par have people rethought there grading on wizard at wills.  Now that I've been playing a while I don't rate the area at wills nearly as high as I thought in the beginning.  You have to hit 2 people to be in the same ballpark as non strikers in damage, and you kind of need 3 hits to make it an A rating spell IMO.  And in play that really just does not happen nearly enough for these powers to be As.  

My in play experience form the DM side of things would be.

Wizard.
Cloud of daggers B+(guaranteed minion killing and a zone of effect)
Magic Missle B- The range kicks it up to B-
Ray of frost C+  Lame damage, slow end sup being ineffective
Scorching burst B+ need to many targets for it to pan out.
Thunderwave A-  The push really has been useful
Illusionary Ambush(have not seen it in play, but B)

I'm not sure I'd call that a sub-par list except in relation to the invokers.  But it is not as good as I initially thought.


----------



## keterys

Controllers appear to be defined by their at-wills, so they basically get better ones than most, with some exceptions (like twin strike). A Scorching Burst that hits two people does comparable damage to a warlock... and if you're not hitting two people, then you should use a different at-will.


----------



## yesnomu

New class previews mean a new set of at-wills! Unfortunately, the Warden's are rather uninteresting:

*Earth Shield Strike* - It's like 3.5's Dodge all over again! Thorough meh, worse than Thundering Armor. I give it a C.

*Strength of Stone* - Pretty handy, equal to Recuperating Strike, minus the bonus for raging. B.

*Thorn Strike* - This one's kinda neat, although it's a shame it doesn't extend to three for reach weapons. For a defender, pulling is better than pushing, so I'd put it as better than Tide of Iron: B+

*Weight of Earth* - Worse than Grasping Claws, since it's not a melee basic. Slowed is a pretty good condition for a defender to give out, though. B-.


----------



## Ahglock

yesnomu said:


> New class previews mean a new set of at-wills! Unfortunately, the Warden's are rather uninteresting:
> 
> *Earth Shield Strike* - It's like 3.5's Dodge all over again! Thorough meh, worse than Thundering Armor. I give it a C.
> 
> *Strength of Stone* - Pretty handy, equal to Recuperating Strike, minus the bonus for raging. B.
> 
> *Thorn Strike* - This one's kinda neat, although it's a shame it doesn't extend to three for reach weapons. For a defender, pulling is better than pushing, so I'd put it as better than Tide of Iron: B+
> 
> *Weight of Earth* - Worse than Grasping Claws, since it's not a melee basic. Slowed is a pretty good condition for a defender to give out, though. B-.




Yeah I rate those differently

*Earth Shield Strike* .  Teh awesome.  You hit and get a minor AC boost. B+

*Strength of Stone*   Hit and get temp HPS great at low levels average higher levels up.  If you have a good con which you effectively avoid small amounts of damage every time you hit.  And since even at mid to high levels damage done is not 3e huge it is fairly cool.  B+



*Weight of Earth*:  I basically agree with you on this.  Yeah slow is cool, but its a melee attack, its rare for them to just run past you once you are in mellee so the beenfot is smal, though I guess it may improve the chances that who ever you are in combat with wont try to run past you toward a softer target.  B-

*Thorn Strike*:  I like it a pull is slick, its get over here time.  Not bad assed or anyhting but its fun and effective.  B+

edited out class features


----------



## yesnomu

Eh. You won't even notice the AC boost most of the time, and it makes your mark less valuable, since it encourages enemies not to attack you. Lame.

Something is screwed up with the Temp HP powers, though. The Paladin's Bolstering Smite gets a B-, the barb's Recup Strike gets B+, and the Fighter's Crushing Surge gets an A, when (correct me if I'm wrong) *they all do the exact same thing!* (Melee basic w/ secondary stat to Temp HP.) What's the deal?


----------



## keterys

I suspect that's people having some pretty big differences of opinion in how useful temp hp are.

I can say that I think Crushing Surge is completely wrong, since it also suffers from some MAD (shared save with Str, etc) - probably people are objecting more to the Battlerager than Crushing Surge itself.


----------



## Mengu

keterys said:


> probably people are objecting more to the Battlerager than Crushing Surge itself.




Yup, that's that's exactly the case for me. If it didn't stack with existing temporary hit points from battle rager. Take away the battlerager build, and I think I'd set it at a B. And for what it's worth, I think Bolstering Smite deserves a B as well. Recuperating strike is a bit better because Constitution is useful to a barbarian in many ways, and its effect when raging is quite potent.


----------



## keterys

Other than battleragers, how many fighters are taking Crushing Surge over other options, I wonder. 

For paladins, I wonder how much use bolstering sees over holy strike (IME, holy strike sees more use, but there's a definite use for both), which is a pretty vanilla at-will.


----------



## Mengu

keterys said:


> Other than battleragers, how many fighters are taking Crushing Surge over other options, I wonder.




Since one feat (Untamed Berserker Style) turns Cleave into a conditional Crushing Surge (or unconditional depending on interpretation, link), there probably isn't much point in taking Crushing Surge for a non-battlerager.



keterys said:


> For paladins, I wonder how much use bolstering sees over holy strike (IME, holy strike sees more use, but there's a definite use for both), which is a pretty vanilla at-will.




One is charisma based, the other is strength based. I think the more appropriate comparison would be between enfeebling strike and bolstering strike, and in our games, I see about even use (one game enfeebling gets used more often, the other game bolstering gets used more often).


----------



## keterys

Honestly, I think that MAD puts a serious crimp in Bolstering's style, especially as you get higher level. It's definitely solid, but it doesn't seem that exceptional and seems easily dropped over time.

And, yes, it's interesting to compare Crushing Surge to Cleave with a feat.


----------



## yesnomu

keterys said:


> Honestly, I think that MAD puts a serious crimp in Bolstering's style, especially as you get higher level. It's definitely solid, but it doesn't seem that exceptional and seems easily dropped over time.
> 
> And, yes, it's interesting to compare Crushing Surge to Cleave with a feat.



Well, Bolstering is Cha-based, right? I think a Cha/Wis pally wouldn't be that hard to pull off, especially once you snagged HBO. I'd put it right alongside Crushing Surge, I think at-will rating ought to be build-agnostic.

And heck, has anyone even played a Battlerager yet? Are they really overpowered?


----------



## keterys

yesnomu said:


> especially once you snagged HBO




This highlights well why it doesn't work well - your stats are so spread that you're sacrificing something major to get more than like 2 temp hp out of the power.

Which is why it's not very impressive. You just demanded the build have a good Dexterity, in addition to the Wis and Cha, while Wis does nothing for the paladin except support its powers' secondary effects. Pretty quickly you'll get to a point where you're like "So... if you had just taken Con instead of the Wis to make this build work, you'd have the hp you're getting instead of temp, heal more with every surge, and have an extra surge?"

The more the build gets out of the power, the less arduous it seems. If there's no MAD at all, cause it's not a conflicting stat, then that's the real winner.


----------



## Mengu

yesnomu said:


> And heck, has anyone even played a Battlerager yet? Are they really overpowered?




I've played alongside one, and DM'ed for one. Overpowered is not a good word. Bad design is what I would say. It makes the greatweapon fighter build completely obsolete, and it makes the guardian fighter build questionable, especially if you have a racial Con bonus or gain some other benefit from a high Con (such as being Dragonborn).


----------



## Nail

Mengu said:


> Since one feat (Untamed Berserker Style) turns Cleave into a conditional Crushing Surge (or unconditional depending on interpretation, link), there probably isn't much point in taking Crushing Surge for a non-battlerager.




..but since said feat is only in Dragon.....who cares?  

I play a BRV fighter, and having that feat available might have been cool.  Too bad it's not in a WotC book.  

So...in this thread are we grading stuff in Dragon mag too?  That seems like a waste.


----------



## Mengu

Nail said:


> So...in this thread are we grading stuff in Dragon mag too? That seems like a waste.




Depends on your PoV. If you are in RPGA, everything, including Dragon magazine is available for use. Some DM's like to make everything available to their players. Some DM's will limit the books you have access to. I have some players who are perfectly content with the options in the PHB.

I don't think it's a waste, as long as its useful to someone.


----------



## yesnomu

keterys said:


> This highlights well why it doesn't work well - your stats are so spread that you're sacrificing something major to get more than like 2 temp hp out of the power.
> 
> Which is why it's not very impressive. You just demanded the build have a good Dexterity, in addition to the Wis and Cha, while Wis does nothing for the paladin except support its powers' secondary effects. Pretty quickly you'll get to a point where you're like "So... if you had just taken Con instead of the Wis to make this build work, you'd have the hp you're getting instead of temp, heal more with every surge, and have an extra surge?"
> 
> The more the build gets out of the power, the less arduous it seems. If there's no MAD at all, cause it's not a conflicting stat, then that's the real winner.



Well, OK, I forgot the Dex req for HBO. But still, high Wis is good for a Paladin, between power effects and Lay on Hands uses. A Cha/Wis paladin won't have great OAs compared to a Str/Cha one, but they can heal more and many of their powers have greater effects, not just Bolstering. I think my point stands.

Pallys are a bit MAD in general, but that's why they get plate and an extra surge over Fighters.


----------



## keterys

Yeah, paladins just kinda make me sad at the moment with how all over the place they are - I'm kinda hoping that Divine Power (in, what, 6 months?) will clean things up a little.


----------



## yesnomu

Sorc Time! Some of these are pretty neat! Remember that they're all adding a secondary stat to damage. Here's my thoughts:

*Acid Orb:* Eldritch Blast with (rarely resisted) typed damage and double range. *B*
*
Burning Spray:* With cloth, getting close to the fight is dangerous, but this will almost certainly be the most damaging Sorc at-will if you can get multiple enemies, and the bonus for Dragon Magic helps avoid attacks. *A-*? It's very nice, anyway.
*
Chaos Bolt*: Bizarre! You could clear out every minion in the room with this if you get super lucky, and targeting Will and doing psychic damage (ouch w/ Psychic Lock) doesn't hurt either. Of course, if you go Dragon, it's just a more even Spiteful Glamour. *B+*.

*Dragonfrost*: A vs. Fort, d8 Eldritch Blast with a push. Unless you really value the push, I'd take Acid Orb over this. *C+*.
*
Stormwalk:* Nimble Strike with a d8 and targeting Fort. *B-*.

Overall, not bad! Both power sources have a rather nifty at-will going for them, although Burning Spray is only a bit worse for Wilders. The rest are less inspiring, but at least we don't have another Careful Attack here.


----------



## Ulthwithian

I am currently playing a Human Wrath Invoker in a game, and I chose as my At-Wills Divine Bolts, Grasping Shards, and Vanguard's Lightning.

If I had to drop one (meaning nonhuman), I would drop VL.  I have followed the argument about Ray of Frost in this thread, and while I don't necessarily agree with everything there, the general consensus seems to be correct.

Shards is nothing like Ray.  As keterys (I think) said, Shards kills Minions just fine.  Burst Slow is also much more useful than might be expected.  Also, in the '2 creature' issue, Divine Bolts is more flexible than either Burst.

Also, anecdotally, Invokers shred Undead like nobody's business.


----------



## keterys

yesnomu said:


> Sorc Time! Some of these are pretty neat! Remember that they're all adding a secondary stat to damage.




Just so we're clear, that's not like Sly Flourish, it's their substitute for Curse or Quarry damage, that's all.

They definitely get some neat at-wills, though.


----------



## keterys

I'm intending to take a pass through the book that this thread has become, so that I can summarize and recreate it, and also split off a PH2 (and beyond) thread. I'll be going through trying to see if I should adjust any ratings on the front page, and adding ones for, say, Martial Power as I do so, but I'd also like to justify ratings given. I'm thinking of adding a section something like this for the powers - can you let me know if it's useful, not useful, or any suggested changes.

Grade Justifications:

When listing notable advantages and disadvantages of a power I’ll tag each with a number of + or – signs. One (+/-) signifies a minor advantage or disadvantage, two (++/--) moderate, three major, four extreme. These are not intended to be equivalent in any way; a single moderate advantage or disadvantage might outweigh several minor ones and a minor advantage might outweigh a minor disadvantage. 

*CLERIC*[sblock]*Lance of Faith: B+*
Damage – Average 
  Advantage – Radiant (+), +2 attack bonus to an ally (++)
  Disadvantage – Short range (-)
  Summary – Lance of Faith is a good staple power that will almost always be helpful for setting up encounter and daily powers, or stronger damage attacks from other allies.

*Priest’s Shield: C-*
  Damage – Average
  Perks - +1 AC bonus to adjacent ally (+)
  Downsides – position requirement (adjacent) a downside for melee (forsakes flank, sets up area attacks) (--)
   Summary – Priest’s Shield is slightly better than a basic attack, but not appreciably. Its bonus is actually minor enough that its chance of mattering is very small and it is easily forgotten.

*Righteous Brand: A+*
  Damage – Average
  Perks - +Str bonus to a round of attacks for ally within 5 (++++)
  Summary – Righteous Brand is extraordinarily powerful in certain groups for setting up ally attacks. Because it’s a Str attack based on Str, it’s power level is fairly extreme for setting up status effect and large damage attacks, especially at higher level.

*Sacred Flame: A-*
  Damage – Low (-)
  Perks – Radiant (+), Saving throw or Cha+Lvl/2 temp to ally within sight (+++)
  Downsides – Short range (-)
  Summary – Sacred Flame is fantastic for obtaining saving throws for allies, and its temporary hp can be quite considerable compared to the damage output of many creatures.[/sblock]

I'm thinking it would go after what's already there in the first post - so the summary is still intact, but then you can dig deeper.


----------



## CubeKnight

keterys said:


> I'm intending to take a pass through the book that this thread has become, so that I can summarize and recreate it, and also split off a PH2 (and beyond) thread. I'll be going through trying to see if I should adjust any ratings on the front page, and adding ones for, say, Martial Power as I do so, but I'd also like to justify ratings given. I'm thinking of adding a section something like this for the powers - can you let me know if it's useful, not useful, or any suggested changes.
> 
> Grade Justifications:
> 
> When listing notable advantages and disadvantages of a power I’ll tag each with a number of + or – signs. One (+/-) signifies a minor advantage or disadvantage, two (++/--) moderate, three major, four extreme. These are not intended to be equivalent in any way; a single moderate advantage or disadvantage might outweigh several minor ones and a minor advantage might outweigh a minor disadvantage.
> 
> *CLERIC*[sblock]*Lance of Faith: B+*
> Damage – Average
> Advantage – Radiant (+), +2 attack bonus to an ally (++)
> Disadvantage – Short range (-)
> Summary – Lance of Faith is a good staple power that will almost always be helpful for setting up encounter and daily powers, or stronger damage attacks from other allies.
> 
> *Priest’s Shield: C-*
> Damage – Average
> Perks - +1 AC bonus to adjacent ally (+)
> Downsides – position requirement (adjacent) a downside for melee (forsakes flank, sets up area attacks) (--)
> Summary – Priest’s Shield is slightly better than a basic attack, but not appreciably. Its bonus is actually minor enough that its chance of mattering is very small and it is easily forgotten.
> 
> *Righteous Brand: A+*
> Damage – Average
> Perks - +Str bonus to attack for ally within 5 (++++)
> Summary – Righteous Brand is extraordinarily powerful in certain groups for setting up ally attacks. Because it’s a Str attack based on Str, it’s power level is fairly extreme for setting up status effect and large damage attacks, especially at higher level.
> 
> *Sacred Flame: A-*
> Damage – Low (-)
> Perks – Radiant (+), Saving throw or Cha+Lvl/2 temp to ally within sight (+++)
> Downsides – Short range (-)
> Summary – Sacred Flame is fantastic for obtaining saving throws for allies, and its temporary hp can be quite considerable compared to the damage output of many creatures.[/sblock]
> 
> I'm thinking it would go after what's already there in the first post - so the summary is still intact, but then you can dig deeper.



I think it'd be a good idea to do so. Some powers may be better suited for certain builds, so you may want to take a lower ranked power if the disadvantages don't mean much to you.


----------



## yesnomu

I like this idea. I'll give it a shot for the Shaman At-Wills. First the decided ones:
[sblock]
*Stalker's Strike: B-*
Damage – High (+) 
  Advantage – Attack bonus to bloodied (+), flanking (+)
  Disadvantage – v. Fort (-), flanking moves the spirit away from allies (--)
Summary – A good way to finish a fight between the damage and flanking, but moving the spirit to the other side of a monster negates your very potent Boon. No reason at all to take this as a Bear.

*Protecting Strike: A*
 Damage – Average 
   Advantage – v. Will (+), nice amount of THP (++)
   Disadvantage – Allies need to be next to spirit when it attacks (possible -)
 Summary – Even the Panthers might want this, if their Con's OK. High chance of hitting, gives allies a great buffer, and lets you stand a comfortable distance away from the action. Fantastic power.

*Defending Strike: B-*
 Damage – Average 
   Advantage – AC buff (+), doesn't require adjacent allies on use (+), affects you (+)
   Disadvantage – Small, forgettable bonus
 Summary – Not bad, but a bit redundant if you have PS. The AC buff could be forgotten pretty easily, you might want to take down allies' AC so you can remember for them. Good choice for a poor-Con Panther.

*Haunting Spirits: A-*
 Damage – Low (-)
   Advantage – V. Will (+), Psychic (+ later on), CA (+), unlimited ally range (+)
   Disadvantage – Short range (-), may be unnecessary
 Summary – It sucks to have to leave your position of safety and isolation, but this is a pretty good reason to get up close. Psychic is a great damage type if you grab Psychic Lock in Paragon--it turns this into a pretty encompassing debuff. Being able to designate any ally for the CA is nice for the Ranger without Distant Advantage or the Rogue going after a guy without flanking. But if everyone is flanking already, this might not be needed at all. This is a better offensive power than SS if the enemy isn't bloodied, but since PS targets Will, a Bear might prefer some NAD variety. Still, of all the defenses to attack with both, Will's the one you'd want.

*Watcher's Strike: B+*
 Damage – Average 
   Advantage – Attack bonus (+), high Perception bonus (+), doesn't require adj. allies on use (+), affects you (+)
   Disadvantage – Small, forgettable bonus
 Summary – This is the offensive Defending Strike, with a weird (but high) Perception bonus added in. (Ask your DM about using it on an ally when you need to find something well-hidden out of combat!) Despite the increased risk of PvP bear savagings, this is a good choice for a Bear who wants the NAD versatility. Just don't let your friends forget the bonus!

*Wrath of Winter: C+*
 Damage – High (+) 
   Advantage – Cold damage (+ later on), may save a dismissal action (+)
   Disadvantage – v. Fort (-), Short range (-)
 Summary – Decent damage, but targeting Fort mostly negates that. The teleporting is nifty (saving minors is nice), but the range is too short and accuracy too low for it to be broadly useful. If you go Lasting Frost/Wintertouched, this becomes pretty vital--though Shamans don't have a whole lot of cold spells in the first place.
[/sblock]


----------

