PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Upgrading PHB fighters



Mauril Everleaf
2009-03-19, 05:23 PM
Since Martial power came out, the class feature Weapon Talent has seemed pretty meh compared to Battlerager Vigor and Tempest Technique. Would it be reasonable to make Weapon Talent a +1 to attack and damage? I know that attack bonuses are relatively rare, but this class feature seems kinda bland and uninteresting compared to the two new ones.

Satyr
2009-03-19, 05:38 PM
I would just increase the bonus by tier.

TheOOB
2009-03-19, 06:03 PM
The one and two handed weapon talents are still very good. Battlerager vigor gives you a decent, but not overpowered bonus when using specific powers(powers that are not always the best, that require a high con to be good which is a waste since str is allready used for fort, and requires a skill). It also gives you a decent, but minor bonus to damage if you use sub par armor.

Tempest technique gives you a worse version of one-handed weapon technique(one that works with lower damage weapons), a feat which would be superceeded by shields if you were not TWF, and a minor bonus to damage if you use sub par armor(it is slightly better the BRV in this front because tempest builds are dex mongers, which works well with light armor).

They are both good class features, but for specific builds. If you are not going TWF for invigorating on your fighter, then weapon talent is a better choice.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-19, 06:53 PM
Since Martial power came out, the class feature Weapon Talent has seemed pretty meh compared to Battlerager Vigor and Tempest Technique.

Actually, weapon talent is still a very good (and elegantly simple) ability. I would think that the actual issue is that battlerager vigor is overpowerd.

Izmir Stinger
2009-03-20, 01:04 PM
I'm playing a BRV fighter in the heroic tier, and I don't think they are OP. Artillery that targets Reflex absolutely wreck me. Powers that target will are pretty strong, too, though my above average Wisdom helps with that. The only way to survive their onslaught is to get temp HP from every single attack that hits. That means that I can't just rely on crushing surge, I have to take invigorating encounter and daily powers as well, and they suck compared to their non-invigorating counterparts. Quite a few of the invigorating encounter powers don't even do weapon damage - just CON bonus if you have an axe, hammer or mace (read: low accuracy weapons). The only real thing they have going for them is that a few of them target NADs so I can actually hit with them.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing my BRV fighter, but what I really enjoy is the frenzied fight for survival. Trying to bash my way through the minions and soldiers (my DM prefers soldiers over brutes, because our party primarily targets AC) trying to keep my adrenaline surge going long enough to get to the artillery and controllers before they kill me. I made one really poor choice for a feat: Dwarf Stoneblood. I figured that a little extra tmp HP from melee attacks would help carry me through the fight, but I almost never got it. Melee guys only attacked me when I had lots of tmp HP, and the BRV tmp HP don't stack. This is a common error that leads many people to think BRV fighters are OP; your BRV tmp HP are the ones you get from being hit by melee and close attacks and they DO NOT STACK. Dwarf Stoneblood does not increase the tmp HP from invigorating powers. The melee monsters could burn through my tmp HP and set me up for a devastating attack from a ranged monster (which is practically a guaranteed hit if it targets REF) who would frequently delay their initiative for just this opportunity. They would attack the warlord or ranger when I had no tmp HP even if marked because before I picked up devoted challenge (retrained Stoneblood) my combat challenge wasn't very dangerous.

I'm still really strong vs. brutes, but soldiers combined with reflex targeting artillery can be really dangerous for me. I think that allot of the people complaining about BRV are either just theorycrafting (it looks better on paper than it really is) or misunderstand the tmp HP staking rules and some of the BRV specific feats, or both.

Asbestos
2009-03-20, 02:01 PM
Agreeing with Izmir, BRV fighters are theoretically overpowered, but not in practice. People see Dwarf Stoneblood and think 'Ooh, I can essentially have a DR or 7 at first level' and then get crushed by ranged attacks or realize that they can't hit for beans compared to other fighters, getting their stickiness replaced with sponginess. Also, they do forget that the BRV hp does not stack, which actually makes Dragonborn pretty attractive BRV fighters (even though they have that worthless CHA bonus) because their racial feat gives them a bonus to hp gained from invigorating powers.

Izmir Stinger
2009-03-20, 02:44 PM
Agreeing with Izmir, BRV fighters are theoretically overpowered, but not in practice. People see Dwarf Stoneblood and think 'Ooh, I can essentially have a DR or 7 at first level' and then get crushed by ranged attacks or realize that they can't hit for beans compared to other fighters, getting their stickiness replaced with sponginess. Also, they do forget that the BRV hp does not stack, which actually makes Dragonborn pretty attractive BRV fighters (even though they have that worthless CHA bonus) because their racial feat gives them a bonus to hp gained from invigorating powers.

There was thread over on the WotC forums where the OP said she saw a Dwarf BRV fighter (with Stoneblood) in a game store who had 60 some odd tmp HP because they were stacking invigorating and Battlerager tmp HP. I have never had anywhere near that many. More often than not I get a few, then loose them (along with some real HP) then get a few more, then loose them, then get more, then loose them. I only once had a respectable 30+ buffer cause I got lucky with a string of Crushing Surges and other Invigorating powers, and the bad guys were rolling poorly. So the DM reacted by ignoring me and focusing on the other players even though I got to take a few extra free pot-shots at them for it. So much for being a defender, huh? My fellow players call me a "Diet Barbarian" or "Barb-Lite." So when we defeated them and I still had my 30, I lost them due to the short rest...

That's another thing the paper optimizers overlook; you may be able to earn a bunch of tmp HP if you have a string of good luck, but you don't benefit from them. These are not Verizon Wireless Rollover Hitpoints(TM). You use them or loose them, and I have lost quite a few during this character's career.

Armads
2009-03-20, 07:32 PM
Isn't that just a failing of the defender concept?

Izmir Stinger
2009-03-21, 03:47 PM
Isn't that just a failing of the defender concept?

Which failing are you referring to?

My BRVF seem to gravitate between being a defender who thinks he is a striker, and a striker who thinks he is a defender, depending on the situation. Before Devoted Challenge, my ability as a defender was pretty pathetic.

Asbestos
2009-03-21, 10:34 PM
What failing are you referring to?

Fixed. I think that people see a 'failing' in the defender concept because they jack the AC of their defenders up so high that the -2 given from a mark still makes them less appealing targets to actually hit. Thusly, some DMs will almost never have monsters attack the defenders that have marked them, even though this leads to them suicidally throwing their lives away as the defenders pummel them.

The BRV fighter's lower AC lessens this sort of thing a little.

Mando Knight
2009-03-21, 11:46 PM
Fixed. I think that people see a 'failing' in the defender concept because they jack the AC of their defenders up so high that the -2 given form a mark still makes them less appealing targets to actually hit. Thusly, some DMs will almost never have monsters attack the defenders that have marked them, even though this leads to them suicidally throwing their lives away as the defenders pummel them.

The BRV fighter's lower AC lessens this sort of thing a little.

Indeed. However, the BRV fighter is a different kind of defender: the unquenchable meat-shield.

To explain, I'll first use the analogy of a car. Basically, you have two ways of improving the durability of the vehicle as a whole: either reinforce and armor the skeleton and body of the car, or give it "crumple zones" to ensure a safe failure, i.e. a fail-safe. The first one makes the car extremely durable if built correctly, and will be rather resilient to any actual or apparent damage. The second, though it initially appears like it isn't durable, actually mostly takes cosmetic damage that can be relatively easily repaired, with planned structural failures to absorb the impact. That first example is the Paladin and other armor-based Defenders: they can take a beating mostly because the beating mostly fails to actually hurt them through their armor. (or sheer dodging capability, in the case of light armor, high AC defenders like the Swordmage) The second is the BRV fighter: a good BRV fighter keeps a healthy buffer of temporary HP to absorb the blows, and has a decently high real HP count on top of that as well. He loses HP like crazy, but then regains it almost as fast, and his high Con score pumps his surge count high enough that he can eat them like candy when necessary. In his case, a LAZOR Cleric is probably his best friend due to the healing powers available to the Cleric.

Yakk
2009-03-22, 08:17 PM
And the same problem occurs.

If you build your defender around defense, and have no offense, you are ignored.

Defenders have to be a mix of threat and soak.

Asbestos
2009-03-22, 08:21 PM
Defenders have to be a mix of threat and soak.

Exactly. Defenders require more finesse than people think at first glance.