PDA

View Full Version : How come we don't have a Martial Power thread yet?



Kurald Galain
2008-11-18, 04:19 PM
I spotted info about the book on several other boards, but not here yet. It is out now, isn't it? So what do people think about it?

Isomenes
2008-11-18, 04:28 PM
Personally, I'm still digesting it--there are many options. It seems thin, but it's crammed with new class features and such. It makes the head spin. The only parts I found myself able to pass over without bothering were the Ranger Beastmaster options, which I find dumb. But others like it, I'm sure, and even so that's only something like 5% of the book.

Mando Knight
2008-11-18, 04:30 PM
Well, mine hasn't arrived yet... it shipped from Amazon only yesterday...

...Otherwise, I might discuss it. As is, all I know is what's on the WotC site.

Morty
2008-11-18, 04:33 PM
I have but a single question: have they finally given some single-weapon option for rangers?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-18, 04:40 PM
I read this EN World thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/244407-so-i-have-martial-powers-book.html) awhile ago. It answered a lot of questions.

I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that there is no single-weapon Ranger, nor Ranged Fighter, among other things.

Oslecamo
2008-11-18, 04:42 PM
I have but a single question: have they finally given some single-weapon option for rangers?

They're just between the axe wielding wizard and the wand shooting fighter.

(I don't have the book, but I think Wotc made it pretty clear that rangers in 4e are either using two weapons or a bow, and if you want a one hand weapon you've already got the rogue, fighter, paladin and swordmage)

Lord Herman
2008-11-18, 04:45 PM
Amazon hasn't shipped mine yet. :smallfrown:

Isomenes
2008-11-18, 04:46 PM
I have but a single question: have they finally given some single-weapon option for rangers?

Finally? What part of Hit and Run, Evasive Strike, Fox's Cunning, Hunter's Bear Trap, Disruptive Strike, Shadow Wasp Strike, Hawk's Talon, Attacks on the Run, Blade Ward, Wandering Tornado, and Weave a Web of Steel fail to be options?

To answer your question:

Yes.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-18, 05:05 PM
I'm at collegw and the books ship to my home so I can't read them till Thanksgiving: and I have a exam after I get back from Thanksgiving so I can't spende much time reading them if I want to pass...

A pirate's life for me...at least my Mascot would say that.

Morty
2008-11-18, 05:44 PM
(I don't have the book, but I think Wotc made it pretty clear that rangers in 4e are either using two weapons or a bow, and if you want a one hand weapon you've already got the rogue, fighter, paladin and swordmage)

Thought as much. Not that I actually care, but I was curious, as both 3ed and 4ed neglect the single weapon fighter who doesn't rely primarily on strenght but isn't a swashbuckler type. 4ed is better in this regard, but still not what I'd like it to be.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-18, 06:11 PM
Thought as much. Not that I actually care, but I was curious, as both 3ed and 4ed neglect the single weapon fighter who doesn't rely primarily on strenght but isn't a swashbuckler type. 4ed is better in this regard, but still not what I'd like it to be.

Wait, what are you looking for? So far we have Paladins (CHA) and Swordmages (INT) for non-swashbucklers, and Rogues (DEX) for, well, swashbuckling.

Starsinger
2008-11-18, 06:15 PM
Wait, what are you looking for? So far we have Paladins (CHA) and Swordmages (INT) for non-swashbucklers, and Rogues (DEX) for, well, swashbuckling.

Insightful (WIS)? Y'know... striking only once at the precise moment of opportunity?

Morty
2008-11-18, 06:15 PM
Wait, what are you looking for? So far we have Paladins (CHA) and Swordmages (INT) for non-swashbucklers, and Rogues (DEX) for, well, swashbuckling.

I'm looking for a warrior who is quick rather than strong but doesn't use magic(Swordmage) and is still a warrior rather than a swashbuckling type with rapier(Rogue). Ranger utilizing a single weapon would be perfect for this, especially with, as Starsinger mentions, his attack powers using Wisdom.
Again, it's idle curiosity, I don't play 4ed anyway.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-18, 06:21 PM
I'm looking for a warrior who is quick rather than strong but doesn't use magic
You're looking for too much meaning behind words. You can easily use a rogue and call him other than swashbuckling, or use anything based on intelligence and call it insightful.

Morty
2008-11-18, 06:30 PM
You're looking for too much meaning behind words. You can easily use a rogue and call him other than swashbuckling, or use anything based on intelligence and call it insightful.

Not if I want him to use something heavier than a rapier, a longsword for instance, I can't.

Isomenes
2008-11-18, 06:32 PM
Not if I want him to use something heavier than a rapier, a longsword for instance, I can't.

Martial Power has a feat that lets you do precisely that: Longsword Finesse.

Morty
2008-11-18, 06:33 PM
Martial Power has a feat that lets you do precisely that: Longsword Finesse.

Now, that's something I was actually looking for. I gather from the name that it lets you use longsword as a light blade.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-18, 06:33 PM
You can try to refluff swordmages as non-magic single-weapon-fighters (and they can use Heavy Blades)...but it would be pretty difficult, yeah, given their heavy use of teleporation and elemental damage.

Isomenes
2008-11-18, 06:48 PM
Now, that's something I was actually looking for. I gather from the name that it lets you use longsword as a light blade.

So much for one simple question :smallwink:

Grynning
2008-11-19, 12:26 AM
Well, my cover-to-cover skim and browse is complete, and overall I like it. Some of the Paragon Paths are a bit redundant, the book is a bit slim, but still a decent buy. Multiclassers will be pleased with the new feats that actually allow you to get more class features; people who like off-beat race/class combos will like the fact that extra goodies have been tossed in for them (for example, there are both PP's and feats for Halfling and Tiefling Fighters and Rangers, who are definitely the weakest PHB races for these two classes).

Couple of nits:

Tempest Fighter build is disappointing, the powers that actually take advantage of your dual-wielding are few and far between. If you go with this build, expect to multi-class ranger to get some better attack powers.

Two-handed Fighters receive even more love - the other Fighter build is the "Battlerager" - who wears less armor but wails on things with a big weapon and gets temp HP from it (Didn't they already announce and preview the Barbarian?). Also, the two-hander focused powers in the book are much more impressive than the one hander and dual wielding powers.

Like all 4th ed. books so far, very little fluff or non-mechanical content - Chapter 1 is the Fighter builds, and the book ends abruptly after the epic destinies are done. I would have liked some of the RP and DM'ing advice that was prevalent in the Complete series; hell, even reprints from Complete Warrior would have been ok.

Not a lot of support for the Warlord compared to the other classes - it's got enough to be passable, but it seems to me that the least amount of time was spent developing their new build options, and there are definitely fewer Warlord feats available.

That's it for now, if there's anything else I find to share I'll post again.

Tengu_temp
2008-11-19, 01:01 AM
I like the new multiclass feats. "Spend more feats to gain the features of your second class" is something I approve of. And on top of that, they're really strong.

MammonAzrael
2008-11-19, 01:20 AM
I haven't really gotten to chew into it yet, but I'm quite happy with it so far. I too was a little uncertain of it's thickness, but it's nearly all crunch. And the extra options are going to be great since I'll be playing a Human/Martial only game this Friday.

If the rest of the cooks retain this level of quality, I'll be happy.

Of course, they could always be even better, too. :smalltongue: (The Warlord and Rogue could use some more love)

Edge of Dreams
2008-11-19, 01:27 AM
Okay, so, there's some good material in there, but there's one issue I cannot understand how they let happen.

There is no longer any reason for a Ranger to pick Archery Style, because Beast Mastery is strictly better. What do I mean? Simply pick beast mastery, take a bow, high dex, all the powers you would have taken to be an archer ranger before, and one of the brand new archer paragon paths. Now, have your pet stand in front of you. Or better yet, send it into melee to provide flanking for your friends. You've gained a tank/distraction that protects you quite nicely and can be used to block enemies and bottlenecks and such on the battlefield at the same time that you're still shooting just as well as you were before. What did you lose? Defensive Mobility. When was the last time you saw an archer, warlock, or wizard take an opportunity attack?

Drammel
2008-11-19, 01:44 AM
I was fortunate enough to have a friend that bought a copy that broke streetdate yesterday and got a chance to go through the thing head to toe.

The thing that impressed me the most were the gazillion Paragon Paths. To illustrate, I've been kicking around a build in my head for a Drow Rogue who specializes in hand crossbow and stealth without borrowing anything from Ranger. Originally I was going to go with Master Infiltrator from the PHB. Not the best path ever strictly thinking of damage, but it suited the character concept well enough. I found at least three paths that boost raw damage output and are still aesthetically pleasing to role play in Martial Power. That's not too shabby considering the somewhat narrow character concept.

I think Ranger got the least love of the four classes. Yes, they reintroduced animal companions, but most of the powers, feats, and paragon paths revolve around the beastmaster and do little to bolster the already existing Ranger archtypes. Don't get me wrong, there are some things non-beast oriented, but the sheer versatility of the Ranger's abilities in Martial Power is lacking compared to the other classes. There are powers that any kind of Fighter can take that have been introduced and there are comparatively few powers that any kind of Ranger can take.

A lot of people talk about the lack of fluff trend seen in 4th Ed. I'd like to make an addendum and say that feats are much less fluffy than they have been. Anyone remember Cometary Collision? Who in their right mind takes a feat so that they can prepare an action to interrupt a charge attack? I know it has a use in a certain situation, but honestly can you remember the last time your DM had something charge the party? If so, was it so disastrous that you sat down and said 'gee I wish I'd had a feat that let me use my futuresight to let me stop that charge'? I saw nothing like that in the Martial Power feat selection. For each one I could reasonably imagine a practical application which could at least come up once a session, not once in a blue moon. No 'Dire Camel Slayer' no 'Improved Fiendish Werebunny Taint Resistance'.

I'm also glad they gave Epic levels a good spread. I honestly can't think of six feats I'd want to take at Epic level from the PHB that would benefit a martial character. The Epic Paths were also quite welcome as well, for more or less the same reason.

That's my two bits on that. It's a pretty solid book.

skywalker
2008-11-19, 02:12 AM
There is no longer any reason for a Ranger to pick Archery Style, because Beast Mastery is strictly better. What do I mean? Simply pick beast mastery, take a bow, high dex, all the powers you would have taken to be an archer ranger before, and one of the brand new archer paragon paths. Now, have your pet stand in front of you. Or better yet, send it into melee to provide flanking for your friends. You've gained a tank/distraction that protects you quite nicely and can be used to block enemies and bottlenecks and such on the battlefield at the same time that you're still shooting just as well as you were before. What did you lose? Defensive Mobility. When was the last time you saw an archer, warlock, or wizard take an opportunity attack?

Unless... You don't want the hassle or the flavor of an animal companion...

You might also want one of those paragon paths that's restricted to archer rangers by name.

Personally, I do somewhat agree with you, I think two-weapon rangers got a much better class feature than archers. But there's tons of reasons not to take beastmaster.

I'm excited that they spent the space they had on crunch. Fluff/roleplaying advice is something you can make up for yourself or get for free on sites like this.

Finally, I'm saddened by the possibility of little warlord support. There are conflicting reports, so I'll wait for my own final analysis, but am slightly disheartened right now.

Gralamin
2008-11-19, 02:17 AM
Finally, I'm saddened by the possibility of little warlord support. There are conflicting reports, so I'll wait for my own final analysis, but am slightly disheartened right now.

You'll love the Warmaster Epic Destiny.
As for other warlord support, I haven't taken too good of a look at their powers, but they have quite a few new paragon paths (The best of which, In my opinion, are Spiral Tactician and Dujun of Erathis).

Xefas
2008-11-19, 04:42 AM
So far, I've only had the opportunity to read through one section (I'll be getting my own copy soon, hopefully), but the section I chose was the Ranger because I was interested in how they were going to work animal companions for 4th edition.

On the upside, they work pretty much exactly like I imaged they would, and it seems as though they will be fun to use while not having the same "My class has a free Fighter as a class feature" problem as the previous edition.

On the downside, this reinforces even more my inclination that the Archery Ranger is superfluous. A Two-Weapon Ranger with a bow and archery powers, and an Archery Ranger play exactly the same in practice, with the Two-Weapon Ranger having more hit points. And now an Animal Companion that trumps it even more?

Not to mention that my roommate is, as I type, telling me that there's a Heroic Tier feat you can pick up that lets you dual-wield like a Two-Weapon Ranger. Beastmaster Ranger just seems better than both other options by a very wide margin.

As a plus for the book as a whole (assuming it wasn't just a quirk of the Ranger section), I like that there's a minimum of fluff. I always felt a little cheated when I bought a 3/3.5 edition book because it was filled with fluff that I was going to throw out anyway. It keeps me from having to explain to players who also own the book I'm getting something from why X doesn't work that way and why they should forget any fluff they've ever read about it.

ShaggyMarco
2008-11-19, 09:05 AM
Not to mention that my roommate is, as I type, telling me that there's a Heroic Tier feat you can pick up that lets you dual-wield like a Two-Weapon Ranger. Beastmaster Ranger just seems better than both other options by a very wide margin.

That feat is a Ranger Multiclass feat that lets you multi into Ranger. It trains you in a ranger skill too, just like all of the old multi-class feats. This is the feat to use if you wanted a two-one-hand-weapon fighter, warlord, or any other class.

I like the book. There are some things I think are a little fishy. (like a FIghter Daily 1, reliable, Str vs. AC, 3w+str damage and marks the for until the end of the encounter or until you go unconscious. Why is Brute Strike still an option when this exists?)

The Mormegil
2008-11-19, 10:12 AM
That feat is a Ranger Multiclass feat that lets you multi into Ranger. It trains you in a ranger skill too, just like all of the old multi-class feats. This is the feat to use if you wanted a two-one-hand-weapon fighter, warlord, or any other class.

I like the book. There are some things I think are a little fishy. (like a FIghter Daily 1, reliable, Str vs. AC, 3w+str damage and marks the for until the end of the encounter or until you go unconscious. Why is Brute Strike still an option when this exists?)

Except that, you know, Brute Strike WASN'T an option. Not even in PHB. How 'bout Comeback Strike? At worse you lose 2d8 damage (and that's a friggin' Maul-wielding Min- uh, Bugbear) for an extra healing surge? Sign me up...

Theodoric
2008-11-19, 11:03 AM
Like all 4th ed. books so far, very little fluff or non-mechanical content - Chapter 1 is the Fighter builds, and the book ends abruptly after the epic destinies are done. I would have liked some of the RP and DM'ing advice that was prevalent in the Complete series; hell, even reprints from Complete Warrior would have been ok.
That's because is mixed in with the articles. Not that it would amount to anything substantial if it would've been put in seperate articles.

The new Warlord class features are rather, well, not all that different from the original ones. They seem more like aspects of previous class features, but enlarged. They don't really fit into a niche. A bravura warlord is an inspiring warlord who leads by example more than he leads by shouting, and a resourcefull warlord is a tactical warlord, but with quicker thinking.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-19, 11:59 AM
Except that, you know, Brute Strike WASN'T an option. Not even in PHB. How 'bout Comeback Strike? At worse you lose 2d8 damage (and that's a friggin' Maul-wielding Min- uh, Bugbear) for an extra healing surge? Sign me up...

Unless, y'know, you have a competent healer and don't need to pop your own Surges :smalltongue:

No, Brute Strike was great for a 2H Fighter, but this new power is strictly better than Brute Strike. I declare shenanigans! :smallannoyed:

MammonAzrael
2008-11-19, 12:04 PM
Except that, you know, Brute Strike WASN'T an option. Not even in PHB. How 'bout Comeback Strike? At worse you lose 2d8 damage (and that's a friggin' Maul-wielding Min- uh, Bugbear) for an extra healing surge? Sign me up...

Brute Strike is on the bottom left column of page 78 in the PHB. It is a martial, Reliable and Weapon that deals 3[W] + Str; Str vs. AC.

So unless I missed something (I'm afb), The new daily is strictly better. There is literally no reason for a fighter not to take it instead of Brute Strike (assuming they have access to Martial Power).

Of course, if there is something I missed, please point it out! :smallsmile:

EDIT: Reading the power, the only reason I can think of to take Brute Strike over Lasting Threat is if you want to have marks constantly changing. Like if you have a Paladin or two to share with. But that's a pretty weak argument. Maybe WotC is just trying to reward players that buy their expansion books with more power? :smallconfused:

skywalker
2008-11-19, 02:02 PM
Powers from expansion books always make core powers obsolete. Expecting that WOTC would get better(and not worse) at making old powers obsolete with 4th edition is silly. One big reason for this is that, instead of having to write powers for just the casters, now they have to write powers for everybody. So the fact is, there's going to be some chaff in the PHB, and someone is going to come up with some power that's a lot cooler that they want to publish. Should they refrain from doing so simply to keep what was an inferior power to start with a "viable option?"

I actually think they've done a great job keeping the TWF ranger separate. Yes, the Tempest can TWF now, and yes, there's a TWF ranger multi-class feat, but not really. Those guys are still different from the TWF ranger(which I personally have a soft spot for, ripping apart enemies in melee with two blades is just very appealing to me).

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-19, 02:10 PM
Should they refrain from doing so simply to keep what was an inferior power to start with a "viable option?"

Well, ideally they could make powers which aren't exactly the same as an existing power, save for something that makes it better for no extra cost.

Codex creep is a real problem, but there are some systems that at least try to avoid this by requiring alternate continuities or special requirements or somesuch. Heck, if the New Brute Strike only worked with certain weapons (like flails or something), that'd be fine, because there's a tradeoff.


I actually think they've done a great job keeping the TWF ranger separate. Yes, the Tempest can TWF now, and yes, there's a TWF ranger multi-class feat, but not really. Those guys are still different from the TWF ranger(which I personally have a soft spot for, ripping apart enemies in melee with two blades is just very appealing to me).

Yeah, I thought so too... but there's (apparently) a MC feat that lets someone wield any weapon in their off-hand, just like the TWF Ranger :smallannoyed:

Artanis
2008-11-19, 02:42 PM
On the downside, this reinforces even more my inclination that the Archery Ranger is superfluous. A Two-Weapon Ranger with a bow and archery powers, and an Archery Ranger play exactly the same in practice, with the Two-Weapon Ranger having more hit points. And now an Animal Companion that trumps it even more?
Unless, as skywalker said, you want to use a Paragon Path that requires the archery combat style.

skywalker
2008-11-19, 02:48 PM
Well, ideally they could make powers which aren't exactly the same as an existing power, save for something that makes it better for no extra cost.

Codex creep is a real problem, but there are some systems that at least try to avoid this by requiring alternate continuities or special requirements or somesuch. Heck, if the New Brute Strike only worked with certain weapons (like flails or something), that'd be fine, because there's a tradeoff. Well, they could've just said it replaces Brute Strike. Honestly, I always found Brute Strike to be the dead-last choice for a level 1 daily, so this, in some ways, seems to be an admission of "we screwed up with that power, sorry." Kinda the same as how they've released feats to shore up the capabilities of certain races in certain classes that sucked at those classes before.


Yeah, I thought so too... but there's (apparently) a MC feat that lets someone wield any weapon in their off-hand, just like the TWF Ranger :smallannoyed:

CharOp has actually torn it apart(already) and determined that the feat doesn't actually work that way... Something about how it doesn't interact with the powers, or somesuch. At least that's what they've said.

I don't actually know any of this stuff first hand because apparently, while everyone else got the books yesterday, my area is gonna have to wait until tomorrow or next week to get the books :smallfrown:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-19, 02:54 PM
Well, they could've just said it replaces Brute Strike. Honestly, I always found Brute Strike to be the dead-last choice for a level 1 daily, so this, in some ways, seems to be an admission of "we screwed up with that power, sorry." Kinda the same as how they've released feats to shore up the capabilities of certain races in certain classes that sucked at those classes before.

Feats are one thing, but basically doing a copy of an existing power - but better - is lame. Why not just do an Errata on it, like they've done for Shadow Wasp Strike? The only answer I can see is "Codex Creep = More $$$" which is a perverse incentive, to put it mildly. :smallannoyed:

Artanis
2008-11-19, 02:55 PM
Come to think of it...as an honest question, how many non-Ranger powers actually use the off-hand weapon? As far as I know, for non-rangers pretty much nothing actually uses two weapons at once, making the off-hand little more than a way to have a second option drawn and ready (e.g. your "regular" pointy thing in the main hand and your shuriken in the off-hand).


Edit:

Feats are one thing, but basically doing a copy of an existing power - but better - is lame. Why not just do an Errata on it, like they've done for Shadow Wasp Strike? The only answer I can see is "Codex Creep = More $$$" which is a perverse incentive, to put it mildly. :smallannoyed:
The problem with this comparison is that as bad as Brute Strike may be, it still theoretically has a reason to take it. That isn't the case for non-errata Shadow Wasp Strike, which might have a tiny window of theoretical usefulness for a TWF ranger, and for a shooty ranger is flat-out worse than Cut and Run in every way.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-19, 03:19 PM
The problem with this comparison is that as bad as Brute Strike may be, it still theoretically has a reason to take it. That isn't the case for non-errata Shadow Wasp Strike, which might have a tiny window of theoretical usefulness for a TWF ranger, and for a shooty ranger is flat-out worse than Cut and Run in every way.

No no, my point is that the MP Brute Strike in Martial Powers is strictly better than PHB Brute Strike, because MP Brute Strike is just PHB Brute Strike plus perma-marking. If they were just "fixing" PHB Brute Strike, they would've done it by Errata instead of Codex Creep.

Artanis
2008-11-19, 03:26 PM
Ah, I misunderstood then. My apologies.

Hatu
2008-11-19, 03:36 PM
No no, my point is that the MP Brute Strike in Martial Powers is strictly better than PHB Brute Strike, because MP Brute Strike is just PHB Brute Strike plus perma-marking. If they were just "fixing" PHB Brute Strike, they would've done it by Errata instead of Codex Creep.

Strictly speaking, there is a possible disadvantage to the new feat, since the mark you place cannot be overridden. There might come an occasion where you would actually want one of your fellows to put his own mark on the target, but he/she/it would not be able to do so. Granted, this is unlikely to come up unless your party is crawling with Defenders, but it is technically possible.

Having said that, I tend to agree it would have been better to simply errata Brute Strike (with a clause allowing you to voluntarily drop the mark should you so choose) and leave this feat out of MP. But such is life.

-H

JackMage666
2008-11-19, 03:45 PM
Am I the only one who's kinda dissapointed in this?

I mean, the new additions are solid, and good, but overall, I'm just kinda dissapointed. New feats, powers, paragon paths, and a few new class options, but I guess I just feel like it's lacking... Maybe I'm just used to 3.5, where they'd kick out new classes and even new rules with each book, but eh... Feels more like an addition rather than a whole new book to me, is all.

Artanis
2008-11-19, 03:49 PM
That sounds more like a plus to me.

Saintjebus
2008-11-19, 04:19 PM
As I understood how they are releasing books now, new classes and races will only be in PHBs. Of course, I also hear they are planning on releasing Core series once a year, too. So PHB II, MMII, DMGII, etc, every year. Which I actually like. No more searching desperately through splatbooks for that obscure class/race/ability you thought you saw.

skywalker
2008-11-19, 04:23 PM
Strictly speaking, there is a possible disadvantage to the new feat, since the mark you place cannot be overridden. There might come an occasion where you would actually want one of your fellows to put his own mark on the target, but he/she/it would not be able to do so. Granted, this is unlikely to come up unless your party is crawling with Defenders, but it is technically possible.

I know you said there might be a specific occasion, but I'd like to point out that this probably occurs more than occasionally. Because, the PHB(or possibly DMG, but I think PHB) encourages doubling up on defenders first. I DM a 4e game with 2 defenders in the party. Not just in 1 combat, not just in a few combats, but in practically every combat they've been in, the Paladin and Fighter have switched out marks as one becomes more or less wounded than the other. Oftentimes, giving up your mark and letting the other defender(or leader, or even striker or controller) take a hit or two while you heal up is the best thing a defender can do for the party.

Oracle, I understand what you're saying, I just wonder how you would've had them handle it? I mean assuming they aren't trying to fix brute strike, but merely give you another option? I haven't read the power, so I don't have a complete understanding of the logic behind it, but I'm curious how you would've liked to have seen it done, or just a completely different power, in it's place?

EDIT: For Sj: That is the intended method of release these days, which I agree with you about, it makes it easier for people whose DMs require them to own the book for the class they want to play(so now you don't have to buy "Serpent Kingdoms" for that one class), and also to keep things straight. As well, the fact that they're simply releasing fewer books period is pretty cool, IMO.

Hzurr
2008-11-19, 04:26 PM
I mean, the new additions are solid, and good, but overall, I'm just kinda dissapointed. New feats, powers, paragon paths, and a few new class options, but I guess I just feel like it's lacking... Maybe I'm just used to 3.5, where they'd kick out new classes and even new rules with each book, but eh... Feels more like an addition rather than a whole new book to me, is all.

I agree with Artanis, this is (for the most part) a good thing. I mean, a new class or two would have been cool, but additional rules? That was one of the most annoying things about 3.X splatbooks.

Yes, things like "swift actions" were cool, and a good idea, but to introduce them in a minor splatbook 2 years after the core rules were published? Mmm...not so good. I haven't had a chance to pick up my copy yet (hopefully later today), but it sounds like the things an extra book should have: Extra stuff. Nothing that's essential, no rule changes, nothing that could make a current PHB-only game (or classes) irrelevant or "weak." I mean, so far the only real issue that people have mentioned is this one fighter power, and a few grumbles about rangers. If those are really the biggest problems in a book that gives 100s of new powers, I'm exceptionally happy.

What would make me mad is if they created new martial classes that had a completely different mechanic than the current classes, but did everything exceptionally better, so that whenever someone on the boards mentioned the idea of playing a straight fighter, everyone would pop up going "No, those suck, you should play X instead." *Shakes fist in anger at Tome of Battle*

YPU
2008-11-19, 04:34 PM
Which I actually like. No more searching desperately through splatbooks for that obscure class/race/ability you thought you saw.
No, now you will be searching for that one power, whats it called, its in one of those books with that picture of that guy... :smallwink::smalltongue:

skywalker
2008-11-19, 04:44 PM
No, now you will be searching for that one power, whats it called, its in one of those books with that picture of that guy... :smallwink::smalltongue:

I'm not trying to argue with you, just saw this as an opportunity to point out that supposedly, martial classes are now done. There's not going to be a couple fighter powers in this book, or a ranger path in that book. This is going to be the quintessential resource for... well, for Martial Power :smallbiggrin:

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-19, 05:14 PM
Oracle, I understand what you're saying, I just wonder how you would've had them handle it? I mean assuming they aren't trying to fix brute strike, but merely give you another option? I haven't read the power, so I don't have a complete understanding of the logic behind it, but I'm curious how you would've liked to have seen it done, or just a completely different power, in it's place?

Personally, I'd prefer a different power. Make it a 2[W] power that gives a perma-mark, for example, or not make it Reliable - something that would give the player an honest choice between the two. Heck, even tying the perma-mark to specific weapons would be OK.

If I had to Errata, though, I'd probably Errata Brute Strike instead, and give it some extra bonus, perhaps making it a High Crit power or somesuch. That way the player could choose between Perma-Mark and High Crit rather than Perma-Mark and... nothing.

On Perma-Marking
Well, I haven't been in a dual Defender party, but if you really wanted to switch Marks, why not just place the other Mark on top of the Perma-Mark. It's tricky by RAW, but Divine Challenge does say it cancels out any previous marks, no?

Hatu
2008-11-19, 05:22 PM
On Perma-Marking
Well, I haven't been in a dual Defender party, but if you really wanted to switch Marks, why not just place the other Mark on top of the Perma-Mark. It's tricky by RAW, but Divine Challenge does say it cancels out any previous marks, no?

I believe the new feat in MP specifically states that the mark cannot be overridden. It's serious business. :-p

-H

Starsinger
2008-11-19, 05:26 PM
Martial Power is pretty sexy. I didn't get a great look at it, but I enjoyed everything I saw in it... which given my marked distaste for martial types, says something I'm sure. What exactly that says is anyone's guess.

RTGoodman
2008-11-19, 05:34 PM
I managed to get the book early Monday (which was WAY before it was supposed to come out - silly B&N :smallwink:), but I still haven't gotten all the way through it. I typed up a bit of a "review," but Word had an error and I lost it, so I'll just go over the basics.

- There's definitely codex creep, as most of you have said, and it's evident without even looking at the ones you guys mentioned.

- I don't really like the Animal Companion idea, but I think it's well-implemented. I'd definitely play an Eladrin Ranger with a Fairy Bear or something like that (with the Fey Companion feat) if I were going to play one. Or maybe a Dwarf Ranger with a Thundertusk Boar.

- The Battlerager fighter is, to me, too complicated and, at first glance, slightly stronger than the other Fighter builds. They get their bonuses anytime they have temporary HP, which they ALWAYS have because of their class feature, the overabundance of temporary-HP-giving powers, AND the glut of Invigorating powers that also happen to STACK with other temporary hit points, breaking the normal rules. And you still have to keep track of them all, which I'd personally hate.

- The Rattling keyword seems really good, and maybe too good. -2 penalties ON TOP of other things, at the minor cost of being trained in Intimidate, means I think we'll be seeing a lot of mace/club-wielding (Bugbear) Rogues with a bunch of Rattling powers.

- On Perma-Marking, I'm not sure if another Challenge could erase it. I'd have to look at the exact wording to check, but I think they all say they CAN'T be removed until the end of the encounter or you fall to 0 HP.

- I'm also still ambivalent about the glut of race-specific PPs, powers, and such. I've never really liked race-specific stuff, but unlike in 3.x a lot of the 4E ones can't be changed because of how they work with racial powers/abilities.

-For something I KNOW I don't like, I just want to point out the Dwarven Defender. Sure, it seems at least decent, but I don't think it follows the general "flavor" behind the older DDs. Personally, I think the Dreadnought PP is a MUCH better Dwarven Defender than the, well, Dwarven Defender.

- As an aside, I really like a lot of the sidebars that they used. I might not use them, but I think for especially new players the suggestions of gods or stuff for martial characters of each class and race.

tyfon
2008-11-19, 05:59 PM
Yeah, I thought so too... but there's (apparently) a MC feat that lets someone wield any weapon in their off-hand, just like the TWF Ranger :smallannoyed:

Who would like that feat? twf fighter now gets +2 damage with offhand. Then You get paragon that moves up offhand weapon damage dice one step(d6-d8 and so). Plus I've seen at least few other options (feats) to get damage even higher...

I have to read rulebooks again (lots of powers/feats) but at this moment creating twf ranger seems bad idea.

Grynning
2008-11-19, 08:26 PM
That's because is mixed in with the articles. Not that it would amount to anything substantial if it would've been put in seperate articles.

The new Warlord class features are rather, well, not all that different from the original ones. They seem more like aspects of previous class features, but enlarged. They don't really fit into a niche. A bravura warlord is an inspiring warlord who leads by example more than he leads by shouting, and a resourcefull warlord is a tactical warlord, but with quicker thinking.

As for the fluff: I saw the stuff mixed in with the articles, and while it's fine, I kinda miss the long sections of that kind of stuff that made 3.5 splatbooks great toilet reading. Now, some 3.5 splats were a little overboard in that department, but there is a middle ground.

I feel pretty much exactly the same about the new Warlord build options. They seem like they were designed in a rush..."Oh crap...we need to put in Warlord builds and this thing is do at the printers on Friday!"


Who would like that feat? twf fighter now gets +2 damage with offhand. Then You get paragon that moves up offhand weapon damage dice one step(d6-d8 and so). Plus I've seen at least few other options (feats) to get damage even higher...

I have to read rulebooks again (lots of powers/feats) but at this moment creating twf ranger seems bad idea.

The +2 Damage with "Off hand" property weapons is really meant to do the same thing as the ranger class feature (i.e. make the offhand do as much as the main hand). Overall the Tempest fighter will NOT deal as much damage as a ranger because of the lack of extra damage from hunter's quarry and the lack of attack powers that use both weapons. Tempest fighters are still defenders more than strikers, just with different flair.

The real question is if that damage bonus applies to both ends of a double weapon...then you could get a nice boost in damage with a simple feat. Double-axe wielding Bugbear Tempest Fighter/MC Ranger HOOOOoooo!
Ah, silly, silly double weapons and overpowered racial abilities....

On the Archer Ranger - I think they should get a better class feature too, and this book didn't fix that. If someone was playing one in my game I'd probably toss them a free feat or something.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-20, 04:52 AM
I'm not trying to argue with you, just saw this as an opportunity to point out that supposedly, martial classes are now done.

The latest two Dragon magazines suggest otherwise (with the big gladiator article, and now a class act on warlords). They haven't done class acts on other martial classes yet, for instance.

YPU
2008-11-20, 04:56 AM
Then again the compendium is suposed to include all powers from all the books at some point, or something like that right? That would make searching for powers a lot faster.

clericwithnogod
2008-11-20, 11:59 AM
I like it. All of it. The balance is fine.

As far as Brutal Strike/Lasting Thrust, if you play with a DM that suddenly stops hitting you because you took a couple bad hits and are on the verge of being knocked out, then you would always want Lasting Thrust. If you need the Brutal Scoundrel with a Fighter multiclass feat, Battle Cleric with Healing Strike, and/or another Defender or whatever to take some heat off you (or at least decrease your chances of being hit) for a while when you're banged up, Brutal Strike would be the better choice (if you really want that 3W rather than 2W and a healing surge).

Judging things based upon Monster Manual Bugbears is flawed. If your DM allows the intended-for-creating-NPCs Bugbear, then you'll have trouble with them. If the DM waits for the PC writeup without the oversized weapon property and whatever other changes are made to balance them, I don't foresee them being a problem.

Asbestos
2008-11-20, 12:53 PM
I have but a single question: have they finally given some single-weapon option for rangers?

I was thinking of having a Beast Master ranger that uses a two-handed weapon. If I never take an explicitly 'must be wielding two weapons' melee power, which I now can at every level thanks to the beast related powers, I can now be a melee ranger who goes around smacking things with a great axe. Was thinking of having a bear or lizard companion, or being a dwarf and going with a boar.

Someone mentioned the feat that lets you dual-wield as if you were a TW ranger, and yeah, its a multiclass feat. As far as I know you can't multiclass into your own class, so it isn't available to rangers.

You know who got a LOT of warlord love? Eldarin. Its totally ridic. If you have an Eldarin taclord (like I do) this book is everything you want.

Btw, you can still have a shield and be a battlerager, and there are a number of new shield focused fighter powers as well so it could be said that sword and board fighters got a lot of love too.

Mando Knight
2008-11-20, 01:58 PM
The latest two Dragon magazines suggest otherwise (with the big gladiator article, and now a class act on warlords). They haven't done class acts on other martial classes yet, for instance.

They also don't have a Martial Controller...
Or a second Defender and Leader to go with the second Striker... :smalltongue:

Asbestos
2008-11-20, 02:02 PM
They also don't have a Martial Controller...
Or a second Defender and Leader to go with the second Striker... :smalltongue:

Can't... eyeroll... harder...

Arcane is going to have two leaders, one striker, one defender, and two controllers.

I think Divine might be the only one with one of each role (once PHB 2 comes out)

Jack_Banzai
2008-11-20, 03:37 PM
As an eladrin fighter who specializes in greatspear combat, the Dread Reaper paragon path is nothing less than a godsend.

NeoVid
2008-11-21, 02:25 AM
I just found out it includes an epic destiny that has the capstone ability that allows you to get killed, then just walk out of the afterlife and go back to your adventuring, because you are just that much of an embodiment of pure awesome.

This is now the most entertaining sourcebook ever.

Dizlag
2008-11-21, 10:51 AM
NeoVid ... that just cracked me up! Thank you!

I enjoyed looking over the book because it is just chock full of crunch. Not any fluff at all and is definitely an "addition" to the PHB.

Only thing no one has mentioned yet, except in passing by rtg0922 (the Rattling keyword and Intimidate) and that's the new keywords for powers that are linked to a trained skill. This is a VERY kewl concept me for and a nice concept my players will like as well.

If the Arcane Powers and Divine Powers books are like this, I'm just $60 poorer. And other power books will be must buys for my group as well putting me further in debt. I'm sold. :smallbiggrin:

Thanks Wizards!

Dizlag

ColdSepp
2008-11-21, 01:12 PM
I really like the Dark Wanderer Epic Destiny, mainly because it is pure Rule of Cool.

DSCrankshaw
2008-11-21, 02:33 PM
I'll second what others have said, that placing a mark that can't be removed can be as much a disadvantage as an advantage, which is probably why they thought it didn't overshadow brutal strike. Considering that a fighter can keep a mark going every round simply by attacking anyway, the only reason to perma-mark is to keep someone focused on you while you're dealing with other guys, which can end up in being over your head very quickly.