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

[Ahglock]

I'd say any power where it is better at a role other than your own. A wizard should never out striker a striker, it may be a secondary role but that means at best he comes in second compared to the strikers. And the striker should not need a specific build in order to beat out the wizard. An expected use of a core power sure, a ranger can be assumed to always have a marked target. But he shouldn't have to be a specific paragon path using a specific feature of that class etc.

Now in some cases this is because the striker powers of that level need a boost and the wizard power is fine.

 

[Baumi]

Not a power but an effect that many powers use: Slow! It still needs to be clarified if the enemy can only move 2 Squares the whole round or if the speed is reduced to 2 (which would allow run/charage, etc.).

There were different answers from the Help-Line and while I think that it means only your speed is set to 2, I think it was intended to "max move per round" because it would otherwise be VERY weak.

 

[eamon]

Not a power but an effect that many powers use: Slow! It still needs to be clarified if the enemy can only move 2 Squares the whole round or if the speed is reduced to 2 (which would allow run/charage, etc.).

There were different answers from the Help-Line and while I think that it means only your speed is set to 2, I think it was intended to "max move per round" because it would otherwise be VERY weak.

The way I understand it, there's no doubt that slow simply sets your speed to 2. I don't really see the relevance of a status being "weak", and in any case, only being allowed to move 2 squares seriously hampers your ability to flank or avoid OA's and thus makes it tactically powerful.

Barring balance problems I don't perceive, there's no trouble with the slow condition as is.

 

[Pickles JG]

I'd say any power where it is better at a role other than your own. A wizard should never out striker a striker, it may be a secondary role but that means at best he comes in second compared to the strikers. And the striker should not need a specific build in order to beat out the wizard. An expected use of a core power sure, a ranger can be assumed to always have a marked target. But he shouldn't have to be a specific paragon path using a specific feature of that class etc.

Now in some cases this is because the striker powers of that level need a boost and the wizard power is fine.

I disagree with this - it's fine for a class to have one or two powers that are better than some of the powers a more dedicated class has. It's not if they have loads of course & at wills would be an issue but a daily is not really.

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.

Me too - also the Cleric channel divinity feat powers have the same issue. Kord's needs you to crit in melee to use it . I think a lot of people are not aware of the isssue (like the designers) but I would be a bit nervous using one at eg an RPGA thing.

 

[Reaper Steve]

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?

Wow.
That really does need to be fixed to ranged 'attack' instead of ranged power.
As it stands, things like the Cleric's Divine Aid and Sanctuary and the Warlord's Crescendo of Violence, Knight's Move, and Shake it Off (to just name some Lvl 2 Utilities) would all provoke an OA.

I really don't believe that is the intent. If it is, these characters with these powers would be loathe to end their turns adjacent to enemies, or even be in a position that an enemy could move adjacent to them. Seeing that Clerics and Warlords are leaders, I expect them to suppliment the defenders on the front line and their powers should still be useful when doing so.

 

[eamon]

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.

This is a flawed comparions. Cleave does not autokill minions, it autokills minions if you hit, and additionally, it's only useful if there are two creatures adjacent to you. But there aren't always two creatures adjacent, so what's the point? If you're in a situation which favor's cleave, then it's unsurprising that sure strike isn't attractive. If, however, you're only adjacent to one minion, then cleave is clearly worse. Even if you're adjacent to two minions, you might still be better off killing one reasonably certainly rather that both with a slightly lower probability if the minions have nasty powers based on combat advantage (and avoiding being flanked is thus important).

When is sure strike good? When you want to be sure to, well, strike. If you need to stop movement on an OA (with heavy blade opportunity), or if you're fighting a minion, then the damage difference just isn't important, but hitting is. In combination with other powers, hitting sometimes also becomes more important than a bit of extra damage. It's also important not to overstate the damage difference between sure strike and other options - it's there, but it's not terribly large, esp. if you're wielding a relatively damaging weapon and/or have abilities which can improve your damage in other ways. If you have scimitar dance or hammer rhythm, reaping strike becomes less attracive anyhow; cleave is situational, and tide of iron requires a shield (and is only interesting when pushing an enemy is a good thing).

I don't think sure strike is brilliant, but for my human sword-n-board fighter (which has three at-wills) I prefer it over reaping strike. Is it situational? very. But reaping strike is even more situational; almost always cleave or tide of iron are more attractive, and even when it's the best option, it's only slightly better than a basic attack for a one-handed weapon wielder.

Careful attack is worthless; but sure strike is merely situational and not very good.