PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Tempest Fighter



Aron Times
2008-09-06, 10:04 AM
Here's a preview of the Tempest Fighter, a third build option for fighters available in Martial Power.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080905

Looks like we'll be seeing alternate fighting styles in Martial Power. Perhaps we'll see a two-handed weapon ranger (Aragorn)? Or an archer rogue (Haley Starshine)? Or maybe a ranged warlord?

Quirinus_Obsidian
2008-09-06, 10:08 AM
Here's a preview of the Tempest Fighter, a third build option for fighters available in Martial Power.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080905

Looks like we'll be seeing alternate fighting styles in Martial Power. Perhaps we'll see a two-handed weapon ranger (Aragorn)? Or an archer rogue (Haley Starshine)? Or maybe a ranged warlord?

It looked cool until I realized it was 4e.

Gorbash
2008-09-06, 10:10 AM
{Scrubbed}

Lyndworm
2008-09-06, 10:19 AM
You're a little late (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90150).

Zack

Yakk
2008-09-06, 11:21 AM
It is new D&D content by WotC. Isn't it clear that it is 4e?

Meh. They copy/pasted the best Ranger at-will (which is already too good), and gave it to the fighter.

Charity
2008-09-06, 02:02 PM
Not quite, twin strike is one or two opponants... but I do agree with you about the yawnworthy lack of creativity that you're objecting to.


Gorbash I see several 3.5 threads without 3.5 in the title, please don't use that paper thin excuse to (yet again) voice your dislike for 4e in an inappropriate thread.

Aron Times
2008-09-06, 02:15 PM
Mm-hmm... You didn't have to post in my thread if you didn't like what you read.

Yakk
2008-09-06, 02:30 PM
Gorbash I see several 3.5 threads without 3.5 in the title, please don't use that paper thin excuse to (yet again) voice your dislike for 4e in an inappropriate thread.
Gorbash religiously marks his threads with 3.5. So don't blame him. :-)

Kurald Galain
2008-09-06, 03:41 PM
It's a stupid name. What's next, Rainfall Rogue? Cumulonimbus Cleric?

It also just struck me how dreadfully cliched almost all the flavor text for the physical attacks (of any class) are, since they are almost without exception variations on "you [adjective]ly hit your enemy with your [weapon] to make him [verb] in [synonym of pain]".

Other than that? It strikes me that it's only months after the release, and already one class is barging in on the shtick of another class.

Rules-wise, it's okay. Nothing special either way.

Morty
2008-09-06, 04:02 PM
Other than that? It strikes me that it's only months after the release, and already one class is barging in on the shtick of another class.


That's not necesairly a bad thing. After all, many people complained about Fighter not being able to TWF, so here they go.

Gorbash
2008-09-06, 04:21 PM
Gorbash I see several 3.5 threads without 3.5 in the title, please don't use that paper thin excuse to (yet again) voice your dislike for 4e in an inappropriate thread.

I just said 'ditto'. 5 letters, man. It's not like I started rambling on and on about it... Not to mention I was just referencing a previous post which did voiced its dislike towards 4e.

You're free to stop by any 3.5 topic without 3.5 tags and say that they should be added. As Yakk said, I mark mine with them, and even before 4e came out I made a topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80197) in Board/Site issues about adding to sub-forums to Gaming, one for 4e, one for 3.5. You can see for yourself the result.

That being said, no, I didn't use it for a cover for voicing my dislike for 4e. If you didn't notice, I stopeed caring long time ago (not one my post in 4e dislike threads or even 'pro 3.5' topics. I just want to post here like 4e doesn't exist), and I just want to know which threads should I read and which I don't. Those with 4e tags I don't, those with. 3.5 I do, those with no tags I try to figure out by topic title. I thought this was a topic about 3.5 prestige class Tempest, so I just voiced my concern over the topic title, and agreed with the previous poster, whose post I found funny, so I had to say so. No direct 4e flaming there.

Mando Knight
2008-09-06, 04:58 PM
Looks like we'll be seeing alternate fighting styles in Martial Power. Perhaps we'll see a two-handed weapon ranger (Aragorn)? Or an archer rogue (Haley Starshine)? Or maybe a ranged warlord?

Somehow, I still see Aragorn as more a Paladin rather than a Ranger despite his title...

I'd like to see more ranged options on the martial characters, and maybe the Paladin, too. (Which will probably be in a "Divine Power" sourcebook...)

That said, the ability to have a two-weapon Fighter is neat, but will he be able to wield two longswords/bastard swords, or will he have to stick with a longsword in one hand and a short sword in the other?

Lyndworm
2008-09-06, 05:13 PM
Everyone (except Rangers) needs an off-hand weapon, Tempest Fighters are no exception.

Zack

Erk
2008-09-06, 05:18 PM
Indeed. While this isn't incredibly exciting, it's not at all a fighter barging in on a ranger's technique. The new moves and weapon abilities are very distinctly defender, not striker, for one thing.

It's still rather lackluster; IMO a two-weapon fighter should focus on adding more counterattack style moves where the main weapon parries, allowing the off-hand to get an attack, but it looks like I will have to homebrew that.

What worries me way more is Power Creep. Even if the Tempest Fighter loses some other fighter class powers, his 2wf class features are way better than anything the current fighter class offers; he'd have to have some serious penalties to be balanced to a sword-and-board fighter from current PHB. I mean, with chainmail, we're looking at +1 attack and +2 damage with offhand weapon and +1 damage with the main weapon, plus 2w defense as a bonus feat.... it'd probably have to lose the fighter's +1 to attack and either the ability to Mark targets (a big loss!) or the Wis bonus to AoO to be fair, in my books.

I am very concerned 4e is going to go down the Rifts path and wind up making its own PHB obsolete as further supplements climb the power level ladder.

Spiryt
2008-09-06, 05:31 PM
Somehow, I still see Aragorn as more a Paladin rather than a Ranger despite his title...


You know, the very Ranger class was based on the Aragorn and the Rangers characters, not the other way around. :smallamused:

And even if in 3.5 and most certainly 4ed also he could use some Paladin multiclass, 2ed Rangers were in fact different Paladins.

Only good, protectors of the honest, wise woodstalkers who defended good creatures against those bad ones. Et cetera.

Mando Knight
2008-09-06, 06:40 PM
You know, the very Ranger class was based on the Aragorn and the Rangers characters, not the other way around. :smallamused:

Yeah, but thanks to the Drow-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, D&D melee Rangers are all "I use two weapons!" rather than Aragorn's one bladed style... and 4E even more so. Plus, other than the Heal skill, they've got none of Aragorn's healing prowess...

Spiryt
2008-09-06, 06:56 PM
Yeah, but thanks to the Drow-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, D&D melee Rangers are all "I use two weapons!" rather than Aragorn's one bladed style... and 4E even more so. Plus, other than the Heal skill, they've got none of Aragorn's healing prowess...

Well, in 3.5 heal, nature knowledge skills + high wisdom were alone quite nice in helping the injured, not to mention slow, neutralize poison or cure spells.

Dunno about 4ed.

Blackdrop
2008-09-06, 07:42 PM
I mean, with chainmail, we're looking at +1 attack and +2 damage with offhand weapon and +1 damage with the main weapon, plus 2w defense as a bonus feat.... it'd probably have to lose the fighter's +1 to attack and either the ability to Mark targets (a big loss!) or the Wis bonus to AoO to be fair, in my books.


Normally I'd agree with you, but Chainmail totally blows to begin with. Even with Specialization your still taking a speed hit and low AC when compared to Scale.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-06, 08:03 PM
It's a stupid name. What's next, Rainfall Rogue? Cumulonimbus Cleric?


It comes from the Tempest prestige class, specializing in the use of two weapons. Though you probably know this.

I'm not really excited about these powers, to be honest. I'd rather have powers for a single-weapon ranger instead. Probably because I don't like two-weapon fighting - unlike many, I don't consider it cool.

Knaight
2008-09-06, 08:49 PM
It can be, as someone who uses it it does work pretty well(although I'm better with a single weapon). That said, what they really need to do is to have some powers that need 1 1 handed weapon and no shield. For the ranger.

Shadow_Elf
2008-09-06, 09:30 PM
It can be, as someone who uses it it does work pretty well(although I'm better with a single weapon). That said, what they really need to do is to have some powers that need 1 1 handed weapon and no shield. For the ranger.

That would be Ranger encroaching on Rogue territory. They are the fencer and duelist types that use rapiers and katars on thier own.
Also, I just thoght of something slightly crazy: Goblin Archer Ranger. Don't have my MM around right now, but with Goblin tactics it would never need to equip a melee weapon as long as it buffed its defences.

Yakk
2008-09-06, 11:52 PM
Not quite, twin strike is one or two opponants... but I do agree with you about the yawnworthy lack of creativity that you're objecting to.

Missed that. That makes it worse.

A power shouldn't be strictly worse than a power of another class, in my not so humble opinion. Every class should be envious of every other class, and at-will powers that are worse versions... no good.

TheOOB
2008-09-07, 02:23 AM
A power shouldn't be strictly worse than a power of another class, in my not so humble opinion. Every class should be envious of every other class, and at-will powers that are worse versions... no good.

Keeping in mind that the ranger is a very controller-esq striker, and the fighter is a striker-esq defender, it makes sense. Keep in mind that the fighter can mark any opponent he attacks, and a marked opponent in melee range has a very difficult time harassing a fighters team-mates without risking some serious harm, so an at-will that marks two people would be too powerful. Also keep in mind that a fighter has a +1 to attack rolls, and that they allready have cleave to deal with multiple foes.

Crow
2008-09-07, 02:39 AM
I am very concerned 4e is going to go down the Rifts path and wind up making its own PHB obsolete as further supplements climb the power level ladder.

You mean D&D hasn't done this for ages already? :smallwink:

Gorbash
2008-09-07, 02:42 AM
Which non-core class in 3.5 is stronger than Wizard/Cleric/Druid? Only Archivist can compete with those, but the rest fall far far behind.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-07, 02:48 AM
Which non-core class in 3.5 is stronger than Wizard/Cleric/Druid?

Possibly Beguiler on early levels (because you've got a great spell list and skill points), and possibly Psion (because so many people forget that there are limits to how many points you can sink into any one power at one time).

Crow
2008-09-07, 02:49 AM
Which non-core class in 3.5 is stronger than Wizard/Cleric/Druid?

The Druid is just amazing, and is the exception. The Cleric and Wizard aren't really that bad. It's not the classes themselves so much as the spells. It's the spells that make them so good. But why play a Fighter when you can play a Warblade? Why play a monk when you can play an unarmed Swordsage? Why play a Paladin when you can play a Crusader? Why play a Rogue when you can play a Factotum or Beguiler?

Though the supplements do have their fair share of garbage as well...

BobVosh
2008-09-07, 03:40 AM
It's a stupid name. What's next, Rainfall Rogue? Cumulonimbus Cleric?
It was in 3.5. I'm at work which blocks wizards.com but I gather it is a TWF fighter variant. Just what the tempest PrC was.


It also just struck me how dreadfully cliched almost all the flavor text for the physical attacks (of any class) are, since they are almost without exception variations on "you [adjective]ly hit your enemy with your [weapon] to make him [verb] in [synonym of pain]".

Wouldn't that be "You [adverb] hit your enemy with your [weapon] to make him [verb] in [synonym of pain]"?

However I agree, they pretty much all do that.

Can anyone do a quick spoiler of the neater abilities?

Charity
2008-09-07, 07:23 AM
In an effort to make this thread not about 3.5 - 4e comparison :smallsigh:
New Build: Tempest Fighter

Rather than a shield or a big weapon, you have specialized in fighting using a weapon in each hand.

You see it as the best of both worlds—given the right training, you can deliver good damage and make up for the lack of a shield with deft parrying. Strength remains any soldier’s bread and butter, and good battlefield awareness—Wisdom—is a must. You also rely on speed, maneuverability, and agility—Dexterity—to get your dirty work done. Constitution is a tertiary ability for you, granting useful staying power against foes not so easily fooled by your fancy footwork and feints. The Tempest Technique class feature is designed to complement this build.

Suggested Feat: Two-Weapon Fighting (Human feat: Two-Weapon Threat*)
Suggested Skills: Athletics, Intimidate, Streetwise
Suggested At-Will Powers:dual strike,* footwork lure*
Suggested Encounter Power:funneling flurry*
Suggested Daily Power:tempest dance*
*New option presented in Martial Power

Tempest Technique
When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the offhand property.

You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites.

When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property.



powers
At-Will Powers

Dual StrikeFighter Attack 1
You lash out quickly and follow up faster, delivering two small wounds.
At-Will Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), two attacks
Hit: 1[W] damage per attack.Increase damage to 2[W] per attack at 21st level.

Encounter Powers

Distracting SpateFighter Attack 1
Your flurry of feints and strikes leaves your foe’s defenses unsteady.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target grants combat advantage to you until the end of your next turn.Weapon: If you’re wielding two melee weapons, the attack deals extra damage equal to your Dexterity modifier.

Funneling FlurryFighter Attack 1
With snakelike strikes, you force two of your enemies to move where you want them.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Targets: Two creatures
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), one attack per target
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide the target 1 square.


Weaponmaster’s LureFighter Attack 23
You make a passing attack, throwing your foe off balance. With a shove, you send him stumbling away as you switch positions with him.
Encounter Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), two attacks
Hit: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage per attack. If one attack hits, you can swap places with the target. If both attacks hit, you can swap places with the target and slide it 3 squares. If you have combat advantage against the target, each attack deals extra damage equal to your Dexterity modifier.

Starsinger
2008-09-07, 07:27 AM
Wouldn't that be "You [adverb] hit your enemy with your [weapon] to make him [verb] in [synonym of pain]"?

I think all the ToB whining from people made Wizards leery of interesting martial fluff.

Morty
2008-09-07, 07:33 AM
I think all the ToB whining from people made Wizards leery of interesting martial fluff.

And yet they didn't go far enough. They shouldn't have put any flavor text at all and leave it to the players to describe what does the fighter do. What we have in desciption of 4ed marital powers is useless.

Ceiling009
2008-09-07, 08:08 AM
I don't particularly mind the fluff, since some people really need it, and well, some people don't.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-07, 08:40 AM
I don't particularly mind the fluff, since some people really need it, and well, some people don't.

Yes, but the current fluff doesn't help the people who need it, and annoys the people who don't.

Gorbash
2008-09-07, 09:05 AM
The Druid is just amazing, and is the exception. The Cleric and Wizard aren't really that bad. It's not the classes themselves so much as the spells. It's the spells that make them so good. But why play a Fighter when you can play a Warblade? Why play a monk when you can play an unarmed Swordsage? Why play a Paladin when you can play a Crusader? Why play a Rogue when you can play a Factotum or Beguiler?

You can't really say 'aren't that bad' for 2 strongest classes in the game. Even without any prestige class, they rule the 3.5 world, all they need is spellcasting. It just gets better with splatbooks. Of course, I totally agree on Fighter/Monk/Paladin/Rogue observation, but I'm merely commenting that your view of 3.5 splatbooks making core books obsolete is not entirely true, since best classes (spells also) are still core.

Knaight
2008-09-07, 10:36 AM
But why play a Fighter when you can play a Warblade? Why play a monk when you can play an unarmed Swordsage? Why play a Paladin when you can play a Crusader? Why play a Rogue when you can play a Factotum or Beguiler?

Well the fighter, when optimized is way stronger than the warblade, and the semi-core psychic warrior is at least even to the warblade. And why play a monk when you can play an unarmed Fighter. An as for the semi-core soulknife, they were powercreeped by everything else at the start.

Isomenes
2008-09-07, 11:57 AM
Yes, but the current fluff doesn't help the people who need it, and annoys some of the people who don't.

ftfy.

I'm glad to see more TW powers in a non-ranger class. There's no good reason why Fighters shouldn't be able to use two weapons as effectively as Rangers. Moreover, it doesn't encroach on the Striker/Defender distinction. It is sad that this sort of thing couldn't have been put into the PHB, though. It lays pretty bare the motivations of WotC. (Not that they won't get my money, mind you.)

Kletian999
2008-09-07, 01:04 PM
Indeed. While this isn't incredibly exciting, it's not at all a fighter barging in on a ranger's technique. The new moves and weapon abilities are very distinctly defender, not striker, for one thing.

It's still rather lackluster; IMO a two-weapon fighter should focus on adding more counterattack style moves where the main weapon parries, allowing the off-hand to get an attack, but it looks like I will have to homebrew that.

What worries me way more is Power Creep. Even if the Tempest Fighter loses some other fighter class powers, his 2wf class features are way better than anything the current fighter class offers; he'd have to have some serious penalties to be balanced to a sword-and-board fighter from current PHB. I mean, with chainmail, we're looking at +1 attack and +2 damage with offhand weapon and +1 damage with the main weapon, plus 2w defense as a bonus feat.... it'd probably have to lose the fighter's +1 to attack and either the ability to Mark targets (a big loss!) or the Wis bonus to AoO to be fair, in my books.

I am very concerned 4e is going to go down the Rifts path and wind up making its own PHB obsolete as further supplements climb the power level ladder.


Counterattack powers are tricky to balance. On the one hand, you can already devote your standard action to "ready and action to react to being attacked." In order to make a counterattack interesting it either needs to not cost a standard action, hit harder than normal when readied, or somehow penalize the incoming attack. Most of those powers are already ranger powers to function as their defense mechanism.

I don't think Power creep is an issue because clearly Tempest Style is supposed to replace the +1 hit you get from weapon+shield or Heavy weapon specialization. They've done the math on the Wizard boards and it does in fact fall between the two specialization for damage and defense.

Crow
2008-09-07, 01:05 PM
You can't really say 'aren't that bad' for 2 strongest classes in the game. Even without any prestige class, they rule the 3.5 world, all they need is spellcasting. It just gets better with splatbooks. Of course, I totally agree on Fighter/Monk/Paladin/Rogue observation, but I'm merely commenting that your view of 3.5 splatbooks making core books obsolete is not entirely true, since best classes (spells also) are still core.

Well how about "partially obsolete"? The power creep is undeniable though.


Well the fighter, when optimized is way stronger than the warblade

Most players don't have the skill or desire to optimize the fighter to the levels needed to be stronger than the warblade. In theory, he can be stronger, but in practice this is generally not the case.

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-07, 01:19 PM
...You're free to stop by any 3.5 topic without 3.5 tags and say that they should be added...

Sheriff of Moddingham: No, you're not. Please don't tell others what to do here. We consider that vigilante modding. We don't have a rule requiring tags or assuming that a thread without tags is by default about a specific game.

skywalker
2008-09-07, 01:21 PM
Yeah, but thanks to the Drow-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, D&D melee Rangers are all "I use two weapons!" rather than Aragorn's one bladed style... and 4E even more so. Plus, other than the Heal skill, they've got none of Aragorn's healing prowess...

I know this was yesterday and only tangentially related to the thread but really, Aragorn is a warlord(at least in 4e). What was most important about him was that he was a leader, capable of inspiring men to greatness. He's a ranger, IMO, the same way Miko is a samurai. They never took a level in the class. Or maybe he's a ranger multi-class for track. The only reason people think Aragorn should ever be a paladin is because of his healing touch and his(somewhat special) horse. But he's not at all religious, and the healing touch is clearly a function of his race(royal line of Numenor) than of his class. The horse wasn't that special, what was special about it was that Aragorn could tame it(tremendous handle animal mod). There, see, no reason at all to think Aragorn was ever a paladin.

Crow
2008-09-07, 01:23 PM
The horse wasn't that special, what was special about it was that Aragorn could tame it(tremendous handle animal mod).

Like a Ranger...

The New Bruceski
2008-09-07, 06:32 PM
It's a stupid name. What's next, Rainfall Rogue? Cumulonimbus Cleric?

It also just struck me how dreadfully cliched almost all the flavor text for the physical attacks (of any class) are, since they are almost without exception variations on "you [adjective]ly hit your enemy with your [weapon] to make him [verb] in [synonym of pain]".

Other than that? It strikes me that it's only months after the release, and already one class is barging in on the shtick of another class.

Rules-wise, it's okay. Nothing special either way.


It'd be about even if not for the difference that you spent two feats on it. Even though you'll have plenty of feats over the course of your career, these are simply poor feats compared to most others.

This means that, just like in 3.5, except for one specific class, TWF isn't worth it. Except if you mean "holding two weapons for fluff's sake but just attacking with one of them".

Granted, two months is plenty of time to change one's mind, but this still struck me as a bit off. Complaining that TWF isn't worth it except for Rangers, and then complaining that another class can TWF like a Ranger?