If there are any new builds in MP2(which there had better be!) what is everyones guess/wish list???
I personally would like to see an Str/Int based Light Blade user, and perhaps a single weapon Ranger. (If EVERYONE ELSE can dual wield too, why not???)
I don't think there will be new classes. The pattern seems to be that new classes are to be released either in a PHB or in a campaign setting PG.
I am, however, certain we'll get a lot of new martial options. I'm currently hoping for an INT-based Rogue and a WIS-based Warlord, but I think that an INT-based options for Fighters replacing Combat Seperiority would be cool.
It's almost certain there will be no new classes in MP2. Classes only appear in PHBs.
Though to be fair, the two examples given were builds. Maybe they will release a single weapon ranger build.
Ive reall got to shake my "its all a class" 3e mindset. sorry.
What I meant was Builds, what do you think the new builds will be???
It's an interesting thought. A single weapon Ranger could focus on movement. A get in, get out sort of thing skirmisher sort of thing. It would be tough to differentiate that from the rogue but I definitely think it's possible.
For that matter, simply patching (or *gasp* errataing) the Beasts of the beastmaster to have critical dice, and adding an Expertise feat for them, wold do wonders.
Some ideas for builds for Martial Power 2:
- Fighter
Mounted Fighter: Finally giving mounted combat its due. To make it more versatile for those situations where a mount would not be feasible, perhaps this build would be based on charging, with extra riders if the charge attacks are done from the back of a mount.
- Rogue
Cunning Rogue: An INT-based Rogue build based around fighting with improvised weapons and traps, with a secondary Controller focus. Many traps would grant combat advantage to the rogue, making sneak attacking easier.
Brawler Rogue: A third STR-based build based on unarmed combat. As an alternative, a feat may be introduced to let fists count as clubs for the purposes of activating rattling powers, allowing more synergy for unarmed rogues and monk/rogue multiclasses.
- Ranger
Skirmisher Ranger: A heavy-weapon ranger with a focus on mobility and bouncing across the battlefield. May have both melee and ranged powers, for synergy with the new Seeker class.
- Warlord
Extra battle options: A WIS-based build might be useful, as well as a ranged build. Not sure what they'll end up doing here.
- Warlord
Extra battle options: A WIS-based build might be useful, as well as a ranged build.
The two might be the one and the same.
The Rogue needs a good Int Rogue to focus on swashbuckling, being less mobile but tougher, able to parry and riposte, and be especially suited for swordplay. Something that can flank while adjacent to an ally rather than opposite, for example, would be amazing.
Likewise, a bow Rogue with Wisdom would make a great trap-spotter, and emphasize the sniper mentality. Haley needs love. :D
Mounted Combat. Fighter for the knight, mounted archery/quick cavalry for the ranger. If they can make running around with a crocodile an acceptable option, they can add a horse variant too.
A Warlord build that has a power for every level that has someone ELSE attack, thus not requiring Strength investment. Every other leader now has a build that keeps them out of combat; clerics have the pacifist healer that deals no damage from level 1-30, shamans have the eagle setup to grant attacks to allies. Warlords need a version that will let them stay out of combat to create the Wise Sage and Little Napoleon sorts of archetypes, rather than requiring tacticians to always be in the fray.
Style feats that change at-wills around, to give people options on exactly how they fight. Yes, dragon did some of that already, but actual book form would be better.
Most of all....more weaponry focus. Quarterstaves suck. Flails fail. Picks are pathetic. We need styles to give these weapons meaning in the game, both for Martial classes and everyone else.
Most of all....more weaponry focus. Quarterstaves suck. Flails fail. Picks are pathetic. We need styles to give these weapons meaning in the game, both for Martial classes and everyone else.
Also Versatile weapon support.
And a reason to use the Spiked Gauntlet :p
The Rogue needs a good Int Rogue to focus on swashbuckling, being less mobile but tougher, able to parry and riposte, and be especially suited for swordplay. Something that can flank while adjacent to an ally rather than opposite, for example, would be amazing.
Rogue can already do that, with Vexing Flanker. Take Toughness and Hide Armor to be 'less mobile but tougher', and you're good to go.
A Warlord build that has a power for every level that has someone ELSE attack, thus not requiring Strength investment. Every other leader now has a build that keeps them out of combat; clerics have the pacifist healer that deals no damage from level 1-30, shamans have the eagle setup to grant attacks to allies. Warlords need a version that will let them stay out of combat to create the Wise Sage and Little Napoleon sorts of archetypes, rather than requiring tacticians to always be in the fray.
This.
For that matter, simply patching (or *gasp* errataing) the Beasts of the beastmaster to have critical dice, and adding an Expertise feat for them, wold do wonders.
Beasts add level, not 1/2 level to attack, so they do not actually need an Expertise feat for them.
For that matter, simply patching (or *gasp* errataing) the Beasts of the beastmaster to have critical dice, and adding an Expertise feat for them, wold do wonders.
Beasts add level, not 1/2 level to attack, so they do not actually need an Expertise feat for them.
They do need Crit dices and a bonus to damage somewhere down the line.
Rogue can already do that, with Vexing Flanker. Take Toughness and Hide Armor to be 'less mobile but tougher', and you're good to go.
Shh! Quiet! You'll expose the fact that I have no idea what schtick an Int Rogue should do, but still want a thief-ish concept that is actually rewarded for being smart. 
Hm... an idea for an Rogue with Intelligence as a Secondary Stat could be that it takes a minor in leader.
You know, uses his superior Intellect to provide bonuses to allies while backstabbing foes.
I mean, the Artful Dodger and Ruthless Ruffian already minor in controller. Let's try something a little different, howsabouts?
Likewise, a bow Rogue with Wisdom would make a great trap-spotter, and emphasize the sniper mentality. Haley needs love. :D
Haley is a ranger in 4th edition. The ranger in the party I run massacres things with his bow and both finds and disarms all the traps. From level one with no multi-classing, which tells me that a ranger is designed for such. If you want, just write the word "thief" on top of your ranger's character sheet. Just like I write "human" and "friar" on the top of my half-elf avenger's character sheet. (I just wish an avenger was as friar-like as a ranger can be thief-like.)
Most of all....more weaponry focus. Quarterstaves suck. Flails fail. Picks are pathetic. We need styles to give these weapons meaning in the game, both for Martial classes and everyone else.
Now with this I agree with wholeheartedly. How can I make a friar without a good staff and good feats?
Most of all....more weaponry focus. Quarterstaves suck. Flails fail. Picks are pathetic. We need styles to give these weapons meaning in the game, both for Martial classes and everyone else.
Also Versatile weapon support.
And a reason to use the Spiked Gauntlet :p
I agree with you. I actually made a character that used the spiked gauntlet. Unoptimal? Sure (dismally so in fact)! Cool as all F**k? Hell yes! He was a dhamphyr drow druid|warden/rouge hybrid (I made a clan of surface living primal worshiping drow) and his attacks focused on the warden side of things, with a cool wild shape atttack occasionally and summon guardian drakefrom the druid half. his at will was the coolest though: Thorn Stike. spectral thorns sprout from your weapon, pulling it closer. Now picture the drow, whirling around, throwing out his arm, the thorns grabbing a foe ten feet away, dragging him right into his (spend actionpoint here) Loving bite(blooddrain)... God I wish I could play him (but do something about his horrendous 15/15/15 stat spread....)
But yes, point it spiked gauntlet can be all kinds of badass, and must be supported. Versatile weapons too. the +1 to damagae doesn't quite make it appealing enough to pick over a higher die weapon.
On the discussion of an Int Rogue, our group had one, based on the description in Races and Classes. In there, they mention the Int Rogue getting a bonus to trained skill checks; as such, our Int Rogue build is the "Skilled Genius," who gains his Int bonus to trained skills. His moves we designed gave a bit of leader, but more controller like the Artful Dodger.
The Rogue needs a good Int Rogue to focus on swashbuckling, being less mobile but tougher, able to parry and riposte, and be especially suited for swordplay. Something that can flank while adjacent to an ally rather than opposite, for example, would be amazing.
Likewise, a bow Rogue with Wisdom would make a great trap-spotter, and emphasize the sniper mentality. Haley needs love. :D
Mounted Combat. Fighter for the knight, mounted archery/quick cavalry for the ranger. If they can make running around with a crocodile an acceptable option, they can add a horse variant too.
A Warlord build that has a power for every level that has someone ELSE attack, thus not requiring Strength investment. Every other leader now has a build that keeps them out of combat; clerics have the pacifist healer that deals no damage from level 1-30, shamans have the eagle setup to grant attacks to allies. Warlords need a version that will let them stay out of combat to create the Wise Sage and Little Napoleon sorts of archetypes, rather than requiring tacticians to always be in the fray.
Style feats that change at-wills around, to give people options on exactly how they fight. Yes, dragon did some of that already, but actual book form would be better.
Most of all....more weaponry focus. Quarterstaves suck. Flails fail. Picks are pathetic. We need styles to give these weapons meaning in the game, both for Martial classes and everyone else.
This. All of this. Please, Wizards!
For that matter, simply patching (or *gasp* errataing) the Beasts of the beastmaster to have critical dice, and adding an Expertise feat for them, wold do wonders.
Beasts add level, not 1/2 level to attack, so they do not actually need an Expertise feat for them.
yea, I meant a Weapon Focus-type feat. my bad.
On the discussion of an Int Rogue, our group had one, based on the description in Races and Classes. In there, they mention the Int Rogue getting a bonus to trained skill checks; as such, our Int Rogue build is the "Skilled Genius," who gains his Int bonus to trained skills. His moves we designed gave a bit of leader, but more controller like the Artful Dodger.
Skilled Genius eh? I like the concept. Not so sure about the mechanics you're using, the math of skill challenges is already fragile enough, and this build seems like it would completely break the system entirely. Still, it seems like a promising starting point.
For that matter, simply patching (or *gasp* errataing) the Beasts of the beastmaster to have critical dice, and adding an Expertise feat for them, wold do wonders.
Beasts add level, not 1/2 level to attack, so they do not actually need an Expertise feat for them.
They do need Crit dices and a bonus to damage somewhere down the line.
Not really, no. The Beast is supposed to be a sidekick, not equal to a PC.
For that matter, simply patching (or *gasp* errataing) the Beasts of the beastmaster to have critical dice, and adding an Expertise feat for them, wold do wonders.
Beasts add level, not 1/2 level to attack, so they do not actually need an Expertise feat for them.
They do need Crit dices and a bonus to damage somewhere down the line.
Not really, no. The Beast is supposed to be a sidekick, not equal to a PC.
If there are going to be powers that sacrifice the PC's ability to attack in favor of the beast, the beast better be able to hold up it's own end. It doesn't need to be no-brainer powerful, but it at least needs to stay in the right range.
Except that by the time this becomes an issue, you can attack with the beast as a minor.
It becomes an issue long before epic. it becomes a dramatic issue in Paragon.
A lot of Beastmaster don't even bother with Beast power and just plug stuff with arrows instead... if that doesn't mean there's a flaw inthe beasts I don't know what does.
Really? Crit dice become a *major* issue in Paragon? I think we need to have a discussion about what the term major means.
They do lag in damage but IMHO they make up for it in versatility. If they matched the other options in damage, they would be the de facto class feature of the Ranger.
They do lag in damage but IMHO they make up for it in versatility. If they matched the other options in damage, they would be the de facto class feature of the Ranger.
Well if it matched BETTER with the others it would be the defacto COOL class feature. You know how certain people feel the Ranger isn't a distinctive enough class, that he is only there for tradition's sake, so if they had focused on the Beastmaster more we wouldn't have that sort of problem.
A lot of Archery Ranger don't bother with the free feat and pick a raptor to quarry enemies more easily.
It's nit just criticals- As for accuracy, compare the beasts (who range from level +3 to Level +5 BAB) to the at will bite attack from Bahamut's Vessel. (level +8 with reach)
And damage... beasts don't get Weapon focus, let alone Iron Armbands, Called Shot or the other big damage boosters. If you don't choose the right animal for your power, you don't even get the closest thing they have to an Enhancement bonus to damage. For a striker, beast powers are a trap.
I'm looking forward to seeing more about Martial Practices and hope there will be a build or builds that work particularly well with them - like how Wizards and get free rituals as they level.
A mounted combat build or PP would be great. While we're at it, how 'bout an actual lance for all the knights in shining armor out there? So far the only 'lance' we have is the devoted cleric's lazer gun.
A single-weapon ranger build would be cool.
A non-ranger archer would be nice.
A ranged fighter build would be awesome. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but fighters /can/ mark at range, and you can't /always/ melee. The build could gain it's weapon talent with a 'ranged weapon' - either dedicated ranged (perhaps resurrecting the old 'strength bow') or, more likely, heavy thrown - and would have a number of apropriate powers or an alternate feature to make marking at range more effective. Probably end up a little on the secondary-controller side.
Reach PPs have already seen print, but I'd like to see a reach build or two that's interesting from 1st level.
Really? Crit dice become a *major* issue in Paragon? I think we need to have a discussion about what the term major means.
Crits can do a lot of damage once you start getting better magic weapons. A +3 vicious weapon does +3d12 on a crit, for instance, and it's only 1 level higher than a generic +3 weapon, add feats like Devestating Critical or Deadly Axe (or just a high crit weapon), and yeah, crit damage become very significant. I wouldn't be surprised if it was originally envisioned as making up for the slightly harder time Paragon and Epic characters would've had hitting pre-Expertise.
A non-ranger archer would be nice.
We have two already: The Prescient Bard; and the Vengeful Seeker. Note, though, that the Vengeful Seeker is Insider only until next Spring...
Still, there are three playable tailored-to Archery classes.
The Artificer is also good with bows, having many ranged weapon powers. But it's not as fluff-tailored towards using bows as much as other, more mechanical things like Crossbows.
Fighter Builds:
Dualist, focuses on playing your enemies like a game of chess, uses Dex and Int, minor in controller, uses a one handed weapon, good mobility, lots of immediate action attacks and utilities
Ranger Builds:
Skirmisher Style, focuses on movement and has bonus dmg based on how they move, does very well on a mount (maybe has a Beast Rider PP that grants shield prof) has lots of charge powers and such
Rogue Builds:
Charlatan, similar to sly dodger with less dmg and more control, minors in leader with setups and tricks, works really well with other Rogues and strikers, adds more to the swashbuckler archetype
Warlord Builds:
Mastermind's Presence, focuses on pulling off complex maneuvers and devastating combinations, minors in control, uses special utilities called Formations that key off of other specific attack powers
We have two already: The Prescient Bard; and the Vengeful Seeker.
Actually, there's another: Artificer!
Scout class build for the Ranger sounds nice. It also makes the existence of a single weapon version make sense.
Give it a bunch of "if you move first add DMG" powers and the feat fast runner/alertness, and your golden.
Well if it matched BETTER with the others it would be the defacto COOL class feature. You know how certain people feel the Ranger isn't a distinctive enough class, that he is only there for tradition's sake, so if they had focused on the Beastmaster more we wouldn't have that sort of problem
I disagree. I love my twin blade Ranger and think he plays way differently than any other class I've played. I'm willing to concede that the beast ranger needs something though since I haven't actually played one.
The problem isnt that the Ranger limited in flavor, its that if you were to line up 100 Twin-Blade Rangers you would be hard pressed to spot any diffrences other than Stormwarden/Pit Fighter.
I see what you're saying. I'm just not sure how beefing up other builds will help.
Is your argument that adding damage to the animal companion will add variety to the class as a whole? I think that having a less damaging but more versitile option like the animal companion would do a nice job of that as is.
I've always contested that the Twin Blade ranger needs more variety in powers. Unfortunately, they get one of the most powerfull schticks in the game so far and it would be tough to come up with something comparable to iterative attacks.
I see what you're saying. I'm just not sure how beefing up other builds will help.
Is your argument that adding damage to the animal companion will add variety to the class as a whole? I think that having a less damaging but more versitile option like the animal companion would do a nice job of that as is.
I've always contested that the Twin Blade ranger needs more variety in powers. Unfortunately, they get one of the most powerfull schticks in the game so far and it would be tough to come up with something comparable to iterative attacks.
Damage will bring it to the appropriate baseline, allowing the builds to be comparable on a power-for-power basis.
And beastmaster powers ARE unique. With one feat and proper positioning, Predator Strike knocks prone. Beast powers have a number of status effects associated with them- Dazes, slows, some Close Burst powers... the problem is that there isn't enough of them. With more controllery options, the Beastmaster can stand out as a distinct build, rather than being Two-weapon-plus or Archer-plus.
The Rogue needs a good Int Rogue to focus on swashbuckling, being less mobile but tougher, able to parry and riposte, and be especially suited for swordplay. Something that can flank while adjacent to an ally rather than opposite, for example, would be amazing.
Rogue can already do that, with Vexing Flanker. Take Toughness and Hide Armor to be 'less mobile but tougher', and you're good to go.
Rogues have this at-will already. Vexing flanker is obsolete. Clever Strike does exactly this.
the problem is that there isn't enough of them. With more controllery options, the Beastmaster can stand out as a distinct build, rather than being Two-weapon-plus or Archer-plus.
I agree 100%. I think there should be more powers for every build.
the thing about the beastmaster is... you're a friggin beastmaster. Sure it may not be as strikery a striker, and it may not be the optimal build, but I have more fun playing the beastmaster than I do the 2 weapon or archer.
I guess one of the big questions is as follows; would it be worth building another martial class if it had mechanical as well as thematic differences?
Part of the niftyness of the psionic source is that fact that they are branching out in terms of class design. The Psion, and most likely two of his cousins, have no encounter powers, instead they augment their at wills. It's a new twist, but still in keeping with 4th edition balance and design.
So what if a new martial class wasn't merely a thematic twist, but was also mechanically unique?
A class centered around adrenaline, with an energy pool that builds with each successful attack and can be burned for greater effect?
One actually limited by ammunition, able to replenish his stock of gear based on healing surges or other expendable-but-refreshed-by-rest resources, similar to the artificer?
A dedicated weaponmaster in the spirit of the Book of Nine Swords who uses attack sequences, chaining together combinations with different effects based on techniques and the order of their use?
Crude, but you get the idea. Now that we're branching out in terms of class design, would it be worth revisiting the martial source to not only explore a few themes that haven't been touched on, but also to provide new mechanical ideas that pushes the source and the game in a nifty direction?
I guess one of the big questions is as follows; would it be worth building another martial class if it had mechanical as well as thematic differences?
Part of the niftyness of the psionic source is that fact that they are branching out in terms of class design. The Psion, and most likely two of his cousins, have no encounter powers, instead they augment their at wills. It's a new twist, but still in keeping with 4th edition balance and design.
So what if a new martial class wasn't merely a thematic twist, but was also mechanically unique?
A class centered around adrenaline, with an energy pool that builds with each successful attack and can be burned for greater effect?
One actually limited by ammunition, able to replenish his stock of gear based on healing surges or other expendable-but-refreshed-by-rest resources, similar to the artificer?
A dedicated weaponmaster in the spirit of the Book of Nine Swords who uses attack sequences, chaining together combinations with different effects based on techniques and the order of their use?
Crude, but you get the idea. Now that we're branching out in terms of class design, would it be worth revisiting the martial source to not only explore a few themes that haven't been touched on, but also to provide new mechanical ideas that pushes the source and the game in a nifty direction?
i like the chain combat method, Encoun ters caring about what at-will you used, or other encounter powers, and then dailies could be finishing type moves. But flavorfully how is it ditinct? It sounds like another type of fighter, or a rouge. So then the question is weather mechanics is enough justification for a new class.
the thing about the beastmaster is... you're a friggin beastmaster. Sure it may not be as strikery a striker, and it may not be the optimal build, but I have more fun playing the beastmaster than I do the 2 weapon or archer.
Something that people don't consider is, a beastmaster introduces additional HP to the party. So while you might not have crit dice, you bring to the party something capable of opportunity attacks and soaking up damage.
the thing about the beastmaster is... you're a friggin beastmaster. Sure it may not be as strikery a striker, and it may not be the optimal build, but I have more fun playing the beastmaster than I do the 2 weapon or archer.
Something that people don't consider is, a beastmaster introduces additional HP to the party. So while you might not have crit dice, you bring to the party something capable of opportunity attacks and soaking up damage.
As the beast is also an aditional target, one that will often be in the same AoEs as the ranger, and which, if it drops, removes the ability to se Beast keyword powers (if you have any, which is the idea)
I consider the issues a wash.
What about using the Psion progression for a martial class. I can easily see that making sense (lots of at-wills, burn "Tricks" to make them stronger).
What about using the Psion progression for a martial class. I can easily see that making sense (lots of at-wills, burn "Tricks" to make them stronger).
I don't think it would flow well tacking that onto an existing class. Plus it is the mechanic that defines the psionic power source, so I doubt they would move it out to an entirely different power source.
I would certainly like to see them fix beastmasters. Right now, beastmaster's beasts sit at around 1-3 points of attack bonus behind regular ranger builds. They lack critical damage dice on beast attacks. They lack feats to grant feat bonuses to beast attacks. And the beast does not bring enough controller/defender to the table to make these sacrifices worth it. My MAJOR hope for martial power 2, in fact the criteria uppon which I will buy the book immediatly or wait until I am playing a different class other than ranger, will be whether the book offers fixes for the problems that the beastmaster ranger is currently facing.
What about using the Psion progression for a martial class. I can easily see that making sense (lots of at-wills, burn "Tricks" to make them stronger).
Or instead take away the dailies and make the Encounter augmentable by a different ressource!
Based on the widely mocked MP2 style playtest, I think they are probably just going to try do the old lightning twice fail with TOB:B9S. I hope they got the message that at-will boosting based on class, and weapon, and at-will, and situautional requirements just really tick off the consumers.
Soooo.... lets hope for a ton of new powers and some general build rounding.
We have two already: The Prescient Bard; and the Vengeful Seeker.
Actually, there's another: Artificer!
A caster with a bow isn't an archer, he's a caster putting a whammy on his bow so the arrows conjure mushrooms or whatever. That's not archery, it's magic.
We have two already: The Prescient Bard; and the Vengeful Seeker.
Actually, there's another: Artificer!
A caster with a bow isn't an archer, he's a caster putting a whammy on his bow so the arrows conjure mushrooms or whatever. That's not archery, it's magic.
The artificer enhances his arrows or bow, he still shoots the bow and the arrow, and if the arrow doesn'tconnect it doesn't do anything. Thats archery, archery combined with magic, but archery none the less.
I for one would love to see a one weapon ranger build in MP2. I am of the opion that not all rangers have animals or are archers or a drizzit wannabee's. My favorite ranger is tristan kendrick whom you cannot recreate in 4th due to the stereotype put on rangers. I really have loved the class in all other editions and do like some aspects of it in 4th but it just seems to for the masses for my taste. I really like the 4th edition system as a whole this is one area that just gets to me.
I for one would love to see a one weapon ranger build in MP2. I am of the opion that not all rangers have animals or are archers or a drizzit wannabee's. My favorite ranger is tristan kendrick whom you cannot recreate in 4th due to the stereotype put on rangers. I really have loved the class in all other editions and do like some aspects of it in 4th but it just seems to for the masses for my taste. I really like the 4th edition system as a whole this is one area that just gets to me.
Last time I checked there were already enough ranger powers usable in melee and without the "must be wielding two weapons" requirement to make building a single weapon ranger viable. It's a rather narrow build with limited options, but it's there. I played one myself briefly before deciding that the barbarian class better represented the concept I was aiming for.
That said, more support would certainly be welcome, but I personally feel that it is the beast master build that is in need of the most support.
There are several levels where a one weapon non-beastmaster ranger has literally NO powers to choose.
I would like a crossbow weilding wizard personally. It seems like this archetype is underrepresented in 4th ed.
I would like a crossbow weilding wizard personally. It seems like this archetype is underrepresented in 4th ed.
lol.
Go Artificer :p
There are several levels where a one weapon non-beastmaster ranger has literally NO powers to choose.
True. To be precise, level 17 encounter and level 5 daily. Every other level has at least one power and sometimes more, which allows for the option of selecting a lower level power if nothing else.
The biggest obstacle to the single weapon ranger is the lack of a second at-will, Hit and Run being the only melee option that lacks the two weapon requirement, but even that isn't an insurmountable obstacle and the options for doing so can also help fill in the missing encounter and daily gaps.
- If you planing to boost DEX for AC, you can also grab a few ranged powers to use with a trusty throwing weapon for some extra versatility.
- If your willing to forgo an actual two-handed weapon you can wield a versatile weapon in one hand (the waraxe is a strong choice) and a spiked gauntlet in the other (or even you plain unarmed strike). This allows you to pick a few two-weapon powers, and if you avoid powers that deal off-hand damage the gauntlet's low damage die will be a non-factor.
- Similar to the above but more defensive, spend a feet on light shield proficiency and use a spiked shield. You'd need to spend a second feet to get the proficiency bonus, but like above you should avoid powers that make off-hand attacks.
- Finlay there is the urgrosh. It might technically be a double weapon, but visually it's just a two-handed axe with a spear point at the other end.
Building a single weapon ranger takes creativity and sometimes a little bit of compromising, but it's far from a non-existent option, and that isn't at all bad for a non-official build.
That maybe so but it would be nice to have the choice for a single weapon ranger. I thought the whole powers book line was to give new builds for more choices. I for one think it would give the ranger even more versatility something most people like. I mean there are several examples of one weapon rangers that have no animal companion such as Tristan Kendrick or Arragorn both are repersented in the new edition very well.
That maybe so but it would be nice to have the choice for a single weapon ranger. I thought the whole powers book line was to give new builds for more choices. I for one think it would give the ranger even more versatility something most people like. I mean there are several examples of one weapon rangers that have no animal companion such as Tristan Kendrick or Arragorn both are repersented in the new edition very well.
Personally I'd peg Arragorn as more of a warlord. He was a ranger by title not necessarily by class. Still, point taken.
Aragorn is a Warlord, maybe with a Ranger Multiclass. The original Ranger class when it was first concieved way back in the early days was more of Aragorn. Now it's gone Legolas on us (which was more of a Fighter back then, just a archery-focused one).
A caster with a bow isn't an archer, he's a caster putting a whammy on his bow so the arrows conjure mushrooms or whatever. That's not archery, it's magic.
I agree with this.
For the few "magic"+archery classes that currently exist in the game, the casting involved supersedes the physical prowess involved (in my mind, anyway).
The artificer enhances his arrows or bow, he still shoots the bow and the arrow, and if the arrow doesn'tconnect it doesn't do anything. Thats archery, archery combined with magic, but archery none the less.
Arguable.
Is his aim due to his martial skill or his arcane mastery?
Is a sharpshooter who can hit the bullseye with a laser-point, but can't even hit the target without the laser-point, still a sharpshooter?
If an arcane spell is the means by which the enhanced arrow finds its target then the archer is using magic, not archery. If martial exploit is the means by which the enhanced arrow finds its target then the archer is using archery, not magic.
Semantic... but meaningful.
Well, you're in luck, if you wanted another MARTIAL Archer, you got one. Upcoming Warlord build will use archery (check out today's Ampersand MP2 preview).
In my opinion, what you're saying is that you want archers who are solely martial, depending on nothing but martial skill. That's fine. But archery isn't just that. Archery is the use of bows, to whatever end. Whether that be arcane, primal, or even possibly divine or psionic (or shadow or elemental or whatever).
Upcoming Warlord build will use archery (check out today's Ampersand MP2 preview).
Mmmm, so delicious.
The biggest obstacle to the single weapon ranger is the lack of a second at-will, Hit and Run being the only melee option that lacks the two weapon requirement
I took a gander at recreating one of my hunter characters (spear in one hand, small wooden buckler strapped to my other wrist) and it seems possible. The At-Wills were Hit and Run and Hunter's Teamwork. The issue was a lack of 3rd at-will for my human
Normally I don't like the PHB Mini powers as they almost always seem to be better then book powers, but Hunter's Teamwork made me actually go "eh." The main reason I'd take is because of its name more than anything else I agree with the lack of powers for a single weapon ranger which could be fixed in MP2 there does not need to be alot more just a few more to give another choice of a ranger build. I would also like to see a rogue archer as well, I miss seeing a rogue with a short bow.
Considering we're getting interesting new builds like an Archer Warlord and a Two-Handed Weapon Ranger, I would be that Rogue will get something new as well. An Int rogue would be much appreciated, in my opinion.
Considering we're getting interesting new builds like an Archer Warlord and a Two-Handed Weapon Ranger, I would be that Rogue will get something new as well. An Int rogue would be much appreciated, in my opinion.
I think a 'cunning rogue' would be better represented by a WIS build, if only so they don't put all their eggs in the same NADs and to make them GREAT at finding traps (Perception fueled by WIS) again.
In my opinion, what you're saying is that you want archers who are solely martial, depending on nothing but martial skill. That's fine. But archery isn't just that. Archery is the use of bows, to whatever end. Whether that be arcane, primal, or even possibly divine or psionic (or shadow or elemental or whatever).
Who's sayin?
I'm sayin?
I didn't say that I want archers to be solely martial...
I said that archers who use physical prowess to land a strike are using martial skill and archers who use spells to land a strike are using arcane magic. ...This extends to archers who use evocations to land a strike using primal magic.
I was just drawing a distinction as to how the "archer" in such archery functions.
Or was that post not for me?
I think a 'cunning rogue' would be better represented by a WIS build, if only so they don't put all their eggs in the same NADs and to make them GREAT at finding traps (Perception fueled by WIS) again.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Please, please, please don't slap the "cunning rogue" with an INT build.
Would be so very sad. 
An int Rogue would be nice, but the Perception-focused one as it would not be.
The archery comment WAS directed at you, because the way you phrased it sounded like you were saying that Prescient Bards, Vengeful Seekers, and Artificers were not archers, because they supplement their archery with magical power, whether that be primal or arcane (or they supplement their magic with their archery skill). Just because someone guides their arrows with spirits doesn't mean that they aren't archers - it just means their archery isn't grounded in reality, but in the mythical spiritual archery that appears in folklore and popular media.
It doesn't undermine their ability as archers - they just aren't MARTIAL, and thus have a little less plausibility.
Please, please, please don't slap the "cunning rogue" with an INT build.
Would be so very sad.
Why so? Eladrin need love too!
Please, please, please don't slap the "cunning rogue" with an INT build.
Would be so very sad.
Why so? Eladrin need love too!
INT rogue would have horrendous defense, good AC and Reflex but abysmall Fort or Will.
If you really want an INT Rogue I'd say it should be the more leader-y build. Like... give them a feature where if they miss with an attack and haven't spent their sneak attack that turn the next ally to attack the same target while having combat advantage deals additionnal damage equal to your INT mod.
Sure, maybe there's a mechanical reason why Wisdom would be a more *effective* choice for the 'cunning rogue' build. But ignoring mechanics, is Wisdom the first ability score most people are going to think of when they think 'cunning'?, or is Intelligence?
Thematically, I think the Rogue needs both.
There is the perfect case for wisdom in the trap spotter, the sniper, the perfectly attuned stalker who sees everything, can feel a trap before it springs, spot an ambush an hour before it's sprung, read the lips of his target from five hundred yards, and already has an arrow in flight before a concealed mage finishes whispering a spell. Part of being a rogue is perception, knowing your environment, understanding every shadow, every noise, every flicker of light or change in scenery.
There is also a case for the intelligence in the spymaster, the operative, the agent who has planned for every possibility, has a contingency for every situation, an item or technique to solve every problem, a buckle for every swash. Brilliance and daring go hand in hand, from the witticisms of Cyrano or Machiavellian plans of Aramis to the audacious cunning of Zorro or the Scarlet Pimpernel, even back to the keen trickery of Odysseus. Part of being a rogue is planning so far ahead of your opponent that they can never defeat you, and being able to pull a proverbial ace from your sleeve anywhere, anytime, even when surrounded, weaponless, and naked in a bathtub (Contingency #374, of #376 if you have a rubber ducky).
Martial classes are broader than any other type because they are more grounded in the real world. They need to cover more archetypes, more possibilities than any other class, and to do that, they need to expand outwards. Rogues need to be rewarded for being Smart Heroes or Savvy Heroes, not just Strong or Charismatic ones.
I think a 'cunning rogue' would be better represented by a WIS build, if only so they don't put all their eggs in the same NADs and to make them GREAT at finding traps (Perception fueled by WIS) again.
Please, please, please don't slap the "cunning rogue" with an INT build.Would be so very sad.
INT rogue would have horrendous defense, good AC and Reflex but abysmall Fort or Will.
Solution to the INT-Rogue's defense problem:
Slippery Mind: You can use your Intelligence modifier in place of your Wisdom or Charisma modifer to determine your Will Defense.
There you have it. Really, the whole defense issue is not a difficult problem to fix, so it makes no sense to be against an INT-using Rogue option only for that reason. If it thematically makes more sense to use INT, then use INT.
INT rogue would have horrendous defense, good AC and Reflex but abysmall Fort or Will.
Hello, I'd like you to meet some folks. First, this is Battlerage Fighter, Rageblood Barbarian and Earthstrength Warden; all of them double up on STR+CON and so have terrible reflex and will. Next meet Devoted Cleric, Virtuous Paladin, and Prescient Bard; they all double up on WIS+CHA and so have terrible fortitude and reflex. Last, but not least, meet Wand Wizard; doubling up on DEX+INT and thus suffering all the same troubles as the conceptual Cunning Rogue.
I mean, if you give the Int rogue a good enough feature, it kinda counteracts their poor defenses. I hope the feature interacts with skill in some way; I'd like a genius skillmaster rogue who dabbles in Wizard.
Solution to the INT-Rogue's defense problem:Slippery Mind: You can use your Intelligence modifier in place of your Wisdom or Charisma modifer to determine your Will Defense.
Ooooo... I like!
There you have it. Really, the whole defense issue is not a difficult problem to fix, so it makes no sense to be against an INT-using Rogue option only for that reason. If it thematically makes more sense to use INT, then use INT.
It's not only the defense thing. It's the WIS-based skill thing. It's silly that Rogues have no nose for trap-finding.
It's also silly that the charismatic angle is lopsided with the Rogue, considering the WIS-based skills are awesomely supportive of charismatic builds.
The archery comment WAS directed at you, because the way you phrased it sounded like you were saying that Prescient Bards, Vengeful Seekers, and Artificers were not archers, because they supplement their archery with magical power, whether that be primal or arcane (or they supplement their magic with their archery skill). Just because someone guides their arrows with spirits doesn't mean that they aren't archers - it just means their archery isn't grounded in reality, but in the mythical spiritual archery that appears in folklore and popular media.
Quote is your friend.
Why so? Eladrin need love too!
... I guess so ...
Sure, maybe there's a mechanical reason why Wisdom would be a more *effective* choice for the 'cunning rogue' build. But ignoring mechanics, is Wisdom the first ability score most people are going to think of when they think 'cunning'?, or is Intelligence?
Wisdom or Intelligence equally.
When I think "cunning" I think "guile, sleight, and manual dexterity".
Really I think "Rogue". Hehe
Int is usualy more book learning, not something a rogue would really have (unless he uses his knowlage of creatures to know where to hit them).
Wisdom fits alot better IMO.
Int is usualy more book learning, not something a rogue would really have (unless he uses his knowlage of creatures to know where to hit them).
Wisdom fits alot better IMO.
But a genius, skillful rogue who knows how to disarms traps blind and jump well because the arlength of the blah is tangent to the hoozit fits Int.
Int is usualy more book learning, not something a rogue would really have (unless he uses his knowlage of creatures to know where to hit them).
Wisdom fits alot better IMO.
There's no reason being a rogue precludes an education.
Int is usualy more book learning, not something a rogue would really have (unless he uses his knowlage of creatures to know where to hit them).Wisdom fits alot better IMO.
This kind of thinking is the reason that there is only one martial class the benefits from Intelligence, and that is only half its builds. :/
Intelligence is more that simply book learning. It's reasoning, cognitiion, parsing information, complex learning, and problem solving. When people talk about genius, they're talking about Intelligence, and it's a shame that there isn't more support for it.
Intelligence is more that simply book learning. It's reasoning, cognitiion, parsing information, complex learning, and problem solving. When people talk about genius, they're talking about Intelligence, and it's a shame that there isn't more support for it.
Then why is Insight a Wis skill?
Intelligence is more that simply book learning. It's reasoning, cognitiion, parsing information, complex learning, and problem solving. When people talk about genius, they're talking about Intelligence, and it's a shame that there isn't more support for it.
Then why is Insight a Wis skill?
Just because you can figure out how quantum mechanics influences spellcasting through flux matrices within the magitech couplings of a subether crystal doesn't mean you know why your wife is yelling at you.
There's a difference between emotional understanding and intelligent understanding. Wisdom is more of a percieving ability score, having Insight and Perception as major skills, as well as their ability to understand and take care of animals and scavange for food (Nature and Dungeoneering) and all out survive in the wilderness or underground. Intelligence deals with more learning and cognition - and who's to say that a Rogue HAS to be only street-smart? That's the Cha-Rogue, the ability to put on a face and make people like him (or be scared).
It's interesting, because Charisma is knowledge of people and how they work, but Wisdom is actually understanding them. There's room for all three as a Rogue - the super-genius hacker sort of Rogue, the trickster-thief sort of rogue, the spatially-and-emotionally aware sort of rogue.
Just because you can figure out how quantum mechanics influences spellcasting through flux matrices within the magitech couplings of a subether crystal doesn't mean you know why your wife is yelling at you.
Fine >.>
You can have an INT Rogue but we need a WIS rogue too!
We need a WIS Warlord too for that matter.
The WIS Warlord I will definitely agree with!
We need a WIS Warlord too for that matter.
The WIS Warlord I will definitely agree with!
What do we have in mind for a WIS Warlord?
What do we have in mind for a WIS Warlord?
Well, for starters, existing would be nice. =)
Well, for starters, existing would be nice. =)
Hmm....methinks wisdom warlording would involve counterstrategy, ways to disrupt formations, break lines, foil plans, spot ambushes, intercept enemy movements, and generally be the anti-taclord. Half of warfare isn't planning, it's discovering the other side's plan and royally screwing it up. A dash of control, with a heavy emphasis on getting your allies to herd enemies around, moving their pieces where they don't want to be.
Wisdom? In my warlords? It's more likely than you think.
Hmm....methinks wisdom warlording would involve counterstrategy, ways to disrupt formations, break lines, foil plans, spot ambushes, intercept enemy movements, and generally be the anti-taclord. Half of warfare isn't planning, it's discovering the other side's plan and royally screwing it up. A dash of control, with a heavy emphasis on getting your allies to herd enemies around, moving their pieces where they don't want to be.
Wisdom? In my warlords? It's more likely than you think.
All the talk about Wis makes me remember of my custom class of old, the "Transcendent", a kind of "universal mage" that simply perceived his spells through intuition, a Wis-based arcane (and not only arcane) caster. It had interesting mechanics connected to the Shadow Magic as presented in the Tome of Magic.
On topic, I think the archer Warlord we're gonna get may be a good candidate for a Wis using build. I don't quite expect to see this kind of beautiful counterstrategy theme well ingrained into its mechanics, but maybe we'll get some hints of it. Mostly, we'll just have the superior senses given by high Wis put at good work in the field of "smart" archery. Wow, combine it with Rogue and you have built Robin Hood better than with the Ranger class!
Actually, I was thinking something more to do with empathy, not so much about movement or giving bonus to attack and damage but more about healing and granting defense or save bonuses.
Considering we're getting interesting new builds like an Archer Warlord and a Two-Handed Weapon Ranger
We are? I've heard about the archer warlord, but not the ranger.
Actually, I was thinking something more to do with empathy, not so much about movement or giving bonus to attack and damage but more about healing and granting defense or save bonuses.
Bah, sounds like a bunch of pacifist healer nonsense!
It's warlord. WARlord! Make war, not love! :P
Actually, I was thinking something more to do with empathy, not so much about movement or giving bonus to attack and damage but more about healing and granting defense or save bonuses.
I could see that, it's certainly got fluff potential, though the Inspiring Warlord already fulfills most of the mechanical role of being a focused healer, and that's probably the way it should stay. While an empathy based warlord might be interesting, because the warlord lacks "magic" their "healing" is purely a matter of inspiring others to push beyond their normal limitations.
Personally, I find the concept of an Intuitive Warlord to be more compelling than an Empathy Warlord (the build name sounds better too, IMO). Granted it would need to be about more than just positioning, as the Tactical Warlord already covers that specialty. Maybe a build that focuses on immediate interrupts, flavored as the warlord warning his allies about danger just before it happens and/or predicting when the enemy will be most vulnerable. Should probably also have plenty of initiative based utilities to represent their ability to anticipate when a fight is imminent.
Considering we're getting interesting new builds like an Archer Warlord and a Two-Handed Weapon Ranger
We are? I've heard about the archer warlord, but not the ranger.
The same article that had feats and powers that use bows with a 'warlord' requirement also had feats and powers that use two-handed weapons with a 'ranger' requirement.
I have heard about the new warlord build but what is the new ranger build? Maybe we finally get a one handed weapon ranger.... Please be the case.
Well, the other Martial Style feat shows evidence that there will be a Two-Handed Ranger weapon build, but we don't have evidence yet for a One-Handed Ranger weapon build. We might yet, but they would need a reason to do extra damage.
Do we really need another two weapon build, a one weapon build would give the class alot more versatility. I have played rangers since 1st edition AD&D and it was not until third did you only get two choices of either and archer or two weapon styles. I for one am tired of legolas and Drizzit style rangers and would love a throw back to the old days when rangers were a much simpler breed but alas we most likely will not see one, its too bad really.
Do we really need another two weapon build, a one weapon build would give the class alot more versatility. I have played rangers since 1st edition AD&D and it was not until third did you only get two choices of either and archer or two weapon styles. I for one am tired of legolas and Drizzit style rangers and would love a throw back to the old days when rangers were a much simpler breed but alas we most likely will not see one, its too bad really.
It's not a new TWO-WEAPON build, it's a TWO-HANDED WEAPON build. Like, big axes and swords. I expect it to be focused on movement (still waiting to see a class that works like the Scout from 3.5).
It will be odd if its like the scout as most scouts travel light and a large weapon would not work well with one. Most scouts carry light weapons or one handed ones but at least its something new.
I expect there will be another build beside this two-handed weapon style build; there was only one in MP1, so to keep it up to par, I expect there to be two.
Considering that Illusionist Wizard became a build in AP, but was a small set of powers in Dragon, and considering that Wish Upon a Star got its powers into AP, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a full Duellist Rogue build using Artful Dodger in MP2. That's a THIRD Artful Dodger build, but that means they'll have room to have at least one other rogue build and a new class feature option besides that.
Considering that Illusionist Wizard became a build in AP, but was a small set of powers in Dragon, and considering that Wish Upon a Star got its powers into AP
Wish Upon a Star powers were NOT in Arcane Power, the article was reprinted in the Dragon Annual.
I could have sworn some were in it, but you caught me. Good job. I usually don't miss up like that.
It will be odd if its like the scout as most scouts travel light and a large weapon would not work well with one. Most scouts carry light weapons or one handed ones but at least its something new.
Well there are the White Lions of Warhammer fame. Basically big, tough Elves who were woodsmen that ran around with a Two-Handed Battle-Axe hewing trees and Dark Elves alike. They were more of an elite troop rather than the mainstay of the Elven Host but they were good at running through the woods and flanking the enemy.
Of course, you could have a class feature that allows you to double the weapon damage - that is, treat 1[W] as 2[W], etc - you attack twice instead of once with your weapon.
But the feat styles leans itself towards a solely two-handed weapon build. I assume they'll include more one-handed weapon powers, which already exist, just not with their own build.
Remember, the vocalist/thundering Bard build and the Conjuror Wizard build exist, but aren't actually builds, just power choice themes that can be found amidst the power choices. So we don't need a full build for single-handed rangers, just more powers.
So maybe it could be based more on the *slayer* archetype of ranger and less on the scout archetype; not so much about skirmishes, but more about taking down one giant opponent
One thing that 4th edition seems to do is force a player who has a particular concept that he or she wants to play it usually forces them into one class or another. If you give the classes some flexability then players can make the kind of characters they want, after all its still a roleplaying game and players do love having choices.
Quite a few of the classic ranger weapons do not get any love with the current builds but its seems that wizards is focusing on pure damage potental rather than versatility. I for one would rather see more versatility in classes rather than focusing on a very small area. If you want an archer you play a ranger but whatever happened to a rogue with a short bow or a fighter with a missle weapon? Sure rogues can use crossbows and they do get some powers to support that but you are forced to use a crossbow when in the past you had more choices in the weapons you could use. Fighters can use any martial missle weapon but they have no powers to support there use so why would you bother? why not do a fighter build that uses missle weapons to keep an enemy at bay like how an army can use artillery to keep a enemy for force from over running there own forces? I think this would be an interesting build for a fighter.
One thing that 4th edition seems to do is force a player who has a particular concept that he or she wants to play it usually forces them into one class or another. If you give the classes some flexability then players can make the kind of characters they want, after all its still a roleplaying game and players do love having choices.
I think you're overplaying the nature of class being the defining quality of the character in 4e. In past editions, it could have been, though in 3.5e people multiclassed and prestige classed so as they became huge amalgams that created archetypes not actually covered by classes. But in 4e, the classes are generalised things, and the builds within give options. So if you want to be a martial archer, choose ranger, because the fighter really doesn't do that sort of thing. The fighter wants to be in melee, by the features of his class. I think it's more about, pick the class features and proficiencies and types of things you can do first, and then choose the class admixtures that best fit that, rather than a top down approach of choosing a class first, and then deciding on a build.
Of course, the other build is perfectly acceptable as well. Classes have themes (sometimes), and you can really play up what makes that class different than somebody else in the power source or somebody else in the role. But classes are pretty broad, and there's plenty of room for interpretation within them. So play with it, rather than condemn it because you don't have a ranged fighter. That's not the fighter's thing (though maybe it would be an interesting PPath to dive into, marking at range). That's a very specialised thing. Builds are somewhat specialised, but they need to be specialised within the classes' themes, which, while broad, set some standard assumptions. So if you want to play a martial archer, why would you choose fighter? It doesn't play into the fighter's role. On the other hand, the warlord is open to an interesting ranged build, and the rogue gets some ranged powers, and I could see a short-bow rogue in the future along those lines (a scout). But I could moreso see that scout as a dual bow and sword wielding build of the Ranger, which embodies that moreso.
All class builds are specialized thats what makes them different. What I am saying is it would be nice to play a ranged fighter if you wanted to or a bow weilding rogue or a one or two handed weapon ranger. The whole role of a class thing is too much like a PC game we all know and is something D&D could have done without or at least allow players to create non cookiee cutter character(i.e tank fighter, two weapon ranger and so on) I would also like to see a damage dealing fighter that uses a big sword, axe or whatever weapon you want to use. I think it would be nice to see more non striker roled classes as there are more strikers than any other role types.
There are two fighters that deal damage and use big swords, axe or whatever: I'd direct you to the Great Weapon Fighter and the Battlerager Fighter. Or do you mean Striker damage? Because that's not the fighter, so don't push that onto the fighter. I'll direct you to the Barbarian (and you can play down the spiritual aspects, because fluff is mutable).
What I'm trying to say is that ranged weapons aren't condusive to the fighter. The Archer Ranger is what you're looking at here, and it is a secondary defender/controller at range. The name "Fighter" isn't necessary; it's just mechanics to make your character. So choose the mechanics that best fit. The defender mechanic of the fighter just doesn't work with the ranged weaponry/archery.
All class builds are specialized thats what makes them different. What I am saying is it would be nice to play a ranged fighter if you wanted to or a bow weilding rogue or a one or two handed weapon ranger. The whole role of a class thing is too much like a PC game we all know and is something D&D could have done without or at least allow players to create non cookiee cutter character(i.e tank fighter, two weapon ranger and so on) I would also like to see a damage dealing fighter that uses a big sword, axe or whatever weapon you want to use. I think it would be nice to see more non striker roled classes as there are more strikers than any other role types.
The fighter is a defender, witch comes with some rules bagage. The main job of a defender is to keep enemies from getting to the back lines, hard to really do that from the back lines. You want an archer, look at seeker or ranger and modify the fluff to fit where you need it to.
The fighter could mark them from a distance and they have a choice to go after the figher or take damage or negatives to attack/dmg rolls. or powers that give him interups if they attack someone other than him( he gets a free shot) there are several ways this can be done. Would it be a typical defender no but it would be interesting addition to the game. Just about anything can be done if you put enough thought in to it.
The fighter could mark them from a distance and they have a choice to go after the figher or take damage or negatives to attack/dmg rolls. or powers that give him interups if they attack someone other than him( he gets a free shot) there are several ways this can be done. Would it be a typical defender no but it would be interesting addition to the game. Just about anything can be done if you put enough thought in to it.
This draws the monster towards the squishy teammates, making area attacks more dangerous. That is unless the fighter is at a distance far away from them, meaning they may be out of range of the healer, especially some of the shaman heals that are based on players being close to the spirit companion. Is it possible? Yes. I don't think it's really worth the extreme strategy that it would take for proper placement. Also firing a ranged weapon adjacent to an enemy triggers an attack of oppronuity IIRC (there is some sort of penalty for firing at close range). This means as the ranged fighter draws the monster closer they constantly have to use a move action, in a tight room this could often mean choosing between endagering your allys or taking the opportunity attack. Not to mention the if the monster has equal or higher speed, or monstrous reach, there could be no option for not taking an opportunity attack. So a ranged fighter would have to be extremely reliant on move granting abilities (I.e. warlord or worls speaker shaman) to keep them mobile, and in some cases even that won't be enough. I'm sorry this is a lot of limitations, and I know I would have no interest in playing a defender of this style, and would highly discourage any player of mine from doing so. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.
A ranged defender would not have to be any farther away from the softer targets than a typical defender. The single problem I see is what the ranged defender would do once he/she had the enemies attention and they closed to melee range. This could be handled by some of there powers allowing them to shift as a minor or free action. What I see lost in this whole thing is unless the enemy can only attack from one direction or the terrain restricts there movement the enemy can simply avoid a defender or send enough fodder at him/her to keep them busy while the rest attacks from another or multiple directions. This is where a ranged defender would shine as they could pull the enemy off of the softer targets from a distance and my not even have to move and would give them an advantage over there melee cousins but the melee fighters would be better in an enclosed space where movement is limited this keeps the game in balence. On another note I can not wait for the ranged warlord build and possibly an new ranged rogue build they will fill a void that exists in the game. I think the game needs more martial ranged builds other than the ranger.
I too am looking forward to the ranged warlord, and love the new artificer build.
I see little need for a ranged rouge build, as I can easily reflavor the ranger to fufil anything I can think of in the way of a ranged rogue.
The ranged fighter woul have to be at a range where they can easily avoid the oportunity attacks from firing ranged in close quarters. as well as in a place where aoe effects can't hit the backline fighters. Not mention keeping in range of the spells that buff and heal them, and not drawing a monster out of range of the spell casters and other ranged characters. So this build is extremely weak in close quarters, much more than a melee fighter in an open area. They need the room to move, if they don't they are taking a lot of attacks, and even if they do they need powers or support to keep them from taking those attacks anyways as the monster constantly closes in. Archers are not frontline fighters, witch is part of the description of the defender role. I can't think of any archer archetype who I would describe as a defender
We are getting a ranged Warlord and I'm sure someday we will have a bow wielding Rogue, thats three out four Martial classes using bows, thats plenty.
No need to try and squeeze an archer concept in a class designed for melee combat.
Honorable Fighter Build:
Honorable Rebuke: Immediate Actions with the Honor Keyword count one-half your Charisma Modifier times not to your Immediate Actions per Round.
You follow a Code of Conduct, whenever you have Combat Advantage against an Enemy you are able to take the +2 Bonus to Attack and Suffer from the Prize of Honor attack or ignore the Bonus.
You gain the Honorable Rebuke at-will power.
Prize of Honor(at-will;immediate Interrupt):Honor
Trigger: You take the Bonus from Combat Advantage
Target: Self
Attack: Charisma + 2 (heroic); + 4 (paragon); + 6 (epic) vs Will
Hit: You are dazed (save ends)
Honorable Rebuke(at-will;immediate Reaction):Weapon,Honor
Trigger: An Enemy in melee range makes an Attack and gain a Bonus from Combat Advantage
Target: Triggering Enemy
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: [W] + Charisma Modifier Damage. 11th Level 2[W] + Charisma Modifier.
So that could be a cool Knight, some additional immediate + honor Powers as daylies or encounter Powers should been added.
(Probably with other Triggers)
I heard a Knight Build some times. How about this:
Honorable Fighter Build:
Honorable Rebuke: Immediate Actions with the Honor Keyword count one-half your Charisma Modifier times not to your Immediate Actions per Round.
You follow a Code of Conduct, whenever you have Combat Advantage against an Enemy you are able to take the +2 Bonus to Attack and Suffer from the Prize of Honor attack or ignore the Bonus.
You gain the Honorable Rebuke at-will power.
Prize of Honor(at-will;immediate Interrupt):Honor
Trigger: You take the Bonus from Combat Advantage
Target: Self
Attack: Charisma + 2 (heroic); + 4 (paragon); + 6 (epic) vs Will
Hit: You are dazed (save ends)
Honorable Rebuke(at-will;immediate Reaction):Weapon,Honor
Trigger: An Enemy in melee range makes an Attack and gain a Bonus from Combat Advantage
Target: Triggering Enemy
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: [W] + Charisma Modifier Damage. 11th Level 2[W] + Charisma Modifier.
So that could be a cool Knight, some additional immediate + honor Powers as daylies or encounter Powers should been added.
(Probably with other Triggers)
Sounds like a Paladin build, rather than a Fighter. Also, Fighters already use 4 ability scores. No need to give then a fifth (Wizards can have 5 because they only use two at a time. Fighter's use 3, at least).