Twin Strike houserule.

[BobTheDog]

So this idea for a houserule struck me a few days ago and I thought I'd drag it through the playground before using it.

[Disclaimer: I did a quick search of the forums to check if I'm rediscovering the wheel and found nothing, if I am doing that, let me know and I'll put a link here and let this thread vanish...]

I'm starting from the commonly accepted assumption that Twin Strike is overpowered because you can stack bonuses to your weapon attacks to the point that losing your Str/Dex bonus to damage is negligible. My proposed fix to this is adding a statement to the power where, if you hit the same creature with both attacks granted by TS, the power deals 2[W] damage (total) instead of 1[W] + 1[W] (separate attacks). In other words, instead of:

1dx + static bonuses + 1dx + static bonuses

you get:

2dx + static bonuses

My view is that this would eliminate the "worst" part of TS without messing with it much. Considering that most rangers using the power would be rolling d10s or d12s for damage, the average damage of a successful TS would equate to a Str/Dex bonus between +5 and +6. Meanwhile, using it to strike at two different creatures deals more damage overall (bonus damage is applied to each attack) to compensate for the lesser efficiency of spreading fire.

Anyway... Thoughts?

[Surrealistik]

I like it.

[evirus]

/agree

I like the look of this and it's very simple and neat. Little loose ends. Rangers can still apply their bonuses, but they would only apply once.
Q: Would they still have to make 2 rolls or just one?

[Surrealistik]

/agree

I like the look of this and it's very simple and neat. Little loose ends. Rangers can still apply their bonuses, but they would only apply once.
Q: Would they still have to make 2 rolls or just one?

Two rolls; if the second hits, and the attack has only one target, it deals +1[W] extra damage.

[Blackfang108]

/agree

I like the look of this and it's very simple and neat. Little loose ends. Rangers can still apply their bonuses, but they would only apply once.
Q: Would they still have to make 2 rolls or just one?

He Said "If both attacks hit," so I would assume 2 rolls.

It's still far better than the other Ranger At-wills, AFAICS, but it's a lot more balanced overall.

The problem comes with the other "Twin strike" clone powers on the Ranger. Do you make a similar nerf?

[BobTheDog]

The problem comes with the other "Twin strike" clone powers on the Ranger. Do you make a similar nerf?

I worked off the assumption that Twin Strike is the "big offender", but I think the same rule could apply to other dual-hit powers that are overpowered.

[RebelRogue]

I worked off the assumption that Twin Strike is the "big offender", but I think the same rule could apply to other dual-hit powers that are overpowered.
It's mostly the fact that it is at-will that is problematic here, isn't it?

[Nu]

It's mostly the fact that it is at-will that is problematic here, isn't it?

I agree with this. The ranger's shtick is big damage, so while it's not unreasonable to tone down Twin Strike a bit (but still leave it good), let the ranger play with his other toys.

[Kurald Galain]

It's mostly the fact that it is at-will that is problematic here, isn't it?
Not necessarily.

Supposing you have three encounter powers (which, by level seven, you will) and supposing combat lasts about four rounds (which depends on the DM but appears to be a reasonable average) then you won't be using at-wills all that much.

I don't think twin strike needs a nerf. Yes, it's one of the strongest at-wills in the game, but it doesn't become game-breaking until you're epic tier and combining it with various other cheesy tricks. For example, the DM is under no obligation to hand out Iron Armbands Of Power or Frost Weapons to every ranger, and without such tricks there really isn't much of a problem.

[Surrealistik]

Not necessarily.

Supposing you have three encounter powers (which, by level seven, you will) and supposing combat lasts about four rounds (which depends on the DM but appears to be a reasonable average) then you won't be using at-wills all that much.

I don't think twin strike needs a nerf. Yes, it's one of the strongest at-wills in the game, but it doesn't become game-breaking until you're epic tier and combining it with various other cheesy tricks. For example, the DM is under no obligation to hand out Iron Armbands Of Power or Frost Weapons to every ranger, and without such tricks there really isn't much of a problem.

It's blatantly overpowered by the time Frostcheese hits the scene, nevermind Epic; I will agree that it isn't too bad in Heroic. That said, arbitrary DM limitations on items is not the way to 'balance' this power.

[evirus]

BobTheDog:

Re-reading yoru house rule... why not just say that the static bonuses only apply once for the power instead per attack roll? But the player gets to chose which attack benefits?

[tcrudisi]

Not necessarily.

Supposing you have three encounter powers (which, by level seven, you will) and supposing combat lasts about four rounds (which depends on the DM but appears to be a reasonable average) then you won't be using at-wills all that much.

I don't think twin strike needs a nerf. Yes, it's one of the strongest at-wills in the game, but it doesn't become game-breaking until you're epic tier and combining it with various other cheesy tricks. For example, the DM is under no obligation to hand out Iron Armbands Of Power or Frost Weapons to every ranger, and without such tricks there really isn't much of a problem.

I agree with this assessment. At early heroic, it's not unbalanced at all. Is it far stronger than other at-wills beginning at paragon and up through epic? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Most people will still be using encounter powers and dailies, meaning Twin Strike doesn't get used all that much (if at all) in a combat round.

Personally, I think Throw and Stab is more powerful than Twin Strike. It allows you to make a "melee basic attack" as the second attack and that's where some real shenanigans can come into play, even at lower levels.

[Jack_Banzai]

I agree with this assessment. At early heroic, it's not unbalanced at all. Is it far stronger than other at-wills beginning at paragon and up through epic? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Most people will still be using encounter powers and dailies, meaning Twin Strike doesn't get used all that much (if at all) in a combat round.

Personally, I think Throw and Stab is more powerful than Twin Strike. It allows you to make a "melee basic attack" as the second attack and that's where some real shenanigans can come into play, even at lower levels.

Throw and Stab was nerfed heavily not long after MP2 was released, so that you had to attack two separate targets.

[tcrudisi]

I don't consider that a "heavy" nerf. It's still, imo, more powerful than Twin Strike.

Heck, Dual Strike was "nerfed" the same way. And by "nerf", I mean "forcing Fighters to multi-mark to keep their party safe." So really, for Dual Strike it wasn't much of a nerf at all.

Rangers are a bit different. They want to focus fire, but I still consider this power the top tier. Being able to combine it with other at-wills that count as MBA's is just amazing.

[Jack_Banzai]

I don't consider that a "heavy" nerf. It's still, imo, more powerful than Twin Strike.

Heck, Dual Strike was "nerfed" the same way. And by "nerf", I mean "forcing Fighters to multi-mark to keep their party safe." So really, for Dual Strike it wasn't much of a nerf at all.

Rangers are a bit different. They want to focus fire, but I still consider this power the top tier. Being able to combine it with other at-wills that count as MBA's is just amazing.

Personally I enjoy Marauder's Rush for that reason. At mid-Paragon and higher, it can deal out some particularly sick damage when synergized with charge-enhancing powers and items. I've seen a pretty decent Eladrin Fey Charge Ranger build with Marauder's Rush just lay waste to an entire battlefield, on more than one occasion.

[Sir Homeslice]

Throw and Stab's neutering via errata was a tragedy. And it only outshined Twin Strike in very specific circumstances. Twin Strike still makes Throw and Stab into a little girl.

Though to be fair, Throw and Stab is only a six year old girl whereas the other at-wills are four years old and under. Pecking order, see.

[Surrealistik]

I agree with this assessment. At early heroic, it's not unbalanced at all. Is it far stronger than other at-wills beginning at paragon and up through epic? Yes. Does it matter? Not really. Most people will still be using encounter powers and dailies, meaning Twin Strike doesn't get used all that much (if at all) in a combat round.

Personally, I think Throw and Stab is more powerful than Twin Strike. It allows you to make a "melee basic attack" as the second attack and that's where some real shenanigans can come into play, even at lower levels.

2-3 of every 5-6 combat rounds of your average combat (no dailies) will be Twin Strike. That's plenty of use, and plenty of reason for Twin Strike to get this long overdue nerf.

I also agree with the others that the multitargeting requirement significantly undermines the relative power of TaS.

[tcrudisi]

2-3 of every 5-6 combat rounds of your average combat (no dailies) will be Twin Strike. That's plenty of use, and plenty of reason for Twin Strike to get this long overdue nerf.

I also agree with the others that the multitargeting requirement significantly undermines the relative power of TaS.

By level 11 you have 4 encounter attack powers. You'll also have 3 daily powers. That means for the typical combat you will use 5 powers before resulting to at-wills (4 encounters and 1 daily). Even assuming an action point, that's 4 rounds before going to Twin Strike for the mop-up rounds (if you don't have a way of getting encounter powers back). I'd hardly call that overpowered.

That's really not that much use. And really, do your combats last that long? Mine don't. The hardest combats tend to last 4 rounds, tops, for my party. At-wills aren't used that often in my group.

/edit - My point about TaS is that it can be improved enough to be equivalent to an encounter power. Yes, it requires shenanigans, but it can still be done. It has a much higher ceiling than Twin Strike.

[Nu]

Supposing you have three encounter powers (which, by level seven, you will) and supposing combat lasts about four rounds (which depends on the DM but appears to be a reasonable average) then you won't be using at-wills all that much.

You won't be using at-wills AS much, but given that (good) rangers tend to select minor action/out-of-turn attacks for their encounter powers, they still use Twin Strike a lot.

As an example, in the game I'm DMing, I have a dual wielding ranger. He's level 4. His two encounter powers are Off-hand Strike and Disruptive Strike, neither of which eat up his standard action. So most of his Standard Actions will be spent using Twin Strike, ideally.

At the very least, from level 3 onwards you should assume that your ranger will always have Disruptive Strike. It's one of those powers that remains just as good as the levels increase.

[Surrealistik]

By level 11 you have 4 encounter attack powers. You'll also have 3 daily powers. That means for the typical combat you will use 5 powers before resulting to at-wills (4 encounters and 1 daily). Even assuming an action point, that's 4 rounds before going to Twin Strike for the mop-up rounds (if you don't have a way of getting encounter powers back). I'd hardly call that overpowered.

That's really not that much use. And really, do your combats last that long? Mine don't. The hardest combats tend to last 4 rounds, tops, for my party. At-wills aren't used that often in my group.

/edit - My point about TaS is that it can be improved enough to be equivalent to an encounter power. Yes, it requires shenanigans, but it can still be done. It has a much higher ceiling than Twin Strike.

Yes, forgot about the PP path power. Even so, over a work day it does see significant use, and that makes it a problem. APs only compound the use it sees, unless their employment reduces the total # of rounds. As for combats lasting 4 rounds, 5-6 is generally considered the average duration of a combat, and should be the number used when considering mechanical balance. Again, if they don't last that long, it's probably because your party is not being given appropriate challenges; combat duration is a great metric for determining whether or not this is the case (it's obviously not the only one though; your casualties/damage sustained is another key measure).

Again TaS is limited by its multitargeting, which automatically makes its power situational, even if that situation can be often met (not to mention single target damage is typically more powerful/impactful than multitarget damage), but hey, if you really find it to be all that strong, I have no qualms with nerfing it either.

In general the Ranger needs to be taken down a few notches so it isn't so blatantly superior at its job as compared to every other Striker in the game on average. I'm not going to argue or pretend the solution lies exclusively in nerfing its at-wills because it doesn't, but it's a start.

EDIT: I do not find it all accurate to assert that Dailies are evenly spread over the course of a day's encounters, barring maybe summons; that strikes me as sophistry. Dailies tend to be saved for the 'boss fight' of a work day, or otherwise for the final battle before everyone takes their Extended.

[tcrudisi]

Yes, forgot about the PP path power. Even so, over a work day it does see significant use, and that makes it a problem. APs only compound the use it sees, unless their employment reduces the total # of rounds. As for combats lasting 4 rounds, 5-6 is generally considered the average duration of a combat, and should be the number used when considering mechanical balance. Again, if they don't last that long, it's probably because your party is not being given appropriate challenges; combat duration is a great metric for determining whether or not this is the case (it's obviously not the only one though; your casualties/damage sustained is another key measure).

In general the Ranger needs to be taken down a few notches so it isn't so blatantly superior at its job as compared to every other Striker in the game on average. I'm not going to argue or pretend the solution lies exclusively in nerfing its at-wills because it doesn't, but it's a start.

EDIT: I do not find it all accurate to assert that Dailies are evenly spread over the course of a day's encounters, barring maybe summons; that strikes me as sophistry. Dailies tend to be saved for the 'boss fight' of a work day, or otherwise for the final battle before everyone takes their Extended.

If players are saving their dailies for the hardest fight, then Twin Strike isn't a problem. After all, they aren't using it when push comes to shove. Instead, they are relying on their big attacks.

During the push-over combats, they'll use their encounter powers. If the push-over combats are lasting longer than 3-4 rounds, then your players aren't optimized. In that case, they need the little extra boost Twin Strike provides.

[Surrealistik]

If players are saving their dailies for the hardest fight, then Twin Strike isn't a problem. After all, they aren't using it when push comes to shove. Instead, they are relying on their big attacks.

During the push-over combats, they'll use their encounter powers. If the push-over combats are lasting longer than 3-4 rounds, then your players aren't optimized. In that case, they need the little extra boost Twin Strike provides.

An encounter in which you do not need to break out dailies is not a 'push-over' combat; it's the average baseline. If it lasts 5-6 rounds, it is not a matter of the players failing to be optimized, so much as it is indicative that they're being challenged at a level that is consistent with design intent. That said, if a no-daily encounter lasts 3-4 rounds, _that_ would be a 'push-over' combat indicative of a DM who is not scaling encounters with the power of his PCs.

Furthermore, even in encounters where you do use daily powers and APs, there is still the possibility of breaking out at-wills. The chance of this increases with the number of difficult encounters in a workday. The bottom line is that:

A: Twin Strike will see use in decisive, difficult combats.

B: Twin Strike still markedly outshines almost every other striker at-will in the game, and is a far cry from balanced.

The combination of these facts outs Twin Strike as a power in need of a nerf (along with many other blatantly OP Ranger powers, but that's another matter entirely).

[Kurald Galain]

B: Twin Strike still markedly outshines almost every other striker at-will in the game, and is a far cry from balanced.

The combination of these facts
The thing is, your point B is not a fact; it is an opinion. Neither "markedly outshines" nor "a far cry from" are factual. Rangers have comparatively weak class features, which is why they have stronger powers to balance it out.

If you want facts, you should make e.g. a level-11 ranger, calculate his damage-per-round, and compare this DPR to that of a level-11 barbarian (who can ping-pong charge) or rogue (who basically adds +3d8+5 to almost all its attacks).

[Surrealistik]

The thing is, your point B is not a fact; it is an opinion. Neither "markedly outshines" nor "a far cry from" are factual. Rangers have comparatively weak class features, which is why they have stronger powers to balance it out.

If you want facts, you should make e.g. a level-11 ranger, calculate his damage-per-round, and compare this DPR to that of a level-11 barbarian (who can ping-pong charge) or rogue (who basically adds +3d8+5 to almost all its attacks).

And assuming I wasted the time to do that, and 'proved' my point, there's always the possibility I will omit something either pro or con on behalf of my argument; no thanks, I will stand by my well known facts and let you empirically go about demonstrating the obvious.

Also isn't both the declaration that Rangers 'have comparatively weak class features' and that this is 'why they have stronger powers' opinion?

[Sipex]

It's blatantly overpowered by the time Frostcheese hits the scene, nevermind Epic; I will agree that it isn't too bad in Heroic. That said, arbitrary DM limitations on items is not the way to 'balance' this power.

To go off topic for a moment would someone explain 'frost cheese' to me please? I have a ranger in a game I DM who might be going this route (he started with a frost greatbow) and I'm not going to go so far as to disallow it (unless it's horribly game breaking) but I need to know what I may potentially have to deal with.

[Surrealistik]

To go off topic for a moment would someone explain 'frost cheese' to me please? I have a ranger in a game I DM who might be going this route (he started with a frost greatbow) and I'm not going to go so far as to disallow it (unless it's horribly game breaking) but I need to know what I may potentially have to deal with.

By paragon, +10 damage minimum and combat advantage on each damage roll from Frostcheese which is comprised of

Feats: Lasting Frost (+5), Wintertouched (Combat Advantage), Silvery Glow (requires Sehanine, if he has it, +11 damage per attack roll effectively).

and Items: Gloves of Ice (+2), Siberys Shard of Merciless Cold (+3), and Frost Weapon.

For a multiattack power like Twin Strike, this means +20 to +22 damage minimum and combat advantage.

[Sipex]

Oh, okay, I'm good then. His feats don't even begin to match up and his item wish list doesn't contain any of those.

Thanks for the warning though.

[Kurald Galain]

To go off topic for a moment would someone explain 'frost cheese' to me please?
Quite literally the oldest trick in the book, the feats Lasting Frost and Wintertouched from the PHB1 let you gain CA and deal +5 damage as long as you keep dealing cold damage.

For the price of two feats, that's hardly overpowered, though. And, as said before, the DM is not obliged to hand out a Frost Weapon (or, for a melee ranger, two frost weapons) just because the player wants one.

[Surrealistik]

For the price of two feats, that's hardly overpowered, though. And, as said before, the DM is not obliged to hand out a Frost Weapon (or, for a melee ranger, two frost weapons) just because the player wants one.

Yes it is when you can abuse the hell out of it with multiattack powers. Wintertouched is furthermore just icing on the cake, and isn't actually necessary.

Also Enchant Magic Item.

[Nu]

For the price of two feats, that's hardly overpowered, though. And, as said before, the DM is not obliged to hand out a Frost Weapon (or, for a melee ranger, two frost weapons) just because the player wants one.

This is a very weak argument. From the PHB: "Your DM might say that you can track down a seller for the item you want to buy or that you might have to do some searching, but in general you can buy any item you can afford." Especially since WotC has recently admitted in one of their free "rule of three" columns that the magical item rarity system is currently broken and that players should continue to use the old parcel systems. I think it's reasonable to assume in most 4E games you should be able to get the items you want, given those facts.

Another very weak argument I see repeated in this thread is "because rangers have encounter and daily attack powers, they'll be using their standard actions to use them instead of Twin Strike." Ignoring the multitude of minor action and immediate action attacks available to the ranger, AND the fact that the best ranger builds select these and use their standard actions to spam Twin Strike. Let's look at this example build I whipped up quick (it may not be optimal but it will do):

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Generic Half-Orc Ranger, level 11
Half-Orc, Ranger, Stormwarden
Fighting Style: Two-Blade Fighting Style
Ranger: Prime Shot
Background: Auspicious Birth (Auspicious Birth Benefit)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 21, Con 12, Dex 20, Int 9, Wis 15, Cha 11.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 11, Dex 15, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 10.


AC: 25 Fort: 24 Reflex: 23 Will: 19
HP: 93 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 23

TRAINED SKILLS
Nature +12, Acrobatics +14, Athletics +14, Perception +12, Stealth +14

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +4, Bluff +5, Diplomacy +5, Dungeoneering +7, Endurance +7, Heal +7, History +4, Insight +7, Intimidate +7, Religion +4, Streetwise +5, Thievery +9

FEATS
Level 1: Spiked Chain Training
Level 2: Light Blade Expertise
Level 4: Weapon Focus (Light Blade) (retrained to Silvery Glow at Level 11)
Level 6: Nimble Blade
Level 8: Two-Weapon Fighting
Level 10: Wintertouched
Level 11: Lasting Frost

POWERS
Ranger at-will 1: Twin Strike
Ranger at-will 1: Marauder's Rush
Ranger encounter 1: Off-Hand Strike
Ranger daily 1: Jaws of the Wolf
Ranger utility 2: Invigorating Stride
Ranger encounter 3: Disruptive Strike
Ranger daily 5: Snarling Wolf Stance
Ranger utility 6: Death Threat
Ranger encounter 7: Lashing Leaves
Ranger daily 9: Attacks on the Run
Ranger utility 10: Resume the Hunt

ITEMS
Frost Spiked chain +2, Predator's Hide Hide Armor +2, Steadfast Amulet +2, Boots of the Fencing Master (heroic tier), Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier), Gloves of Ice (paragon tier), Siberys Shard of Merciless Cold (heroic tier), Belt of Vim (heroic tier), Backlash Tattoo (heroic tier), Adventurer's Kit
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======

Standard Action Attacks: Twin Strike (At-Will), Marauder's Rush (At-Will), Jaws of the Wolf (Daily), Attacks on the Run (Daily), Lashing Leaves (Encounter), Clearing the Ground (Encounter).

Of the above, two are dailies, Clearing the Ground is situational (you need to have 3+ enemies adjacent to really make it worth it), Marauder's Rush will only be used when charging, which leaves Lashing Leaves as the only attack you'll prioritize over Twin Strike most of the time.

Of the other powers, Snarling Wolf Stance and Off-Hand Strike are minor actions, and the Snarling Wolf Stance attacks and Disruptive Strike are immediate actions.

Rangers are actually cited as a somewhat boring class because most of what they do on their turn is "Twin Strike." This is the optimal way to play.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's reasonable to assume in most 4E games you should be able to get the items you want, given those facts.
I think it's also reasonable to assume in most 4E games frostcheese is not actually problematic. However, if it does bother a particular DM, then the easiest way to counter it is to remove the frost weapon from the equation.



Another very weak argument I see repeated in this thread is "because rangers have encounter and daily attack powers, they'll be using their standard actions to use them instead of Twin Strike."
The point is that the ranger can make multiple attacks per round and add his damage modifiers to all of them. If you nerf or remove Twin Strike, then the ranger can still do it, albeit with other powers. So if rangers are overpowered (and I'm not convinced that they are), then nerfing Twin Strike is not sufficient to fix that.


Generic Half-Orc Ranger, level 11
Okay, that should be a useful example; you can fairly consistently make three attacks per round. Can we compare it to a daggermaster brutal scoundrel rogue? It would have a base damage of 1d4+3d8+10, and uses the same damage-boosting items as you do, plus frostcheese. Rogues also have access to minor action attacks (Low Slash), multiattacks (One-two Punch) and out-of-turn attacks (Lashing Blade).

On the one hand, the ranger makes more attacks per round on average; on the other hand, the rogue has a higher crit range. Also, sneak attack deals 3d8+4 once per turn, whereas hunter's quarry deals 2d8 once per round. The ranger appears to be ahead in terms of damage-per-round, but not by much.

[Nu]

I think it's also reasonable to assume in most 4E games frostcheese is not actually problematic. However, if it does bother a particular DM, then the easiest way to counter it is to remove the frost weapon from the equation.

For the most part, I agree with this. Presenting the argument on its own doesn't make much sense, however. In terms of theoretical arguments, frostcheese affects the weapon-using classes fairly equally and thus banning it doesn't really help others catch up with rangers. I don't like Frostcheese purely because it simply outshines all other options.


The point is that the ranger can make multiple attacks per round and add his damage modifiers to all of them. If you nerf or remove Twin Strike, then the ranger can still do it, albeit with other powers. So if rangers are overpowered (and I'm not convinced that they are), then nerfing Twin Strike is not sufficient to fix that.

I'm not sure if that's the problem so much that rangers try to spend as much time as possible spamming Twin Strike. I'm not for the argument that rangers are overpowered compared to other strikers, they have a very focused niche (damage) and that's fine, the other strikers for the most part can stand up in the sense they have other tricks to compensate.

You will notice none of my posts were saying "rangers are overpowered," I was only pointing out the inherent flaws of saying "rangers have 4 encounter powers so it will be the 5th round before they resort to using twin strike."


Okay, that should be a useful example; you can fairly consistently make three attacks per round. Can we compare it to a daggermaster brutal scoundrel rogue? It would have a base damage of 1d4+3d8+10, and uses the same damage-boosting items as you do, plus frostcheese. Rogues also have access to minor action attacks (Low Slash), multiattacks (One-two Punch) and out-of-turn attacks (Lashing Blade).

The base damage of the ranger is roughly comparable, discounting the Lasting Frost/Gloves of Ice/Shard damage mods, of 2d4 + 13 and 2d6 extra once per round, plus 5 auto-damage to an adjacent enemy. With combat advantage, add another +2 from expertise, and blah blah cold vulnerable mods blah (I won't add these since you didn't, and they should be the same). Next level it can swap out Nimble Blade for Prime Punisher and take Called Shot for even more damage.


On the one hand, the ranger makes more attacks per round on average; on the other hand, the rogue has a higher crit range. Also, sneak attack deals 3d8+4 once per turn, whereas hunter's quarry deals 2d8 once per round. The ranger appears to be ahead in terms of damage-per-round, but not by much.

At the 11th level this is probably true thanks to Daggermaster's excellent boost to crit range, which the ranger cannot yet match. Stormwarden and the Prime Shot/TwO feats help it gain a larger lead by mid-paragon however, and the benefits are exponential with more attacks (which Twin Strike will always grant).

[Surrealistik]

I think it's also reasonable to assume in most 4E games frostcheese is not actually problematic. However, if it does bother a particular DM, then the easiest way to counter it is to remove the frost weapon from the equation.

Frostcheese itself isn't too bad, but when paired with a multiattacker, such as the Ranger it clearly gets abusive, creating a significant divide between that character's impact and contribution, and that of other players.


The point is that the ranger can make multiple attacks per round and add his damage modifiers to all of them. If you nerf or remove Twin Strike, then the ranger can still do it, albeit with other powers. So if rangers are overpowered (and I'm not convinced that they are), then nerfing Twin Strike is not sufficient to fix that.


I don't think anyone argued that nerfing Twin Strike alone is a fix for the Ranger, so much as that it's an excellent start.


Okay, that should be a useful example; you can fairly consistently make three attacks per round. Can we compare it to a daggermaster brutal scoundrel rogue? It would have a base damage of 1d4+3d8+10, and uses the same damage-boosting items as you do, plus frostcheese. Rogues also have access to minor action attacks (Low Slash), multiattacks (One-two Punch) and out-of-turn attacks (Lashing Blade).

On the one hand, the ranger makes more attacks per round on average; on the other hand, the rogue has a higher crit range. Also, sneak attack deals 3d8+4 once per turn, whereas hunter's quarry deals 2d8 once per round. The ranger appears to be ahead in terms of damage-per-round, but not by much.

Rogue To Hit: 25 (AC) - 3 (Proficiency) + 3 (Enhancement) + 5 (Dex) + 5 (Level) + 2 (Combat Advantage) + 1 (Talent) + 1 (Nimble Blade) = 5 - 1 (Only need to match) = 80% hit chance. 65% chance of regular hit, 15% of critical.

Regular Hit (Rogue):

2.5 (Dagger) + 2 (Light Blade Expertise) + 17.5 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 3 (Enhancement) + 3 (Silvery Glow) + 5 (Frostcheese) + 2 (Gloves of Ice) + 3 (Siberys Shard of Cold) + 2 (Iron Armbands of Power) * 0.65 = 29.25 damage

Critical Hit (Rogue):

4 (Dagger) + 2 (Light Blade Expertise) + 28 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Dex) + 3 (Enhancement) + 3 (Silvery Glow) + 5 (Frostcheese) + 2 (Gloves of Ice) + 3 (Siberys Shard of Cold) + 10.5 (Crit Damage) + 2 (Iron Armbands of Power) * 0.15 = 10.425 damage

Daggerrogue DPR Total: 39.675


Ranger To Hit: 25 (AC) - 3 (Proficiency) + 3 (Enhancement) + 5 (Str) + 5 (Level) + 2 (Combat Advantage) + 1 (Nimble Blade) = 6 - 1 (Only need to match) = 75% hit chance. 70% chance of regular hit, 5% of critical.

Regular Hit (Ranger):

4.5 (Rapier) + 2 (Light Blade Expertise) + 9 (Quarry) + 3 (Enhancement) + 3 (Silvery Glow) + 5 (Frostcheese) + 2 (Gloves of Ice) + 3 (Siberys Shard of Cold) + 2 (Iron Armbands of Power) * 0.70 = 23.45 damage * 2 = 46.9

Critical Hit (Ranger):

8 (Rapier) + 2 (Light Blade Expertise) + 18 (Quarry) + 3 (Enhancement) + 2 (Focus) + 5 (Frostcheese) + 2 (Gloves of Ice) + 3 (Siberys Shard of Cold) + 10.5 (Crit Bonus) + 2 (Iron Armbands of Power) * 0.05 = 2.825 damage * 2 = 5.65

Rangercheese DPR Total: 52.55

DPR Difference: 12.875, Ranger's favour.

Apparently +32.45% more damage and a nearly 13 DPR difference 'isn't much'; news to me. Also note that the Ranger may well have a Str mod of +6 by L11 as opposed to +5, which would further increase this disparity by yet another 3.35 DPR.

Hail to the King... of Strikers.

EDIT: Damn, I forgot the Armbands of Power. Fixed.

[tcrudisi]

Apparently +35.31% more damage and a greater than 12 DPR difference 'isn't much'; news to me. Also note that the Ranger may well have a Str mod of +6 by L11 as opposed to +5, which would further increase this disparity by yet another 3.25 DPR.

Hail to the King... of Strikers.

EDIT: Damn, I forgot the Armbands of Power. Fixed.

You left out quite a few things. For starters, the Daggermaster will increase the value of his critical hits. That's Bloodiron (for a difference of .15*22.5=3.375). Plus, the Rogue gets a lot more out of his off-turn attacks than the Ranger. He can sneak attack with them (so opp attacks and minor actions hurt a LOT more than the Rangers do). It's crazy easy to get that sneak attack twice: move and low slash, then ready an action for a trigger you know will happen. Oh look, now your readied action goes off and you've just sneak attack'ed twice. Finally, you didn't add the +4 dmg that the Rogue gets, on both regular hits and criticals. Finally, you've overvalued the +hit on the Ranger. He won't get automatic combat advantage on the first attack... the Rogue will. This will both lower the value of his first and second attack (since if the first misses, he won't get CA for the second).

Even ignoring the Bloodiron (since it is a bit unfair to assume the Rogue gets a nice magic item and the Ranger doesn't), that's still a good chunk left off the Rogue and an unfair boost to the Ranger.

[Surrealistik]

You left out quite a few things. For starters, the Daggermaster will increase the value of his critical hits. That's Bloodiron (for a difference of .15*22.5=3.375). Plus, the Rogue gets a lot more out of his off-turn attacks than the Ranger. He can sneak attack with them (so opp attacks and minor actions hurt a LOT more than the Rangers do). It's crazy easy to get that sneak attack twice: move and low slash, then ready an action for a trigger you know will happen. Oh look, now your readied action goes off and you've just sneak attack'ed twice. Finally, you didn't add the +4 dmg that the Rogue gets, on both regular hits and criticals. Finally, you've overvalued the +hit on the Ranger. He won't get automatic combat advantage on the first attack... the Rogue will. This will both lower the value of his first and second attack (since if the first misses, he won't get CA for the second).

Even ignoring the Bloodiron (since it is a bit unfair to assume the Rogue gets a nice magic item and the Ranger doesn't), that's still a good chunk left off the Rogue and an unfair boost to the Ranger.

First of all, I am comparing base at-will, round after round DPR (where your off-turn Sneak Attack trick isn't possible); if you want to get into an analysis of the impact of Encounter powers, feel free, but that's beyond the purview of my analysis.

With respect to 'Bloodiron' you do realize I'm assuming both builds are abusing Frostcheese right?

Third assuming CA in all cases is perfectly fair for a Ranger as he also gets Stealth, is good at it, has Wintertouched, and probable other sources of CA for that first hit (like Superior Reflexes/Party Members/Flanking/Cunning Stalker, etc...).

Fourth, what +4 damage?

[tcrudisi]

First of all, I am comparing base at-will, round after round DPR (where your off-turn Sneak Attack trick isn't possible); if you want to get into an analysis of the impact of Encounter powers, feel free, but that's beyond the purview of my analysis.

Fourth, what +4 damage?

+4 damage from Strength and +2 from Expertise. Also, the Rogue gets access to better feat support (since light blades have better feats for hitting with).

Aha - I see you added it in to the Sneak Attack. So the only thing I can see immediately is a missing +1 to hit and +2 to damage.

[Surrealistik]

+4 damage from Strength and +2 from Expertise. Also, the Rogue gets access to better feat support (since light blades have better feats for hitting with).

Oh right, guess I should assume Rapiers for the Ranger in that case, and Light Blade Expertise; makes more sense actually.

Also what do you mean +4 from Strength? What allows the Rogue to use a Dagger and apply his Strength modifier to normal damage rolls? Do you mean Sneak Attack damage from Brutal Scoundrel? That's already factored in.

What is this +1 to hit? Rogues already have their +1 to hit edge from the Talent bonus.

[tcrudisi]

You missed my edit - I realized you had factored it in. The extra +1 is from Nimble Blade.

[Surrealistik]

You missed my edit - I realized you had factored it in. The extra +1 is from Nimble Blade.

Which the Ranger now also gets on account of using a Rapier.

[Surrealistik]

Numbers have been updated; Ranger comes out ahead even more in terms of absolute DPR difference, but less in terms of relative/percentile DPR difference. The disparity is still huge though.

[MeeposFire]

I remember this being debated on the WotC forums on the OP board. In the end the overall lead in thought was that twin strike is very powerful but still not overpowered. It was also decided that twin strike was really the ranger striker feature and then the big debate started that twin strike should really be a class feature power not a standard at will power.

People like to say twin strike is overpowered since it is frankly really easy to boost it relative to other types of attacks and it has the unfortunate issue of being the single best option of the ranger at wills and it is not an official feature. Twin strike allows rangers to do their job, which is good since they are not that great at anything but striking. In fact this is essentially the route they went with scout rangers and their dual weapon attack feature (and they get their dex bonus to damage with both attacks and get bonus damage on top of that though they need it since they need to hit with the first attack and don't get hunter's quarry).

[Surrealistik]

It's poorly designed, whatever it is, and I agree that turning it into a class striker feature makes a great deal of sense.

[Tiki Snakes]

Just because Rangers are one of the better Strikers doesn't make them over-powered. I think I'm with Kurald on this.

[Surrealistik]

It's that they're decisively the best striker that's problematic; they're straight up the best at what they do. While I acknowledge that there must always be 'a best', they're too successful at their role as compared to other classes. Even the Rogue's off-turn sneak attacks aren't adequate to bridge the gap, unless he's given a truly prodigious amount of off-turn attacks.

[MeeposFire]

But rogues have some very nice controlling abilities. Rangers strike the best but they do the least outside of that role of any striker out there, heck even the some of the essentials strikers can have better secondary roles than a normal ranger.

Warlocks have awesome secondary role abilities and have the lowest relative damage, rogues make fair secondary controllers and do better damage, and rangers are almost purely strikers and I think this gives them the best damage and that's alright.

[ELC]

Hmm . . . I like the change (particularly since Ranger has the best single-target DPR each encounter), but I'm thinking it is a pretty big nerf, at compared to other Striker at-wills (I'm thinking of Barbarian's Howling Strike, which at L1 deals 3d6 with a great-sword [compared to the 2d8 that Two-Weapon Rangers get from dual long-swords]).

Maybe allow them to deal 1[W] (no modifiers) extra damage if they spend a minor action as well?

[Surrealistik]

But rogues have some very nice controlling abilities. Rangers strike the best but they do the least outside of that role of any striker out there, heck even the some of the essentials strikers can have better secondary roles than a normal ranger.

Warlocks have awesome secondary role abilities and have the lowest relative damage, rogues make fair secondary controllers and do better damage, and rangers are almost purely strikers and I think this gives them the best damage and that's alright.

That's not true at all. Quite a few of their best striking powers have strong controlling effects: Cruel Cage of Steel, Death Rend, Non-Chalant Collapse are all excellent examples.

[Kurald Galain]

Maybe allow them to deal 1[W] (no modifiers) extra damage if they spend a minor action as well?
That's rather awkward in design, and it doesn't do much (spend an action you might not have for +3 or +4 damage is pretty meh).

And yes, it is a pretty big nerf, and its necessity has not been demonstrated beyond some people's "gut feeling". The whole point of strikers is that they deal large amounts of damage - indeed, as stated earlier in this thread, the WOTC charop board disagrees that the ranger is overpowered, and they're the primary source for actual statistics instead of gut feelings.

[Surrealistik]

That's rather awkward in design, and it doesn't do much (spend an action you might not have for +3 or +4 damage is pretty meh).

And yes, it is a pretty big nerf, and its necessity has not been demonstrated beyond some people's "gut feeling". The whole point of strikers is that they deal large amounts of damage - indeed, as stated earlier in this thread, the WOTC charop board disagrees that the ranger is overpowered, and they're the primary source for actual statistics instead of gut feelings.

See it's funny, because I distinctly recall mathematically demonstrating that a basic Rangercheese build materially and decisively outshines a Daggermaster Brutal Scoundrel Rogue (at least with respect to sustained DPR), despite two points in the latter's favour with respect to a comparison between relative DPR:

#1: The Ranger is assumed to have a +5 as opposed to a +6 primary ability modifier.

#2: The Ranger is not assumed to benefit from any sort of Paragon Path that improves his static damage modifiers or accuracy, or that otherwise increases damage output/DPR, whereas the Daggermaster is.

Both of these elements obviously, and significantly diminish the Ranger's comparative DPR, yet it is still far ahead of the Rogue's. Yes, this is early paragon, and perhaps microcosmic, but I can calculate L10 values if you like, and I do not suspect the situation would be much different.

In the meanwhile, you have provided literally nothing but a completely subjective opinion Kurald, and cited a 'consensus' you have not provided a link to, yet you have the audacity to accuse me of having nothing but 'gut feelings'; personally I'm loving the irony.

Second, I'm sure I could expand the purview of this assessment to feature Encounters and Dailies, and still the Ranger would come out ahead in spike damage.

Third, where is A: the stated consensus amongst Char Op as to Rangers not being overpowered, and B: the associated math demonstrating this? Further, if the class is not found to be overpowered, is this true at all tiers, or only specific ones? Is this assuming practical optimization or maximum optimization?

[ELC]

I admit: Twin Strike is a very powerful At-Will power, but then again any at-will attack power that deals multiple attacks is pretty insane. What makes the Ranger especially troublesome (compared to, let's say an Invoker with Divine Bolts) is that Twin Strike can target the same creature twice.

Having said that, I don't believe Ranger (specifically two-weapon Ranger) is overpowered as a whole. At least not by itself: if you start multiclassing into Barbarian (Hurricane of Blades), Avenger (Oath of Enimity), or Rogue (Raise the Stakes), then it gets insane really quick due to all of the multi-attacking goodness.

[Surrealistik]

I admit: Twin Strike is a very powerful At-Will power, but then again any at-will attack power that deals multiple attacks is pretty insane. What makes the Ranger especially troublesome (compared to, let's say an Invoker with Divine Bolts) is that Twin Strike can target the same creature twice.

Having said that, I don't believe Ranger (specifically two-weapon Ranger) is overpowered as a whole. At least not by itself: if you start multiclassing into Barbarian (Hurricane of Blades), Avenger (Oath of Enimity), or Rogue (Raise the Stakes), then it gets insane really quick due to all of the multi-attacking goodness.

Ranger doesn't need to multiclass for broken multiattack powers (though obviously doing so makes him even more powerful). Blade Cascade, Cruel Cage of Steel, Death Rend, Lashing Leaves, Jaws of the Wolf, Attacks on the Run, Two Fang Strike, etc... Hell, most of these have additional effects beyond dealing damage; mobility, control, or both!

The Ranger also has an impressive array of Immediate and Minor Action attacks; his power selection by itself is one of the most impressive in the game.

[Kurald Galain]

I admit: Twin Strike is a very powerful At-Will power, but then again any at-will attack power that deals multiple attacks is pretty insane.
...really? Because there are plenty of those. Fighters get dual strike; wizards and invokers get plenty of area effect at-wills plus Arc Lightning / Hand Of Radiance; swordmages get sword burst, and so forth. It seems to me that attacking 2-3 times per round is the baseline for about half the classes in the game.