Looking for a few suggestions for this new group

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Good evening!

I will start DMing to a group  of friends and I would like some advice on builds. We have been working of the backgrounds and the campaign, and I will propose the character sheets (or will approve theirs).

I personally enjoy well rounded characters, consistent and "classic". We all have a reasonable D&D experience, but none of us are optimizers and character engineers (no offense, hehehe). We will start at 1st level.

I would love to get ideas for builds, paragon paths, powers, feats, gear. We are not looking for uber-optimized, just funcional and I don't want to accidentally trap my players (like giving to one of them a hammer with low constitution etc.).

Let me talk a little bit about how the party will look like:


- Dragonborn warlord: probably inspiring, but we are not shure yet. He will be someone involved in the talking, with a high probability of becoming an unofficial party leader. The player is very experienced and I am confident he will be happy to fullfill these roles.

- Human rogue: she will be an educated woman, not a street scum. She will most likely be an agent of some kind, similar to a fantasy medieval police force. She will start the campaign with a mission. I am seriously considering her to be artfull dodger.
Side note: usually the rogue's player is a very straightforward person, and tends fo forget special actions (interrupts, reactions etc.), so the build cannot be complicated to play.

- Human paladin: Most certaily a strenght-based paladin (maybe balanced, but probably not). Knowing the player I believe he will be happy with "striker-level" of damage, so I was considering giving him a big weapon.
The player is on the "Stark-mode" (from Winterfell, not from Marvel), he loves Eddard Stark (don't we all?), so I was trying to imagine a young Eddard Stark, and I found photos of Boromir, hehehehe.

- Eladrin Wizard: the player is a very easy-going person, very fun to play with. She just LOVES to teleport around. I am thinking about the huge Int+Dex that she can have, qualifying for the wand/weapliment and dual implement thing, but I admit I am really confused about how to build on this concept (weapliments confuses me, help...). The other detail is, as much as she is a dice-roller and loves to spread damage, I believe she is on a control wizard mood.

- Dwarf Ranger [Crossbow]: Another classic concept, a little difficult to pull in the 4 edition, so suggestions will be welcome. I am seriosly considering using hunter style.

Any inputs will be welcome.

Regards!




Hey !

Ok let's go over the party:

The Warlord:  It's great that you have an experienced player in the leader seat.  That way your other players can do silly things and he can pull them out of the fire if needed.  Inspiring warlords also get bonuses on specific powers (like powerful warning, the level 1 encounter power which I recommend he takes either way) which have defensive boons.  So it seems like all is well here.

Rogue:  If the player is not wanting a complicated character, I would recommend you have her play a thief instead of a rogue.  It's simpler to use and would allow her to get comfortable playing.  Maybe allow her to switch to a full rogue later on once she feels she can handle the immediates and other actions.  Thief class is still quite decent for a non-op game and would probably suit this player better.

Paladin:  "Striker Level" damage on an unoptimized paladin is simply not possible.  What he can do though is be a very good defender which is what the paladin class is designed to be.  He can go sword and board or a big two hander as he wishes since he's in plate anyway.  This being said, if he wants a tanky striker character with a big 2 handed weapon, the Fighter class is the way to go.  With a fighter he could very well meet the "Striker Level" damage he wants while still being a very good defender.  If he wants the holy warrior approach he can refluff or multi class into paladin or any of the other divine classes.

Wizard: If the player wants to focus on teleportation there's no other class that comes to my mind other than the Warlock.  Still being an Arcane spellcaster if that matters, the Warlock is able to teleport basically at will, teleport enemies and allies AND still do very decent damage.  Nothing like teleporting a monster into the air and watching it drop like a sack of rocks !  If she wants she can even MC wizard and get access to all the feats and goodies of the wizard.  The Warlock is also capable of decent blasts and bursts.


Ranger:  Switching from crossbow to Bow would help on feat economy and more.  However if the player prefers a crossbow it's playable.  Some feats will have to go towards being able to reload the crossbow with bolts as a free action instead of a minor for example.  Dwarf is also not the best race but it's not a bad one for the kind of abilities it grants.  The player just won't have much feat support when it comes to being a crossbow using ranger.

And lastly, for more advise than I could possibly ever give.  Please consult the handbooks written at the following link.  There's one for every class so feel free to browse !

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Just scroll down to the handbook you want to peruse.

"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Wanting to optimize teleporting in a "real" group is Swordmage territory. Swordmage|Warlock being the ideal. Or be a Bard Taxi, but then you have two leaders.
I think it's good start!

as a DM I would give them flexibility for altering their characters mid-level or mid game since they are more than likely to screw up or regret thier feat and power choices.

cut them some slack 

Please be nice.

I really hate to see name-calling and rudeness on these forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/14.jpg)

 

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/class/images/banners/Paladin.jpg"/><br/><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/" target="_blank">D&D Home Page</a> - <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/class/index.asp" target="_blank">What Class Are You?</a> - <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/insider/characterbuilder" target="_blank">Build A Character</a> - <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/database.aspx?searchterm=Paladin" target="_blank">D&amp;D Compendium</a></p>

Wanting to optimize teleporting in a "real" group is Swordmage territory. Swordmage|Warlock being the ideal. Or be a Bard Taxi, but then you have two leaders.



Agreed !  But the OP says he doesn't want uber optimized and instead "functional" so I went with another option.  Especially since there's already what seems to be a defender oriented player.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Ugh Inspiring? Blech.
10/10 Would Flame Again: An Elite Paladin|Warlock The Elemental Man (or Woman): A Genasi Handbook The Warlord, Or How to Wield a Barbarian One-Handed The Bookish Barbarian Fardiz: RAI is fairly clear, but RAZ is different That's right. Rules According to Zelink!
Wanting to optimize teleporting in a "real" group is Swordmage territory. Swordmage|Warlock being the ideal. Or be a Bard Taxi, but then you have two leaders.



Agreed !  But the OP says he doesn't want uber optimized and instead "functional" so I went with another option.  Especially since there's already what seems to be a defender oriented player.

Swordmage|Warlock is Control+Damage though. Eladrin isn't even a bad race for the Int/Cha variant, which isn't as strong anyway, so would fit in nicely.

@OP: FWIW I agree with Noc's suggestion of a Thief instead of a Rogue, and Fighter instead of Paladin. I'd change the Warlord to a Bravura (especially if you end up with a Thief, a Fighter, and a Swordmage|Warlock). Ranger could benefit from a race change, but otherwise...
Thanks for this initial input.

I know this is an optimization board, but seemed the best place to discuss builds, even not optimal ones.

I will take a closer look at the swordmage idea... it is an arcane character, filling the "role", and can be build to look like the old fighter/mage. Could work. If I do that, knowing my players, I could create a "Winterfell-style barbarian" for the paladin guy.

If possible, I would love to get more complete answers, pointing the strenghts and weaknesses of these builds (yes, I think they must have weak spots, like the most enjoyable fiction characters).


 
The weak spot of a build is generally everything that's not its focus. That's the point of having character roles, so that not everyone can do everything.

Your weak spot right now is that you're combining demandingness with passive-aggressively insulting the people who might help you. Not gonna end well.
Thanks for this initial input.

I know this is an optimization board, but seemed the best place to discuss builds, even not optimal ones.

I will take a closer look at the swordmage idea... it is an arcane character, filling the "role", and can be build to look like the old fighter/mage. Could work. If I do that, knowing my players, I could create a "Winterfell-style barbarian" for the paladin guy.

If possible, I would love to get more complete answers, pointing the strenghts and weaknesses of these builds (yes, I think they must have weak spots, like the most enjoyable fiction characters).


 



I would really recommend that you and your players read the handbooks.  They are there to provide the information you're looking for after all.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

The weak spot of a build is generally everything that's not its focus. That's the point of having character roles, so that not everyone can do everything.

Your weak spot right now is that you're combining demandingness with passive-aggressively insulting the people who might help you. Not gonna end well.



Fully agree with the first paragraph, but you lost me in the "passive-aggressively insulting" thing - really it's not my intention.

I see people creating various builds, so I just thought some of these sharp minds would enjoy helping here with the new group. If thats being "demanding", jeez. Sorry to bother you.

Thanks for this initial input.

I know this is an optimization board, but seemed the best place to discuss builds, even not optimal ones.

I will take a closer look at the swordmage idea... it is an arcane character, filling the "role", and can be build to look like the old fighter/mage. Could work. If I do that, knowing my players, I could create a "Winterfell-style barbarian" for the paladin guy.

If possible, I would love to get more complete answers, pointing the strenghts and weaknesses of these builds (yes, I think they must have weak spots, like the most enjoyable fiction characters).


 



I would really recommend that you and your players read the handbooks.  They are there to provide the information you're looking for after all.



Thank you. I have been doing that. Actually I can tell that you and some others were really trying to help, working with the concepts of our group - really appreciated.

Peace, fellows.
The weak spot of a build is generally everything that's not its focus. That's the point of having character roles, so that not everyone can do everything.

Your weak spot right now is that you're combining demandingness with passive-aggressively insulting the people who might help you. Not gonna end well.



Fully agree with the first paragraph, but you lost me in the "passive-aggressively insulting" thing - really it's not my intention.

I see people creating various builds, so I just thought some of these sharp minds would enjoy helping here with the new group. If thats being "demanding", jeez. Sorry to bother you.

Thanks for this initial input.

I know this is an optimization board, but seemed the best place to discuss builds, even not optimal ones.

I will take a closer look at the swordmage idea... it is an arcane character, filling the "role", and can be build to look like the old fighter/mage. Could work. If I do that, knowing my players, I could create a "Winterfell-style barbarian" for the paladin guy.

If possible, I would love to get more complete answers, pointing the strenghts and weaknesses of these builds (yes, I think they must have weak spots, like the most enjoyable fiction characters).


 



I would really recommend that you and your players read the handbooks.  They are there to provide the information you're looking for after all.



Thank you. I have been doing that. Actually I can tell that you and some others were really trying to help, working with the concepts of our group - really appreciated.

Peace, fellows.



If you want to present us with actual character sheets for all 5 players we could look into giving you more options and insight.  But the basics are all in the handbooks.  I know you said that you are reading them, but are your players ?
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Since you were confused about what Alraune was talking about, it's this:


If possible, I would love to get more complete answers, pointing the strenghts and weaknesses of these builds (yes, I think they must have weak spots, like the most enjoyable fiction characters).


We aren't here to build the characters for you, we provide feedback on your builds or suggestions for existing builds; so Noctaem + Alcestis replies were pretty much spot on for what you asked for; your post suggests that you think their posts weren't good enough for what you want and that what you want is for us to detail a character concept for you, which you will then scrutinize to ensure it's "weak enough". That's how it reads, anyway.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Yep. You'd already been given a generous amount of advice, then came back saying it was a "good start", asking for more details on EVERYTHING rather than anything in particular, and snidely namechecking anti-optimization rhetoric. Not a good way to win friends.
you lost me in the "passive-aggressively insulting" thing - really it's not my intention.

I see people creating various builds, so I just thought some of these sharp minds would enjoy helping here with the new group. If thats being "demanding", jeez. Sorry to bother you.



Good Grief

Considering you came in here with little more than character concepts I thought you got pretty good responses. If you want more specificity it needs to begin with you, get further along in the character building and it will be easier for people here to fill in the blanks. Right now there is a whole lot of blank.
It's just a lot of work to scrutinize five builds, as Noctaem shows in his initial post. I have to second the folks the recommend the handbooks - even if you handed your players a perfect build served piping hot from CharOp, they wouldn't really know how to play it. You have to get a feel for all the pieces and how they work together.

Once you get there, you can post the initial build and get some feedback on it.
The weak spot of a build is generally everything that's not its focus. That's the point of having character roles, so that not everyone can do everything.

Your weak spot right now is that you're combining demandingness with passive-aggressively insulting the people who might help you. Not gonna end well.



Fully agree with the first paragraph, but you lost me in the "passive-aggressively insulting" thing - really it's not my intention.

I see people creating various builds, so I just thought some of these sharp minds would enjoy helping here with the new group. If thats being "demanding", jeez. Sorry to bother you.

Thanks for this initial input.

I know this is an optimization board, but seemed the best place to discuss builds, even not optimal ones.

I will take a closer look at the swordmage idea... it is an arcane character, filling the "role", and can be build to look like the old fighter/mage. Could work. If I do that, knowing my players, I could create a "Winterfell-style barbarian" for the paladin guy.

If possible, I would love to get more complete answers, pointing the strenghts and weaknesses of these builds (yes, I think they must have weak spots, like the most enjoyable fiction characters).


 



I would really recommend that you and your players read the handbooks.  They are there to provide the information you're looking for after all.



Thank you. I have been doing that. Actually I can tell that you and some others were really trying to help, working with the concepts of our group - really appreciated.

Peace, fellows.



If you want to present us with actual character sheets for all 5 players we could look into giving you more options and insight.  But the basics are all in the handbooks.  I know you said that you are reading them, but are your players ?




Hummm, good catch Noctaem. I have been reading a lot, but they haven't.

My main concern is the dwaven ranger using the crossbow (I believe it's a really unusual build and I don't see much about this kind of guy on the handbooks). I just don't want to accidentaly trap him, and I also don't feel like I should suggest him to change weapons or the race.

archive.4plebs.org/foolfuuka/boards/tg/i...
 

Show
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======

level 1 Dwarf, Ranger Build: Archer Ranger

Fighting Style Option: Hunter Fighting Style Ranger Option: Prime Shot

FINAL ABILITY SCORES STR 10, CON 13, DEX 18, INT 10, WIS 16, CHA 8

STARTING ABILITY SCORES STR 10, CON 11, DEX 18, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 8

AC: 16 Fort: 12 Ref: 15 Will: 13 HP: 25 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +5, Dungeoneering +10, Nature +8, Perception +8, Stealth +9

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +4, Arcana +0, Bluff –1, Diplomacy –1, Endurance +3, Heal +3, History +0, Insight +3, Intimidate –1, Religion +0, Streetwise –1, Thievery +4

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack Dwarf Racial Power: Dwarven Resilience Hunter's Quarry Power: Hunter's Quarry Ranger Attack 1: Fading Strike Ranger Attack 1: Twin Strike Ranger Attack 1: Hindering Shot Ranger Attack 1: Skirmishing Stance

FEATS
Quick Draw Level 1: Weapon Proficiency (Superior crossbow)

ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit Longbow Repeating crossbow Superior crossbow x1 Leather Armor x1

====== End ======


I still have doubts about the investment in con, that can open good armor options for him and the Steady Shooter feat. Wisdom seems aways interesting for any explorer and specially for this ranger.

Good job with the first build, however, it's a jumbled mess !  good job on using the sblock but I think somehow the post got all scrambled and now it's really hard to make it out.  Could you fix that for us ?

EDIT: TY 
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Good job with the first build, however, it's a jumbled mess !  good job on using the sblock but I think somehow the post got all scrambled and now it's really hard to make it out.  Could you fix that for us ?

EDIT: TY 



I am trying to fix it... Cry
Fixed.

You should be an Archer Ranger if you're doing to do this. By Paragon his accuracy will be noticeably hurting due to race choice and the Battlefield Archer PP will help considerably.

Show
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======

level 1 Dwarf, Ranger
Build: Archer Ranger
Fighting Style Option: Hunter Fighting Style Ranger
Option: Prime Shot

FINAL ABILITY SCORES STR 10, CON 13, DEX 18, INT 10, WIS 16, CHA 8

STARTING ABILITY SCORES STR 10, CON 11, DEX 18, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 8

AC: 16 Fort: 12 Ref: 15 Will: 13 HP: 25 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 6

TRAINED SKILLS
Athletics +5, Dungeoneering +10, Nature +8, Perception +8, Stealth +9

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +4, Arcana +0, Bluff –1, Diplomacy –1, Endurance +3, Heal +3, History +0, Insight +3, Intimidate –1, Religion +0, Streetwise –1, Thievery +4

POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Dwarf Racial Power: Dwarven Resilience
Hunter's Quarry Power: Hunter's Quarry
Ranger Attack 1: Fading Strike
Ranger Attack 1: Twin Strike
Ranger Attack 1: Hindering Shot
 Ranger Attack 1: Skirmishing Stance

FEATS
Quick Draw
Level 1: Weapon Proficiency (Superior crossbow)

ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit Longbow
Repeating crossbow
Superior crossbow x1
Leather Armor x1

====== End ======
ok let's see here.

The fighting style is good for the build if you stick with the crossbow.  However Archer Style opens up a very interesting Paragon Path called Battlefield Archer which is one of the best ones hands down.  Anyway Hunter Style is still good for this build.

For your At-Wills, twin-strike is the golden choice.  The other choice is up to the user.  Nimble Strike is recommended for the mobility it affords.  Fading Strike is not considered a very good pick simply because the amount of opportunity attacks that you will actually get during heroic tier alone..  well let's just say it's not anything you should base your decision on.  Hunter's Teamwork if the party will focus fire targets and you have 2 melee PC's could pay off a lot more often.  So my suggestions here would be Nimble Strike or Hunter's Teamwork as your secondary at-will.

For your encounter power, hindering shot is kind of a meh power.  Rangers like multiple attacks in one power (think twin-strike).  So choices here are Two-Fanged Strike, Fox's Cunning and say Evasive Strike for a nice mobility + attack power.  I put them in order of awesome according to me.  Big damage via Two-Fanged Strike.  An attack outside of your turn in Fox's Cunning.  A mobility + attack power in Evasive Strike.

Your Daily is decent.  Not amazing, but not bad either.  Getting a defensive boost and a bonus to damage on a condition that is easy to meet for a ranged attack is not bad.  However there's some other powers I would recommend here instead if you wish.  Sure Shot, Hunt's End, Hunter's Bear Trap and the option your took Skirmishing Stance.  I think the most popular one is Sure Shot if memory serves.


That's pretty much all I can really say without making more drastic changes to the build.  Hope this helps.
 
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

There's not really any wrong choices in that build.

In most situations, the +4AC vs OAs from ranged attacks (from hunter style) is strictly superior to defensive mobility (from archer style), even if it's less versatile. And Quick Draw is a free bonus of minor value. Battlefield Archer is one of the most powerful, but also one of the most fun Paragon Paths in the game. If your player wants to strive towards it, it's worth using archer style. If he prefers another Paragon Path, Hunter is fine.

Dwarves are one of the best-supported races in 4e. A ranged-ranger is a little weird, and the race offers no striking support for such a build, but in a low-op game, racial striking feat support isn't a deal breaker, and dwarves survivability can help out with the drawn out 5+ round combats typically found in low-op games. That said, there's a level 2 ranger utility (Invigorating Stride) that allows use of your second wind as part of a move action, which largely negates the benefit of the dwarven racial power. Any dex bonus race is going to give him +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 Reflex, +1 Init. Dex is kind of awesome.

You have Twin Strike. His other at-will should be used about once per tier, so I really can't even pretend to care what it is. Twin Strike is always the better option, when it is an option, so pick between two uncommon scenarios: you're prone behind a hard corner and unable to attack at all without mobility baked into your attack power (Nimble Strike), or you got caught in melee, took hunter style, and someone provoked an OA from you (Fading Strike). Like I said, these things should happen approximately once a tier.

I agree with two-fanged strike being the best level 1 encounter. The others will quickly end up underperforming compared to twin strike, but if he finds their other effects more interesting, go for it, he won't wind up worse than any other low-op striker.

Crossbows are pretty painful unless you immediately take the speed loader feat. An optimized archer ranger takes a staggering amount of feats to build, but if you're not at all concerned about losing 5 damage/shot in paragon, they're absolutely fine.

Of course, you could just hand him a Hunter (essentials subclass, not style). Nowhere close to optimal, but they're a lot of fun and actually fairly effective at low levels, though playing it intelligently is pretty complex compared to twin strike spamming.
Thank you guys!

My previous choice for Fading Strike was just to give him a solid melee attack based on Dex without spending a feat, and Hindering Shot was to give him a "slow", just to make things more interesting. But you 2 are 100% right about Two-Fanged Strike. I agree that with twin strike awesomess the second at-will should be for something unusual.

I still feel that the daily stance will be interesting to see in play, inducing him to be mobile and creative (and maybe make use of acrobatics and athletics more often). My other group just love Hunter's Bear Trap (saved our **** many times, its great specially when you don't want to let some villain escape or stop that big ogre from joing the battle for a couple of rounds), but in our other game the ranger is the "Bear Trap Battle Archer", so I feel like we should avoid the same PP again.

So it all comes down to discuss the PP path ideas with the player.

About constitution... should we keep 13, so it gets to 15 for Steady Shooter? Seems fitting for the crossbow dwarf. Would be interesting to see the dwarf choosing between move and standing still on a round by round basis?Laughing
About constitution... should we keep 13, so it gets to 15 for Steady Shooter? Seems fitting for the crossbow dwarf. Would be interesting to see the dwarf choosing between move and standing still on a round by round basis?


Steady Shot is a great feat if you can afford it, and a dwarven crossbowman is one of the few who easily can. It has less narrative interraction than you're thinking it does, though: the wording gives them full ability to both attack and move every round, they just have to attack first and move afterwards to get the bonus every time.
About constitution... should we keep 13, so it gets to 15 for Steady Shooter? Seems fitting for the crossbow dwarf. Would be interesting to see the dwarf choosing between move and standing still on a round by round basis?


Steady Shot is a great feat if you can afford it, and a dwarven crossbowman is one of the few who easily can. It has less narrative interraction than you're thinking it does, though: the wording gives them full ability to both attack and move every round, they just have to attack first and move afterwards to get the bonus every time.



Thank you!
ok let's see here.

The fighting style is good for the build if you stick with the crossbow.  However Archer Style opens up a very interesting Paragon Path called Battlefield Archer which is one of the best ones hands down.  Anyway Hunter Style is still good for this build.

For your At-Wills, twin-strike is the golden choice.  The other choice is up to the user.  Nimble Strike is recommended for the mobility it affords.  Fading Strike is not considered a very good pick simply because the amount of opportunity attacks that you will actually get during heroic tier alone..  well let's just say it's not anything you should base your decision on.  Hunter's Teamwork if the party will focus fire targets and you have 2 melee PC's could pay off a lot more often.  So my suggestions here would be Nimble Strike or Hunter's Teamwork as your secondary at-will.

For your encounter power, hindering shot is kind of a meh power.  Rangers like multiple attacks in one power (think twin-strike).  So choices here are Two-Fanged Strike, Fox's Cunning and say Evasive Strike for a nice mobility + attack power.  I put them in order of awesome according to me.  Big damage via Two-Fanged Strike.  An attack outside of your turn in Fox's Cunning.  A mobility + attack power in Evasive Strike.

Your Daily is decent.  Not amazing, but not bad either.  Getting a defensive boost and a bonus to damage on a condition that is easy to meet for a ranged attack is not bad.  However there's some other powers I would recommend here instead if you wish.  Sure Shot, Hunt's End, Hunter's Bear Trap and the option your took Skirmishing Stance.  I think the most popular one is Sure Shot if memory serves.


That's pretty much all I can really say without making more drastic changes to the build.  Hope this helps.
 


I think Shoot to Thrill has it, and the rerolls are solid enough early.  If you squint your eyes just right when you read it, Skirmishing Stance is superior (yeah, you can get that extra 1d8 every turn.  Thanks Erachima!)

Cry Havoc!  And let slip the hogs of war!

Actually if you work off the RAW of Skirmishing Stance, it's more like 14d8 per round and Throw and Stab beats Twin Strike for many many levels.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
can you elaborate on that Zathris ?  The part about 14d8 per round I mean.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

can you elaborate on that Zathris ?  The part about 14d8 per round I mean.

"Whenever you move more than 4 squares away from where you started your turn." I am four squares away. I move another square away. +1d8. I move another square away. +1d8. I move another square away. +1d8. Throw and Stab having baked in movement essentially allows for double move. It wouldn't be 14 though. At speed 6 you need to move four away first, so +2d8 from your move action, then +6d8 from the second move from T&S. That is 8d8. Realistically though wherever you started your turn is probably where the monsters are, so you'd have to move back to near where you were and those wouldn't count because not 4 squares.... still pretty powerful for a level 1 daily, by RAW.
interesting..  I thought that it couldn't stack with itself since the +1d8 is coming from the same game element.  So it wouldn't stack with itself, square to square, to give the 8d8 or whatever.  I see why the RAW would work that way though.  Well if your DM allows for the RAW reading, take it and don't look back !
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

can you elaborate on that Zathris ?  The part about 14d8 per round I mean.

"Whenever you move more than 4 squares away from where you started your turn." I am four squares away. I move another square away. +1d8.



Do you have a rules citation to support this?
"Until the stance ends, whenever you move at least 4 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain a +2 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the start of your next turn, and your next attack before the end of your next turn deals 1d8 extra damage."

Ye, i'm curious, as well. This should stack if you got separate instances of movement like via Stab and Throw, Planestrider Boots, Boots of Adept Charging, etc. But simply entering another square within the same single move action shouldn't trigger it multiple times?!
Or is it the word "whenever" that seals the deal here? Should be "if" instead then.
Hey for all I know the movement rules allow that as a loophole by RAW, but it's late and I don't have the RC on hand.
interesting..  I thought that it couldn't stack with itself since the +1d8 is coming from the same game element.  So it wouldn't stack with itself, square to square, to give the 8d8 or whatever.  I see why the RAW would work that way though.  Well if your DM allows for the RAW reading, take it and don't look back !

That rules only applies to untyped bonuses. This is neither untyped, nor a bonus.

Defintion of Move: Leave one square to enter another.

"Until the stance ends, whenever you leave one square to enter another [and that square is] at least 4 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain a +2 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the start of your next turn, and your next attack before the end of your next turn deals 1d8 extra damage."

You're literally doing exactly what the power says if you keep adding the d8s, so long as each square is still meeting the requirement. It'd trigger off of forced movement even, doesn't say the movement has to be during your turn. It isn't a loophole, it is just a power written by someone who didn't understand the rules. The wording that would make the fairly obvious RAI the RAW is something like "The first time each round you move more than four squares away from where you started your turn..." etc
Thanks for the explanation on that !  Very interesting the amount of things like this that just seem to go under the radar  Unless they actually meant for it to work this way and allow a ranger to have a stance for an extra like 8d8 per turn lol..
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

interesting..  I thought that it couldn't stack with itself since the +1d8 is coming from the same game element.  So it wouldn't stack with itself, square to square, to give the 8d8 or whatever.  I see why the RAW would work that way though.  Well if your DM allows for the RAW reading, take it and don't look back !

That rules only applies to untyped bonuses. This is neither untyped, nor a bonus.

Defintion of Move: Leave one square to enter another.

"Until the stance ends, whenever you leave one square to enter another [and that square is] at least 4 squares away from where you started your turn, you gain a +2 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the start of your next turn, and your next attack before the end of your next turn deals 1d8 extra damage."

You're literally doing exactly what the power says if you keep adding the d8s, so long as each square is still meeting the requirement. It'd trigger off of forced movement even, doesn't say the movement has to be during your turn. It isn't a loophole, it is just a power written by someone who didn't understand the rules. The wording that would make the fairly obvious RAI the RAW is something like "The first time each round you move more than four squares away from where you started your turn..." etc



Actually, I think the RAI is (obviously) different, namely that it whenever you "move at least four squares, each of which further away from where you started your turn".
Your reading (which admittedly seems correct by RAW) only works because dou can split "move four squares away" up and do the above substitution, but you can't do that with "move four squares".

No. The RAI is if you ever move more than four squares away from where you started your turn, you get the AC/Ref bonus and the +1d8 to your next attack. Moving four squares isn't important, it moving four+ squares away. If you do that as three squares on your move action plus two on your standard, fine. If you moved a hundred squares but it was 3 forward, 3 back, ad infinitum, you've never get the perk Probably anyway, the thing about CharOp is we don't really deal in RAI, because it can be ambiguous. RAW, regardless of where it causes things to rest on the power curve, isn't ambiguous.
Case in point: the comma before the "and" makes everything that follows an indepenent clause, which suggests that the only benefit from moving is the defensive bonus and that you only get the damage bonus to the first attack after you activate the stance.  This says more about the poor editing at WotC than anything else, but further illustrates how screwy the wording of some powers can be.
Seeing how Alcestis' response doesn't really adress my point, I'l simply assume that he can be wrong about the english language when it comes to the rules as well.
The movement aspect of this power is why we have contract lawyers.  One could easily argue that "away" is an adverb modifying "move," but "4 or more squares" is an adverbial phrase, also modifying "move."  For a move to trigger the benefit of the power, it must meet both these conditions.  In this reading, the trigger is binary, not cumulative.  A move of 4, 5, 6, or more will have the same effect.
Seeing how Alcestis' response doesn't really adress my point, I'l simply assume that he can be wrong about the english language when it comes to the rules as well.

Your point was based on an incorrent quoting, or an inaccurate rephrasing, of text. "Whenever you move at least 4 squares away..." can't be split up, it is all one part.

@Spartan: Um, even if you give the trigger two conditions, if you satisify both conditions each time, it is still cumulative. You ver much need a "First time" or "once per round" "once per turn" etc., in 4e, if you want something to happen a limited number of times.