D&D 5E What powers should be next on the Errata Block?

[Mentat55]

I think Certain Justice (Champion of Order Attack 11) needs errata.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=238640

 

[Mengu]

Careful attack and Sure Strike aren't such big deals to me. Yes they are weak powers, both mathematically and in play. You don't like them, you don't have to take them. It doesn't make the Ranger or Fighter class any weaker. It just means they both have 1 less option, which I'm sure will be remedied with the martial source book, if not with FR or something else before then.

I think Certain Justice (Champion of Order Attack 11) needs errata.

I can definitely agree with this. It needs to say "until the end of your next turn." As it stands, it is more powerful than some daily powers (since there is no save ends).

I'd prefer to see the errata team work on the upper end of the power curve first to smooth it out. The lower end will eventually take care of itself. Also, most gamers don't mind it when a DM makes a weak power stronger via a house rule, so this is not a huge deal. However when a DM nerfs a potent power, you can get disgruntled players who think the DM is being unfair to them for no reason. If there is errata though, the DM is suddenly justified.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Here you go: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=233077

Thanks.

I think Twin Strike is the real culprit here. I think it is just too good to be an at-will.
Maybe it would be better if it only gave one attack roll, but then did primary [W] + secondary [W]. If you hit, both weapons hit. If you miss, both miss.
Or maybe a hit with the primary attack would generate a secondary attack.
I laos think it should be melee only.

However, because Twin Strike is an at-will, people compare careful attack and sure strike to it. As it stands, there is no reason to use Careful attack in place of Twin Strike. But I contend that this is a problem with TTwin Strike, not Careful attack.

For sake of discussion, pretend Twin Strike didn't exist. Now sure strike and careful attack have a place: they offer an increased chance to hit at the expense of (+mod) damage. Yeah, someone says, but the average damage per round is lower than that of a basic attack. True, but I think that is a flawed argument. The point of careful attack and sure strike is to increase the chance to hit. Sometimes you really need to hit the target, even if it means potentially less damage.

 

[Stalker0]

Can someone explain to me the issue with Careful Attack and Sure Strike? I understand they do less damage than a basic attack, but they also have a +2 to hit over a basic attack.

The problem with sure strike is that it doesn't do anything that other fighter at-wills don't do better.

Sure Strike increases your attack roll, meaning you do more consistent damage. Well...reaping strike does damage whether I hit or not, a far better option.

Sure Strike has a bit chance of hitting a minion. Well, cleave can autokill minions and does more damage.

 

[Pickles JG]

Thanks.

I think Twin Strike is the real culprit here. I think it is just too good to be an at-will.
Maybe it would be better if it only gave one attack roll, but then did primary [W] + secondary [W]. If you hit, both weapons hit. If you miss, both miss.
Or maybe a hit with the primary attack would generate a secondary attack.
I laos think it should be melee only.

However, because Twin Strike is an at-will, people compare careful attack and sure strike to it. As it stands, there is no reason to use Careful attack in place of Twin Strike. But I contend that this is a problem with TTwin Strike, not Careful attack.

Twin strike is fine it defines rangers, it is not a power you worry about choosing (see also Cleave & Eldritch Blast, other classes tend to have their build make thei choice for them)
The other ranger powers have to add something that is not just consistent damage to give another option occasionally. The two that are not Careful Attack do this. Careful does not & could do with a rethink.

 

[Seeker_of_Truth]

I think all the powers that allow for multiple attacks against the same target are poorly balanced against similar level powers that don't. I also think that most of the "ranged" utility powers that the warlord has should probably be changed to bursts that affect a single target in the burst.

 

[Mengu]

I also think that most of the "ranged" utility powers that the warlord has should probably be changed to bursts that affect a single target in the burst.

Absolutely agree with this one too. I think it was an oversight. Somewhere during the design process they must have switched most such ranged powers to burst affecting single target, but missed a few, most of which affect the Warlord. As a matter of fact, I fully intend to fix this for my campaign, as the powers come up, though the odds are, my players probably won't even notice I made the fix.

 

[Zsig]

I also think that most of the "ranged" utility powers that the warlord has should probably be changed to bursts that affect a single target in the burst.

From what I understand, only ranged attacks (and area attacks as well) provokes opportunity attacks. Utility powers are not attacks...

That's considering this is the thing bothering you... if it's not, I don't see where's the issue.

 

[Seeker_of_Truth]

From what I understand, only ranged attacks (and area attacks as well) provokes opportunity attacks. Utility powers are not attacks...

That's considering this is the thing bothering you... if it's not, I don't see where's the issue.

Maybe but page 271 says "If you use a ranged power while adjacent to an enemy, that enemy can make an opportunity attack against you." and page 290 says "Ranged and Area Powers Provoke: If an enemy adjacent to you uses a ranged power or an area power, you can make an opportunity attack against that enemy."


Also why would they make Inspiring Word a close burst if not to avoid the OA?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Makes ZERO difference mathematically. Not needed.

It makes save-worsening effects not stack. It makes the worst possible required save for a solo elite 15+ instead of the 17+ that it currently is. It guards against future save worsening powers.

The orb needs its penalty reduced to 1/2 WIS mod. Another possible fix is to only apply the penalty on the first save.

The problem is that it becomes too hard for a solo elite to save against effects at extremely high levels vs an optimised orb wizard.

Your problem worsens the power for all wizards regardless of how well built they are. It's already not that great if you're not an optimized high-level wizard. This makes it an inferior choice unless you optimize. Personally I think that's bad design. I would probably lean towards making it a significant penalty (changing saves vs the power to require a 14+ or 15+, equivalent to a -4 or -5) and have it last for wis modifier in rounds. That way wisdom is still important, but the investment has diminishing returns. Alternately you change the power so that once per encounter the wizard can apply his wisdom modifier as a penalty (or using the new mechanics, set the save to require a 10+wis mod or more) to an opponents save after the foe rolls the save. That means that it will only change one save, but it can't be wasted on a save that it has no effect on.

Did you even SEE the math on it? Sure Strike and Careful Attack are INFERIOR to BASIC ATTACKS.

No, this does NOT fix it. AT ALL. I'm not sure it's 100% fixable, but upgrading from +2 to +4 would at least be good damage control.

It's still worse than a basic attack if you do that. Only now you can't use it when you make basic attacks...

If a fighter can use SS/CA as a basic attack, he can use that +2 to help lock down a monster that tries to move past him - remember, a fighter's OAs effectively get an extra chunk of "on hit:" text. Additionally it will benefit from bracers of mighty striking.

For a ranger, he gets better OAs vs minions, and may see some benefit if he gets a basic attack from something.