When is Martial Power supposed to come out? I want to know what the beast taming crap is gonna be like for the ranger.
Dunno, but I'd settle for some previews.
I'm looking forward to Martial Power, so that we can more accurately gauge if WotC is going to make an honest attempt to maintain balance or not, or if things are going to descend into "3.5 Madness" again.
That's one thing I like about 4e, the solid previews and bits of juicy information that so far have all but guaranteed that I'll buy each new non-setting book that comes out (though I may get a few of the FR books just for the content within, my games aren't set in FR in 4e.)
Thanks for the info.
Dunno, but I'd settle for some previews.
I'm looking forward to Martial Power, so that we can more accurately gauge if WotC is going to make an honest attempt to maintain balance or not, or if things are going to descend into "3.5 Madness" again.
I'm sure we're going to get a fair dose of "3.5 madness" again. After all, 6-12 books per year, x 8 or so years.... Yeah. Not right away, but it'll come. And you'll all buy it.
Then we'll do it all again & call it 5th ed.
I mean, for the most part, Martial Power will be incompatible with the PHBII. Only the feats that aren't class specific can really be spread around to everyone. At best you can nab a few powers from multi-classing, and even then it's only a few powers from ONE class.
Why are people so dead-set against seeing 4th edition fail?
And you'll all buy it.
Since I didn't do it for 3.X, I don't think I'll do it for this one.
One of the nice things about the "1 PH per year" is that... that's all I have to buy (to get a variety of core classes).
Why are people so dead-set against seeing 4th edition fail?
Uh, dude...I thnk you meant to say "succeed." :embarrass
Martial Power will reintroduce many of the options and abilities from 3.5 that people have been missing in their martial characters, and future books will return the rest of them, until revised 4E, which will not be called 4.5, will come out to include all of the revisions and added rules into the 'new' core books.
Martial Power is the first step toward fixing the game. Let's hope it goes well.
Money is the deciding factor in these things. 4E core books sold amazingly well - they're core books. Splatbooks are doing terribly. The Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms books were abysmal dissapointments.
Exposed Wires, I'm sorry to say you represent exactly the sort of problem customer 4E is faced with - buying only the core books defeats the purpose of an entire 'edition reset' like 4E.
You are also the one who thinks that 4E should go back to being 3E. You don't want an "edition reset" anyway, so why don't you like this?
Exposed Wires, I'm sorry to say you represent exactly the sort of problem customer 4E is faced with - buying only the core books defeats the purpose of an entire 'edition reset' like 4E. You, and people like you, who content themselves with the core books, force Wizards to rethink their marketing. Fans of 3.5 and pathfinder, however, eat up splatbooks - and will continue to do so, if they fit their tastes. Refusing to buy books like Martial Power tells the company they made a mistake in pursuing your tastes.
Money is the deciding factor in these things. 4E core books sold amazingly well - they're core books. Splatbooks are doing terribly. The Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms books were abysmal dissapointments.
I know you're just messing with me, but I think you brought up an interesting topic.
My buying habits will not and should not affect WotC's marketing choices. There is basically nothing they can do to make me buy more. I'm an incredibly frugal person. If they somehow made the latest book mandatory to continue playing, I would quit D&D. I, as a customer, can't really be predicted.
Currently, I'm buying books that give me the most bang for my buck. 3 books and I can play the game from all angles. Even got em on sale at amazon. Anything else I get will be purchased long after it is released and after I've had a chance to look at the book more than once and seen how others have used it in their campaigns.
You can't tell me how that steers the company in some wrong direction.
Also, the core books are the soul of an 'edition reset'. The only thing different between splats is their basic rules that are printed in the core books.
Exposed Wires, I'm sorry to say you represent exactly the sort of problem customer 4E is faced with - buying only the core books defeats the purpose of an entire 'edition reset' like 4E. You, and people like you, who content themselves with the core books, force Wizards to rethink their marketing. Fans of 3.5 and pathfinder, however, eat up splatbooks - and will continue to do so, if they fit their tastes. Refusing to buy books like Martial Power tells the company they made a mistake in pursuing your tastes.
Money is the deciding factor in these things. 4E core books sold amazingly well - they're core books. Splatbooks are doing terribly. The Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms books were abysmal dissapointments.
Not everyone who played 3.5 bought up splatbooks. I certainly didn't. Whether someone purchases them depends on two factors... the expansion material's appeal to a purchaser, and whether that purchaser has decided to buy expansion material at all. If the purchaser doesn't feel like buying anything but the first three books, then it doesn't matter how appealing you make the product... they have made a financial decision.
Most people have been using the New York Times Best Seller List or Amazon's pre-order rankings to figure out that the core books were selling well, but what did you use to find out that Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms campaign setting are failing?
Now, most people have been using the New York Times Best Seller List or Amazon's pre-order rankings to figure out that the core books were selling well, but what did you use to find out that Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms campaign setting are failing?
The invisible "Most players" he keeps talking about, of course!
I'm pretty sure he keeps them in his shed and feeds them Alpo.
I'm sure we're going to get a fair dose of "3.5 madness" again. After all, 6-12 books per year, x 8 or so years.... Yeah. Not right away, but it'll come.
How cute. You managed to badly misconstrue the meaning of the term "3.5 Madness". I guess it figures, though, since this was really just a set-up for an attempt at an asinine, condescending insulti to the community. Certainly can't expect you to put more effort into the set-up than the uninspired insult!
-Me, just now
Seriously, whether anyone 'wanted' an edition reset is irrelevant; it happened, now we all have to deal with it, one way, or the other.
I bought splatbooks in 3.0 and 3.5. I bought third party books. I buy a *lot* of RPG books. There have always been the games that aren't worth the commitment of anything more than a core book, to me and my group. D&D was never one of those. As the game expanded, each new option kept the game fresh, and interesting. Splatbooks are what keeps the game from growing stale, and keep players from having to resort to the same character more than once, something I've found most of us hate to do.
Now, I see a lot of people more than content to play with just core books, and 'house rule' the rest. This is the death of an edition's success. This isn't a game that was meant to exist as 3 core books - it's meant to represent an investment into an ever growing library of options.
If the core books are ever 'enough,' than the designers and marketing team have failed. I would think the people who enjoy the edition, thus far, would have the most stake in seeing it suceed, and would buy the splatbooks, both to open up more options, and to show their support for an IP/rules set they value.
Money talks - it's the only thing the final decision makers will listen to. Regardless of *my* personal feelings on what I think the game should or should not be, know that the very worst thing you can ever do is become content with what you have. Then, whatever will you buy from the company?
As for me, personally, I'm fully aware these books will gradually return the game to a point where *I* and the majority of players who I apparently represent will again have a game we are content with. We are legion, innumerable and omnipresent, a ubiquitous force of malcontents that, in the end, always gets what it wants.
That aside: Buy books to support the RPGs you like. That's how it works. Simple. We'll see who outspends who. ^_~ I know I make a lot of money, and I hate saving it. Can you say the same?
If 4th edition is to suceed, they designers need to return all the missing elements of 3.5 as quickly as possible to bring back the overwhelming numbers of players they lost.
Yes, they sorely need those half-dozen people back to stem the loss of negative thousands of people.
As for me, personally, I'm fully aware these books will gradually return the game to a point where *I* and the majority of players who I apparently represent will again have a game we are content with. We are legion, innumerable and omnipresent, a ubiquitous force of malcontents that, in the end, always gets what it wants.
Okey, now I'm pretty sure you are either:
A) Playing with everyone on the forums.
or
B) Completely insane.
Am I getting close? I mean, I'm trying to think of what type of mindset one must have to make up an invisible "minority" that has never been proven to exist, who are apparently all against a game, as well as thinking exactly like you. Or to make up how a company would reboot thier game to the old version because you want them to, even though there is again no evidence of that, and even though it makes no sense in the first place.
Seriously. You are either trying to frustrate people with your antics, or you honestly believe all the made up stuff coming out of your mouth.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I think the ratio is off. Shouldn't it be closer to 4 then 10?
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I think the ratio is off. Shouldn't it be closer to 4 then 10?
I'm accounting for PDF piraters too. :P
I'm accounting for PDF piraters too. :P
Still seems a bit crazy a number... I doubt that half of the purchasing base is pirating the books, considering that a piracy rate of around 5% is considered rampant (that's what the music industry claims, at least).
1:4¼ sounds more plausible (the ¼ being a rampant number of pirates).
If 4th edition is to suceed, they designers need to return all the missing elements of 3.5 as quickly as possible to bring back the overwhelming numbers of players they lost.
The Amazon sales numbers disprove all of that casey. 4e is already selling better than 3.0 or 3.5. Based on sales, it seems to be bringing in more new gamers than 3.x.
The other things you say are missing craft/proffession those are gone for good. If they do come back I will switch to other rpgs that do not have such retarded mechanics.
Okey, now I'm pretty sure you are either:
A) Playing with everyone on the forums.
or
B) Completely insane.
Am I getting close? I mean, I'm trying to think of what type of mindset one must have to make up an invisible "minority" that has never been proven to exist, who are apparently all against a game, as well as thinking exactly like you. Or to make up how a company would reboot thier game to the old version because you want them to, even though there is again no evidence of that, and even though it makes no sense in the first place.
Seriously. You are either trying to frustrate people with your antics, or you honestly believe all the made up stuff coming out of your mouth.
If I understand him correctly, he intends to convince Anonymous to not buy 4E books. His threat is empty because there is probably very little overlap between D&D players and Anon, and those who do, assuming they see his rant, will tell him they're not his personal army.
The only thing being added is animal companions, other than that its going to be powers and paragon paths, I wont be buying it because I have a limited supply of funds and am not currently playing a martial character.
Correction: They're adding a Beastmaster build option to the Ranger class, and the Tempest Fighter would like to have a word with you. Maybe there will be more build options. We don't know yet, but they would probably want to
If 4th edition is to suceed, they designers need to return all the missing elements of 3.5 as quickly as possible to bring back the overwhelming numbers of players they lost. If martial power is balanced with the PHB, hardly anyone will want it - it has to be better to get sales, period. If you want Wizards to fail, by all means, complain about power creep. In reality, it's what sales splatbooks. Otherwise, people would stick with the core books... and there would be nothing new to sell. Think about it.
Martial Power will reintroduce many of the options and abilities from 3.5 that people have been missing in their martial characters, and future books will return the rest of them, until revised 4E, which will not be called 4.5, will come out to include all of the revisions and added rules into the 'new' core books.
Martial Power is the first step toward fixing the game. Let's hope it goes well.
I love the way you drop into each thread with a pack of matches.. I mean even the people who don't like 4th ed are rolling their eyes when they see you have something to "contribute", Honestly, I have never even seen one person spew so much BS on this forum, and that is really really saying something.
Anyways, My opinion is that it is a very small minority (a vocal minority, but a minority just the same) that want everything returned to 3rd ed. I mean do you really truly think this can happen? There was a reason the game had to change, and reintroducing everything 3rd ed had will just recreate that need.
If I understand him correctly, he intends to convince Anonymous to not buy 4E books. His threat is empty because there is probably very little overlap between D&D players and Anon, and those who do, assuming they see his rant, will tell him they're not his personal army.
Correction: They're adding a Beastmaster build option to the Ranger class, and the Tempest Fighter would like to have a word with you. Maybe there will be more build options. We don't know yet, but they would probably want tobeat you uphave a word with you too.
Shrugs havent kept up with whats in it, frankly I do not see the need for tempest fighter the ranger does just fine as the two weapon fighter. I hate that WOTC is pandering to the people who need a fighter that fights with two weapons rather than just making a ranger.
Shrugs havent kept up with whats in it, frankly I do not see the need for tempest fighter the ranger does just fine as the two weapon fighter. I hate that WOTC is pandering to the people who need a fighter that fights with two weapons rather than just making a ranger.
The purpose serves to create an option in which you can be of the defender role while still wielding two weapons... something not possible in the core rules. While it's possible to be a two-weapon combatant with a ranger, it's significantly hard to be a defender.
The purpose serves to create an option in which you can be of the defender role while still wielding two weapons... something not possible in the core rules. While it's possible to be a two-weapon combatant with a ranger, it's significantly hard to be a defender.
Its not as hard as it sounds. Build a Ranger based on Str and Cha, put enough into Con to support axe-wielding and heavy armor proficiencies, and multiclass into Paladin for Divine Challenge 1/Encounter. Dragonborn do nicely for this, as do Half-Elves to a lesser extent.
Its not as hard as it sounds. Build a Ranger based on Str and Cha, put enough into Con to support axe-wielding and heavy armor proficiencies, and multiclass into Paladin for Divine Challenge 1/Encounter. Dragonborn do nicely for this, as do Half-Elves to a lesser extent.
Yeah, but you still won't have the hit points to be a true defender, and an encounter mark ability doesn't do a true defender quite right. The tempest fighter is for those who want to be a total defender, not a striker/defender multiclass.
Its not as hard as it sounds. Build a Ranger based on Str and Cha, put enough into Con to support axe-wielding and heavy armor proficiencies, and multiclass into Paladin for Divine Challenge 1/Encounter. Dragonborn do nicely for this, as do Half-Elves to a lesser extent.
That puts too much strain on the build. The Tempest Fighter is a heavily armored two-weapon fighter right out of the box. It will probably be very different from the Ranger as well.
Some of you may hate people whining about not having it, but which do you think is worse: People wanting extra options or people trying to deprive others of it for the reason that they're not "needed" when they themselves will not be affected either way?
Sounds pretty clear to me who the bad guy is.
"I'm not living in a fantasy world - I just play in one."
-Me, just now
Seriously, whether anyone 'wanted' an edition reset is irrelevant; it happened, now we all have to deal with it, one way, or the other.
I bought splatbooks in 3.0 and 3.5. I bought third party books. I buy a *lot* of RPG books. There have always been the games that aren't worth the commitment of anything more than a core book, to me and my group. D&D was never one of those. As the game expanded, each new option kept the game fresh, and interesting. Splatbooks are what keeps the game from growing stale, and keep players from having to resort to the same character more than once, something I've found most of us hate to do.
Now, I see a lot of people more than content to play with just core books, and 'house rule' the rest. This is the death of an edition's success. This isn't a game that was meant to exist as 3 core books - it's meant to represent an investment into an ever growing library of options.
If the core books are ever 'enough,' than the designers and marketing team have failed. I would think the people who enjoy the edition, thus far, would have the most stake in seeing it suceed, and would buy the splatbooks, both to open up more options, and to show their support for an IP/rules set they value.
Money talks - it's the only thing the final decision makers will listen to. Regardless of *my* personal feelings on what I think the game should or should not be, know that the very worst thing you can ever do is become content with what you have. Then, whatever will you buy from the company?
As for me, personally, I'm fully aware these books will gradually return the game to a point where *I* and the majority of players who I apparently represent will again have a game we are content with. We are legion, innumerable and omnipresent, a ubiquitous force of malcontents that, in the end, always gets what it wants.
That aside: Buy books to support the RPGs you like. That's how it works. Simple. We'll see who outspends who. ^_~ I know I make a lot of money, and I hate saving it. Can you say the same?
funny how when anyone asks you to offer the slightest proof that you represent even a moderate % of d&d players, you ignore the post.
If I understand him correctly, he intends to convince Anonymous to not buy 4E books. His threat is empty because there is probably very little overlap between D&D players and Anon, and those who do, assuming they see his rant, will tell him they're not his personal army.
Correction: They're adding a Beastmaster build option to the Ranger class, and the Tempest Fighter would like to have a word with you. Maybe there will be more build options. We don't know yet, but they would probably want tobeat you uphave a word with you too.
I would guess that every martial class will get 1 or 2 new builds.
Shrugs havent kept up with whats in it, frankly I do not see the need for tempest fighter the ranger does just fine as the two weapon fighter. I hate that WOTC is pandering to the people who need a fighter that fights with two weapons rather than just making a ranger.
i was fine with just the ranger but the tempest fighter is actually fairly diffrent then the ranger with 2 weapons.
And one of my players id having fun with a tempest fighter/rogue.
The Ranger/Paladin I described is not an optimal Defender or in any way a replacement for a Defender. That being said, that combo can be useful as the second Defender in the party, being a Striker/Defender hybrid in a five man team in which the other four character take on the four roles. With the damage a melee Ranger can do, its easy to challenge/quarry/charge something and solo it.
I'd rather just play the Tempest.
/insult to injury
I'd rather just play the Tempest.
/insult to injury
They are even cloning powers ie, twin strike which means this build does not seem to be unique enough.
They are even cloning powers ie, twin strike which means this build does not seem to be unique enough.
You use 1 (one) power as evidence for your claim? And a power that is in fact the only way to even make a two-weapon fighter function?
It also only targets one creatures, so it's not a perfect clone.
Also, you've already lost. I'm getting what I want and your villainy has not paid off. Avast, blackguard!
You use 1 (one) power as evidence for your claim? And a power that is in fact the only way to even make a two-weapon fighter function?
It also only targets one creatures, so it's not a perfect clone.
Also, you've already lost. I'm getting what I want and your villainy has not paid off. Avast, blackguard!
Shrugs, I would simply have prefered a truly unique build, rather than an atempt at a twf. Maybe a grappler, or charger build, ie one that can use a few powers on a charge rather than a basic melee attack.
Also with a twf what use is the ranger? Thats my whole point is that with a class based system you have to differitiate the classes, twf should be the ranger shtick, otherwise the ranger is superflorous.
Children, children. Save the bickering for dealing with the trolls, not with each other. ;) :P
The way I see it WOTC gave into the trolls by giving them Tempest fighter, rather than a unique fighter build. Now the ranger is completley worthless.
The way I see it WOTC gave into the trolls by giving them Tempest fighter, rather than a unique fighter build. Now the ranger is completley worthless.
Absolutely because we are now going to see fighters running around with animal companions, twin oversized heavy blades, and bows and arrows! Or just holding the line with two off-hand weapons.*shrugs* I forgot which.:P
Shrugs, I would simply have prefered a truly unique build, rather than an atempt at a twf. Maybe a grappler, or charger build, ie one that can use a few powers on a charge rather than a basic melee attack.
You may very well see some of those builds once Martial Power releases and maybe some we haven't thought of. The tempest fighter is one of many builds, I'm sure. Personally, I don't see it as an appeasement of anybody as I'm sure the book was all but done before the release of the core books. I can't say for sure, but books tend to sit in editing for a while before they finally are sent into production and then release. It may be that the designers knew that some would be looking for a two-weapon fighter, but felt that it wasn't a necessary build in the first PHB, what with it already containing the ranger. So they held it back for the Martial Handbook where they can expand on the options available to the martial classes.
I love that people see these big ulterior motives behind the actions of WotC. Personally, all I see is a company that wants to survive and make money off their venture. If I do not like a product, I will not buy it. That has always been the best way to tell a company that you do not care for their product. You can complain, but, unless you know for a fact that the opinion you hold is in the majority, your complaints will be filed away with the other few as falling under the old adage "You can't please everyone".
Absolutely because we are now going to see fighters running around with animal companions, twin oversized heavy blades, and bows and arrows! Or just holding the line with two off-hand weapons.*shrugs* I forgot which.:P
The fighter could use two weapons it was the two weapon fighting feat, that was all that was needed, now a ranger is inferior to fighter in a big way.
Each class should be unique with unique abilities giving two weapon fighting to fighters makes rangers that much less unique.
The fighter could use two weapons it was the two weapon fighting feat, that was all that was needed, now a ranger is inferior to fighter in a big way.
No. Srsly. No.
If 4th edition is to suceed, they designers need to return all the missing elements of 3.5 as quickly as possible to bring back the overwhelming numbers of players they lost. If martial power is balanced with the PHB, hardly anyone will want it - it has to be better to get sales, period. If you want Wizards to fail, by all means, complain about power creep. In reality, it's what sales splatbooks.
I'm not buying AV specifically because general consensus on the boards seem to say it's unbalancing to the game, so I disagree.
Technically speaking, any expansion of the game is introducing more options, hence more versatile characters are possible, hence you could call it a power creep regardless of how broken any of the material is, but without a large degree of balance Wizards can kiss my money, at the very least good bye.
Last I knew, November. We should definitely start getting some previews starting next month I'm sure. My games Ranger heard there's sposed to be pet taming so she's flipping over backwords waiting lol.
There will definitely be animal companions. Under 'Companion Slot Items' in Adventurers Vault they have a few magic items for your companion. They also have this fluff text: The beastmaster ranger build in the Martial Power supplement has a beast companion, and future classes and builds will also feature such companions.
No. Srsly. No.
How is it not fighter can now do as much damage, while having more hit points and surges, oh look the only thing the ranger has that the fighter doesnt is a bow ooh goody now every ranger will be an archery ranger. If I ever run a game then temepst fighter will be disalowed.
How is it not fighter can now do as much damage, while having more hit points and surges, oh look the only thing the ranger has that the fighter doesnt is a bow ooh goody now every ranger will be an archery ranger. If I ever run a game then temepst fighter will be disalowed.
You are aware that Tempest Fighters have to use off-hand weapons to get their bonuses while Two Weapon Fighting Rangers get to use two non-off hand weapons with no penalties?
You are aware that Tempest Fighters have to use off-hand weapons to get their bonuses while Two Weapon Fighting Rangers get to use two non-off hand weapons with no penalties?
So? TWF should have been kept as a ranger only thing that was one of the perks of being a ranger. My main problem with 3.5 was that some classes could override others, or do the same thing, I thought 4e was going to fix that, but now they have this. I would really like to hear why they thought that this was necessary.
So? TWF should have been kept as a ranger only thing that was one of the perks of being a ranger. My main problem with 3.5 was that some classes could override others, or do the same thing, I thought 4e was going to fix that, but now they have this. I would really like to hear why they thought that this was necessary.
So the only class that should use a shield or a two handed weapon is a fighter?
They are using different styles of two weapon fighting. It isn't like you are going to see any fighters running around dual wielding longswords. That will always be a ranger thing.
So the only class that should use a shield or a two handed weapon is a fighter?
They are using different styles of two weapon fighting. It isn't like you are going to see any fighters running around dual wielding longswords. That will always be a ranger thing.
No but rangers should be the only ones to get powers using two weapons, Id rather see fighters get things that they are better at.
They are even cloning powers ie, twin strike which means this build does not seem to be unique enough.
To be fair williamhm75, this isn't the first cloned power. Sure Strike and Careful Attack are already there, meaning that powers between the ranger and fighter have already been overlapping to some degree. It rather makes sense to me, considering that the new ranger is no longer a nature-paladin, but more of a duelist-styled fighter (both are effectively the same class... one being offensive in design, the other defensive).
That said, a tempest fighter and two-weapon ranger are still significant in difference. Rangers are best built for the beefiest single-handed weapons around, while tempest fighters will either go with two smaller offhand weapons or dual weapons (as they have the offhand property). Rangers will work more toward offense (which their class features support quite well), whereas tempest fighters will still be a defensive class (which their class features support quite well). The differences will still exist.
I just hope now that they support more types of ranger as well. I wouldn't mind a ranger with a single weapon along with an animal companion.
The fighter could use two weapons it was the two weapon fighting feat, that was all that was needed, now a ranger is inferior to fighter in a big way.
Each class should be unique with unique abilities giving two weapon fighting to fighters makes rangers that much less unique.
A Tempest Fighter can't even get close the DPR and of TW-Rangers.
Tempest Fighters can't:
-Can't Wield Two 1d12 weapons
-Can't quarry every round
-Don't get strength multipliers to damage (# of attacks*STR)
-Not moblie
-Won't have a beast companion to flank with.
TW-Rangers are just better than Tempest fighters in the striker department period. Dont even compare them.
Tempest Fighters are and will be flavored to doing what they do best. DEFEND!!!
The Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms books were abysmal dissapointments.
Yes, they were. And I'm saying this as someone who bought them. Disappointing products don't make me want to part with more of my money.
The purpose serves to create an option in which you can be of the defender role while still wielding two weapons... something not possible in the core rules. While it's possible to be a two-weapon combatant with a ranger, it's significantly hard to be a defender.
Um... have you not seen Harvey? I've proved that a Two-Weapon Defender is quite viable without any splats. Take a look if you want (link's in my sig)
Yes, they were. And I'm saying this as someone who bought them. Disappointing products don't make me want to part with more of my money.
The FRPG, maybe. The AV is winsauce. There are a few broken items, but it's otherwise an awesome splat, which I'd recommend for any and all campaigns.
The FRPG, maybe. The AV is winsauce. There are a few broken items, but it's otherwise an awesome splat, which I'd recommend for any and all campaigns.
The AV adds tons of stuff, but I don't find the stuff so compelling as to deserve its own book. I’d have preferred a book like Weapons of Legacy where instead of hundreds of items, we got a hundred interesting items.
I’d say the FRPG is the best of the bunch, as the FRCG reads like a 300 page atlas.
Um... have you not seen Harvey? I've proved that a Two-Weapon Defender is quite viable without any splats. Take a look if you want (link's in my sig)
I'm pretty sure that's an example of a two-weapon defender/striker hybrid. I wouldn't call that a two-weapon defender anymore than I'd call a multiclass fighter/wizard a "swordmage". It doesn't fit for someone who wants to go pure defender.
Multiclass's primary purpose is to serve people that want to fit two different roles/power sources... it doesn't really work if someone wants to have a single role/power source and simply fit another design concept.
Of course, then you have problems, like people wanting to be archer defenders, or melee controllers.
Of course, then you have problems, like people wanting to be archer defenders, or melee controllers.
Emphasis mine. This quote right here makes me want to homebrew a suicide bomber class. Plus side: I only need to design one level of powers.
The way I see it WOTC gave into the trolls by giving them Tempest fighter, rather than a unique fighter build. Now the ranger is completley worthless.
Comparison of damage:
Tempest fighter with 2 short swords using Dual Strike
2d6 = 7 damage
Two Weapon Ranger with 2 scimitars using Twin Strike:
2d8+1d6 = 12.5 damage
Yeah, they sure invalidated the ranger. Note that the quarry damage will increase over time (to a maximum of 3d8), which widens the damage gap between the two even further.
As was previously mentioned, the fighter has the limitation of only attacking one target, and the 2WF ranger can still use a bow for many of his powers, which makes him much more versatile. In addition, he is still far more mobile than the fighter.
Now, we haven't seen all the tempest fighter's powers, but I'm willing to bet that they are no better than the ranger's powers, which leaves the ranger with a strong lead in the damage race. So, the fighter has more hit points and surges, but the ranger deals more damage. Just like before the book existed.
Emphasis mine. This quote right here makes me want to homebrew a suicide bomber class. Plus side: I only need to design one level of powers.
I swear, you make this class and I'll never play another.
Nothing says "one-shot PC" like innately expendable characters. :D
the FRCG reads like a 300 page atlas.
Isn't that what it was supposed to be?
I'm sure we're going to get a fair dose of "3.5 madness" again. After all, 6-12 books per year, x 8 or so years.... Yeah. Not right away, but it'll come. And you'll all buy it.
Then we'll do it all again & call it 5th ed.
Though I expect some degree of power bloat, I am also pretty confident that it won't be as bad as 3.5's, if only because the nature of the class powers work.
Taking that one power that breaks the game half of the time, and us utterly useless for the rest of the time may not be as good as an option that is moderately beneficial in every encounter.
With Martial Power they'll get the beastmaster part back which until PHB2 will make them the only class with an animal companion. They already have the focus on the archer as well. Losing their 'uniqueness' of two-weapon fighting isn't going to hurt them.
Besides if a fighter wanted to lose a bit of defense and the use of some powers they could take the two-weapon fighting feat. Rangers just got the feat for free and had powers that took advantage of two-weapons. Also keep in mind the builds are optional and you can mix though you lose some effectiveness if you mix too much. This will become more evident as more builds are released increasing each classes pool of powers.
The point is people want to play a defender who wields 2 weapons instead of a 2-handed weapon or a weapon+shield. It can be done but it means losing out on class features or multiclassing. The tempest fighter will give them that option without costing them defender functionality (especially combined with the new 'defender' category of weapons in Adventurer's Vault where you get the AC bonus only if you don't attack with the weapon) without esoteric rules mastery (a flaw with 3.x edition).
To sum up:
All martial classes will get new options. Some will overlap on a basic equipment level but will keep the classes/roles take on using that equipment. Other options will add to the uniqueness of the classes or add options that can be used by other classes in some way.
Ill wait for the book but odds are if I run a game Ill disallow tempest fighter, because twf is one of the things that made the ranger unique, now it no longer is, and that makes me sad. If you have a class based system each class must have several things that make it unique over the others. Giving the fighter 2weapons makes the ranger that much less unique.
Wait, so you're going to disallow an option because you dislike the idea of it? Selfish much?
Wait, so you're going to disallow an option because you dislike the idea of it? Selfish much?
Its ludicrous for a fighter to want to do exactly what a ranger does and thus make that class less unique. A class based system must keep the classes unique.
Its ludicrous for a fighter to want to do exactly what a ranger does and thus make that class less unique. A class based system must keep the classes unique.
Hmmm well we already have more than 4 classes so the 'unique' starts to break down.
Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Ranger = all martial classes
Fighter, Paladin = both defenders
Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, Rogue, Ranger = all fight with weapons
Warlock, Wizard = Both arcane, both hurl spells, both get an at-will that's almost identical (eldritch blast, magic missile)
Uniqueness comes in HOW one does what they do, not in what they do. Saying two-weapon fighting is what makes a ranger unique is a fallacy since ANY class can take the two-weapon fighting feat. They just don't get the same usefullness out of two weapons. The fighter and ranger will both get builds for two-weapons but they'll USE those weapons differently.
Its ludicrous for a fighter to want to do exactly what a ranger does and thus make that class less unique. A class based system must keep the classes unique.
So say you, but that don't make it so. You're still selfish for disallowing it based on your own personal preference. It has no effect whatsoever on you when a player uses the build option, yet you insist on banning it because it challenges some hypothetical Ranger's insecurities and neuroses.
In 3.5, the core PHB rules were very flexible. There were some exploits, and not everything was balanced, but conceptually you could do many things, if not everything.
In 4e, the core is much more restrained. Many fantasy archetypes can't really be represented.
In 3.5, if you wanted to play a mind-control oriented spellcaster, having the beguiler option from PHB II was nice, but core bards, sorcerers, and wizards could at least pull it off. In 4e, it simply won't do for core -- you need some sort of new book. In 3.5, if you wanted to play a bare-fisted Bruce Lee-ish martial artist, having Tome of Battle for the unarmed swordsage option is nice, but you could play a core monk. In 4e, it simply won't work for core -- you need some new book. In 3.5, if you wanted to play a shapeshifter type character, having Expanded Psionics Handbook for the egoist or Complete Adventurer for the Master of Many Forms is nice, but you could play a core druid, sorcerer, or wizard. In 4e, you need a new book. In 3.5, if you wanted to play a summoner type... well, core is pretty much all you need, although options like the Complete Arcane alienist are nice. In 4e, you need a new book. In 3.5, if you wanted to play a necromancer, having the Dread Necromancer from heroes of horror was nice, along with non-core domains and such, but a core cleric, sorcerer, or wizard could manage. In 4e, you need a new book. In 3.5, if you wanted to play a ghost, vampire, or werewolf, the core rules worked against you and it was difficult, but you could pull it off. In 4e, you need a new book.
To truly maximize sales, WotC should be careful to avoid putting more than one character concept which can be represented viably in a single book. I.e., make sure that the book that includes a way of making a playable vampire PC is not the same book that includes a way of making a necromancer. Conceptually, it might be tempting to lump them together under a title like "Shadows of Undeath" or the like, but that would be giving away too much. To maximize sales, best to seperate them out, so that the playable necromancer is in one book, and the playable vampire in another.
Even if WotC doesn't quite go that far, and, for instance, screws up and includes a viable way of making an unarmed martial artist and a viable way of making a mind-controlling psion in the same book, supplements still seem like they'll be more needed than 3.5. I'm optimistic about WotC's ability to sell supplements for 4e, and don't understand the logic of the gloomy perspective.
Its ludicrous for a fighter to want to do exactly what a ranger does and thus make that class less unique. A class based system must keep the classes unique.
But the fighter won't do exactly what the ranger does. The fighter will not be able to use two non-offhand weapons with anywhere near the efficiency that that the ranger can(if even at all, I can't remember all the two weapon fighting rules off the top of my head).
By your train of thought, no other class can ever use light blades, one heanded weapons, two handed weapons, or ranged weapons upon countless other things. After basically one more PHB we'd be reduced to new classes having to use playing cards to have unique weapons if we don't let similair fighting styles with slight differences be used.
But the fighter won't do exactly what the ranger does. The fighter will not be able to use two non-offhand weapons with anywhere near the efficiency that that the ranger can(if even at all, I can't remember all the two weapon fighting rules off the top of my head).
By your train of thought, no other class can ever use light blades, one heanded weapons, two handed weapons, or ranged weapons upon countless other things. After basically one more PHB we'd be reduced to new classes having to use playing cards to have unique weapons if we don't let similair fighting styles with slight differences be used.
I do not see how its that different. Rangers right now only have archery or two weapon fighting, if you give fighters two weapon fighting what exactly sets a ranger apart? If a fighter can now fight with two weapons, have higher hit points and mark why would anyone play a twf ranger? Even with the two light weapons it seems completley superior to a twf ranger in every single other respect.
Its the fact that classes should not step on each others toes, and yes I believe the rogue should be the only one to get powers that make use of light blade.
Rangers right now only have archery or two weapon fighting, if you give fighters two weapon fighting what exactly sets a ranger apart?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's the Ranger's mobility, the light armor and the fact that they can wield weapons without the off-hand property in their off-hand, not to mention heaps of bonus damage. Maybe it's the fact that the Fighter wears heavy armor and most of his powers have one target, and that he marks targets to draw them away from the rest of his team.
Or maybe some combination of all of the above.
Even with the two light weapons it seems completley superior to a twf ranger in every single other respect.
Except mobility. And bonus damage.
Its the fact that classes should not step on each others toes, and yes I believe the rogue should be the only one to get powers that make use of light blade.
Srsly, you should not be allowed to DM. Why draw the line there? Why not ban the Paladin? I mean, he's got all those radiant powers and holy symbols. That has to step on the toes of the Cleric. Or maybe it's the other way around. Same goes for Fighters and Warlords. And Swordmages! Those can't work at all because pretty much all their damage is either cold, electricity, thunder or fire damage, and the Wizard is already doing that!
Like I asked: Where do you draw the line?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's the Ranger's mobility, the light armor and the fact that they can wield weapons without the off-hand property in their off-hand, not to mention heaps of bonus damage. Maybe it's the fact that the Fighter wears heavy armor and most of his powers have one target, and that he marks targets to draw them away from the rest of his team.
Or maybe some combination of all of the above.
Except mobility. And bonus damage.
Srsly, you should not be allowed to DM. Why draw the line there? Why not ban the Paladin? I mean, he's got all those radiant powers and holy symbols. That has to step on the toes of the Cleric. Or maybe it's the other way around. Same goes for Fighters and Warlords. And Swordmages! Those can't work at all because pretty much all their damage is either cold, electricity, thunder or fire damage, and the Wizard is already doing that!
Like I asked: Where do you draw the line?
Paladin and cleric are different enough, as is sword mage, this twf does not seem different enough from what the ranger does at all. Frankly any twf in previous edditions was a skirmisher not front line fighter. A defender with two weapons does not even make sense in the least. I really thought WOTC would not do this. I was really really hoping that the class features from one class would not be wholesale copied by another. If they keep doing this I will drop dnd.
Its the fact that classes should not step on each others toes, and yes I believe the rogue should be the only one to get powers that make use of light blade.
A little late on that. Fighters already have four powers that gain some benefit from light blades. I guess it is time to ban regular fighters also. And Swordmages use light blades also, so don't forget to ban them to.
Paladin and cleric are different enough, as is sword mage, this twf does not seem different enough from what the ranger does at all. Frankly any twf in previous edditions was a skirmisher not front line fighter. A defender with two weapons does not even make sense in the least. I really thought WOTC would not do this. I was really really hoping that the class features from one class would not be wholesale copied by another. If they keep doing this I will drop dnd.
*headdesk*A two-weapon defender would work by wielding two weapons designed for use in parrying. So basically someone who uses two off-hand weapons.
And I'd really like to know how the following are wholesaled copied from each other.
Because of your
focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a
one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an
off-hand weapon. (Make sure to designate on your
character sheet which weapon is main and which is offhand.)
In addition, you gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the offhand property.
You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites.
When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property.
Treating non-off hand weapons as offhand weapons is considerably different then getting +1 damage when wielding two weapons and +1 to hit and damage when wielding off hand weapons. The only similarity is the end result of two weapons, but they aren't even the same kinds of weapons. Using two katars is hardly the same thing as dual wielding bastard swords.
I was really really hoping that the class features from one class would not be wholesale copied by another. If they keep doing this I will drop dnd.
Don't make promises you don't intend to keep.
Paladin and cleric are different enough, as is sword mage, this twf does not seem different enough from what the ranger does at all.
Okay, let me explain: It's not about fighting with two weapons. Two-weapon fighting is not a shtick. It's about what you do with those two weapons. Rangers wield large weapons in each hand, run around and **** their enemies up the urethra with them. Fighters stay at the front, heavily armored with smaller weapons and parry.
In other words: Ranger = offensive; Fighter = defensive.
Frankly any twf in previous edditions was a skirmisher not front line fighter.
Weren't you one of the
A defender with two weapons does not even make sense in the least.
Oh, the way I picture it, it does. It makes heaps of sense.
I really thought WOTC would not do this. I was really really hoping that the class features from one class would not be wholesale copied by another.
Except this isn't a wholesale copy. Even if they did copy all of the Ranger's powers and give them to the Tempest Fighter (which I'm positive they aren't doing), the Fighter still functions differently from the Ranger on a fundamental level.
If they keep doing this I will drop dnd.
Honestly, if you were my customer and gave me that attitude, I would deny you service. Trying to bully others into conforming to your standards, no matter how empty or unintimidating your threats are, is despicable, and should not have to be tolerated by anyone.
Thank you Awesome_Dude, you saved me some typing.
I live to
Okay, let me explain: It's not about fighting with two weapons. Two-weapon fighting is not a shtick. It's about what you do with those two weapons. Rangers wield large weapons in each hand, run around and **** their enemies up the urethra with them. Fighters stay at the front, heavily armored with smaller weapons and parry.
In other words: Ranger = offensive; Fighter = defensive.
Weren't you one of thetroll food group4E Avengers? Do you only celebrate progress when it doesn't challenge your prejudices?
Oh, the way I picture it, it does. It makes heaps of sense.
Except this isn't a wholesale copy. Even if they did copy all of the Ranger's powers and give them to the Tempest Fighter (which I'm positive they aren't doing), the Fighter still functions differently from the Ranger on a fundamental level.
Honestly, if you were my customer and gave me that attitude, I would deny you service. Trying to bully others into conforming to your standards, no matter how empty or unintimidating your threats are, is despicable, and should not have to be tolerated by anyone.
I live toseverserve.
The feats gave enough to people who were not rangers for twf, just like no one other than a fighter can mark everyone they attack, the twf was a class feature which means it should not be copied at all. Giving fighters twf would be the same as giving warlords powers based on weapon type just like fighters, or letting them mark people.
TWF is a highly specialized fighting style which means only rangers should be able to do it that effectivley. I just do not see how they can make it that much different from what the ranger is. the attacks will still center on hitting with two weapons.
TWF is a highly specialized fighting style which means only rangers should be able to do it that effectivley. I just do not see how they can make it that much different from what the ranger is. the attacks will still center on hitting with two weapons.
williamhm75 it sounds like you were playing a TWF Ranger and trying to act like a fighter on the front lines to be "unique" and now your upset because you think the impending tempest build will hamper your ability to do so. If you have no evidence other than "this is what it should be" or logic to support your claim then i ask you to GIVE IT UP.
Giving fighters twf would be the same as giving warlords powers based on weapon type just like fighters, or letting them mark people. .
Warlords do have powers that mark, so do clerics...
TWF is a highly specialized fighting style which means only rangers should be able to do it that effectivley. I just do not see how they can make it that much different from what the ranger is. the attacks will still center on hitting with two weapons.
I call BS...when I think ranger I think hunter, and bowman, and maybe druidical warrior...or modern the US Rangers...The two weapon is a throw back to drist...and they STILL do it better...
williamhm75 it sounds like you were playing a TWF Ranger and trying to act like a fighter on the front lines to be "unique" and now your upset because you think the impending tempest build will hamper your ability to do so. If you have no evidence other than "this is what it should be" or logic to support your claim then i ask you to GIVE IT UP.
Actually Im playing a paladin and a warlock its just I do not want to see new options that mearley copy what another class does. TWF is currently one of te things that defines the ranger. I really do not see why the fighter should be given something that works almost exactly like what the ranger does rather than getting some truly unique builds.
If 4th edition is to suceed, they designers need to return all the missing elements of 3.5 as quickly as possible to bring back the overwhelming numbers of players they lost. If martial power is balanced with the PHB, hardly anyone will want it - it has to be better to get sales, period. If you want Wizards to fail, by all means, complain about power creep. In reality, it's what sales splatbooks. Otherwise, people would stick with the core books... and there would be nothing new to sell. Think about it.
Martial Power will reintroduce many of the options and abilities from 3.5 that people have been missing in their martial characters, and future books will return the rest of them, until revised 4E, which will not be called 4.5, will come out to include all of the revisions and added rules into the 'new' core books.
Martial Power is the first step toward fixing the game. Let's hope it goes well.
I disagree with everything you just said, and as far as I can tell so do facts.
For example, could you site any source and data for this claim of "overwhelming numbers of players they lost"?
Actually Im playing a paladin and a warlock its just I do not want to see new options that mearley copy what another class does. TWF is currently one of te things that defines the ranger. I really do not see why the fighter should be given something that works almost exactly like what the ranger does rather than getting some truly unique builds.
I agree, given the role of the fighter in 4E there's no reason for them to gain a TWF option as it runs counter to there role in the party and has no point beyond someone wanting both high AC/HP and high Damage Output.
I agree, given the role of the fighter in 4E there's no reason for them to gain a TWF option as it runs counter to there role in the party and has no point beyond someone wanting both high AC/HP and high Damage Output.
The fact that you keep this up exhibits only your selfishness. It certainly doesn't make your points seem any more valid than they really are.
The fact that you keep this up exhibits only your selfishness. It certainly doesn't make your points seem any more valid than they really are.
Is it selfish to want each class to be actually unique, with their own way of doing things? Id rather see a truly unique fighter, or rogue build than for the developers to just say, ya know what lets just give them all twf builds that are very similiar and then call it done. I want each class to be unique to look nothing like the other classes.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I think the ratio is off. Shouldn't it be closer to 4 then 10?
Not in any of the groups I've been in. It's been: "Hey, RBE, let's play DnD!" "Do you have your own books?" "No, but you do!"
And that pisses me off. I memorize the books back to cover, and no one else even cares to share even a partial cost.
Not in any of the groups I've been in. It's been: "Hey, RBE, let's play DnD!" "Do you have your own books?" "No, but you do!"
And that pisses me off. I memorize the books back to cover, and no one else even cares to share even a partial cost.
That sucks my group everyone has the core books and one of the dms and I both have AV and players guide to forgotten realms while only the dm has the campaign guide.
That sucks my group everyone has the core books and one of the dms and I both have AV and players guide to forgotten realms while only the dm has the campaign guide.
I suspect your the exception.
If most groups were like yours, WotC would be doing far better than they are.
Is it selfish to want each class to be actually unique, with their own way of doing things?
When you start ruining potential fun for your players, yes. Incredibly.
Id rather see a truly unique fighter, or rogue build than for the developers to just say, ya know what lets just give them all twf builds that are very similiar and then call it done. I want each class to be unique to look nothing like the other classes.
Then you should have whined more.
Oh wait, they didn't make the decision because of people whining. They're just trying to make another fun type of defender (and I will play it if I ever get out of DMing the game I'm currently running).
Money is the deciding factor in these things. 4E core books sold amazingly well - they're core books. Splatbooks are doing terribly. The Adventurer's Vault and the Forgotten Realms books were abysmal dissapointments.
How do you know how Adventurers Vault is selling?
Keep in mind also, some of these splatbooks will only sell over a longer period of time. Groups have to mature into some splatbooks. In my group of 6 players, we only have one adventurers vault. Thats typical, and it seems irrational to see it tilt any better than that.
I didn't intend for you all to try and rip each other's throats out with your teeth.
Having said that, I kind of like reading about it.
It's funny how worked up some of you get about 4th edition.
But here's the thing:
If you want to be a grouchy old dinosaur and complain about how you don't want to deal with a new edition, then don't.
Nobody is twisting your arm (or nipples).
To me, it just seems like you're all complaining just for the sake of...well...complaining.
I know it can be frustrating sometimes when you get to love a certain system.
You buy all of the auxiliary material.
You feed it.
You water it.
You bathe it.
You make love to it.
And then it turns around and bites a piece of your ear off and threatens to take the children.
But that's just how things are.
Stick to 3.5 if it makes you feel safe and secure.
No one will try and force you to do anything you don't want to do.
Is it selfish to want each class to be actually unique, with their own way of doing things? Id rather see a truly unique fighter, or rogue build than for the developers to just say, ya know what lets just give them all twf builds that are very similiar and then call it done. I want each class to be unique to look nothing like the other classes.
But the fighter is doing two weapon fighting in a unique way from the Ranger. Yes the figter is using two weapons, but would really consider someone who is dual wielding greatswords as being the exact same as someone dual wielding katars? I mean that is practically on the same level as saying that a bastard sword and a spear are the exact same weapon just because you can use them two handed.
Umm...I really only wanted to know what month "Martial Power" was coming out.
I didn't intend for you all to try and rip each other's throats out with your teeth.
Bah, this is the internet. If you ask how to make a pie, you'll end up with a 10 page argument over how many eggs you are supposed to use.:D
Umm...I really only wanted to know what month "Martial Power" was coming out.
I didn't intend for you all to try and rip each other's throats out with your teeth.
This is at best slight gnawing on the Adam's apple.
Bah, this is the internet. If you ask how to make a pie, you'll end up with a 10 page argument over how many eggs you are supposed to use.:D
It's two eggs, as all true Scotsmen know.
I suspect your the exception.
If most groups were like yours, WotC would be doing far better than they are.
For me, it's a matter of social responsibility: IF we enjoy WotC's products and want them to make more, THEN we must purchase them.
To this end, in my group, I talked all of my players into buying their own Player's Handbooks. I have chastised one of my players for acquiring a copy illegally, and encouraged him to either pay for a copy or find another group. I've even gone so far as to say, "Look, guys: if you wanna use a a big chunk of rules (not simply one feat or power) from an additional book, consider buying a copy." I have a copy of everything released so far for 4E, and I let my players look at them as previews.
I realize this is maybe "extreme", but fortunately, my group is all employed, and we were all friends prior to D&D. This is how I show my support for the hobby: by encouraging the people I play with to pay for the material they use. This is how we get more of the stuff we want!
I have chastised one of my players for acquiring a copy illegally, and encouraged him to either pay for a copy or find another group.
Umm... dude, that's not encouragement. That's just using threats to force your "friend" to comply with your views. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Nobody is twisting your arm (or nipples).
Speak for yourself. ;)
Umm... dude, that's not encouragement. That's just using threats to force your "friend" to comply with your views. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Oh, so it's wrong to call someone out on stealing and tell the dumbass to actually pay for someone's hard work?
Correcting terrible and wrong behaviour is not a wrong.
Stealing is wrong. His friend was stealing. He told him to stop because stealing is wrong. Friend stopped stealing.
Badness here why?
And more on Topic.
I agree, the Tempest build of fighter is a complete waste of space and should never have been created. As shown in this thread a two weapon defender, who IS very much a defender, is completely viable in the core. Fighter, multiclass ranger, take ranger as your paragon path. Hell, this ones actually BETTER at marking targets since he can hit two people with his TWIN Strike.
And as for the fighter doing the two weapon thing differently than the ranger, I disagree.
Look here:
Originally Posted by Ranger Two-Blade Fighting Style
Because of your
focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a
one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an
off-hand weapon. (Make sure to designate on your
character sheet which weapon is main and which is offhand.)
In addition, you gain Toughness as a bonus feat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest Fighter
When you wield two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls with weapons that have the offhand property.
You gain Two-Weapon Defense as a bonus feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites.
When wearing light armor or chainmail, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with melee and close weapon attacks when you are wielding two weapons. This bonus increases to +2 with weapons that have the off-hand property.
Ranger gets to use a big weapon in their off hand so he can do more damage. K. And he gets Toughness for survivability. Neat.
Fighter gets bonuses to attacks when using 2 weapons increasing his damage done. Even worse if he decides to fight just like a ranger by wearing lighter armor he gets a +2 to damage with off hand weapons. And he gets a bonus feat to increase his survivability. Why does the fighter have damage increasing class features to fighting with two weapons? Why aren't they DEFENDER perks to wielding two weapons? If this fighter build is the "heavy armoured two weapon guy" why is it that as a class feature he improves if he DOESN'T wear the heaviest of armours?
Look here:
Ranger TWF = increase damage done while using 2 weapons, buffs ranger survivability.
Fighter TWF = increases damage done while using 2 weapons, buffs fighter survivability.
Ranger: Scimitar +2 1d8 High Crit / scimitar +2 1d8 High Crit
Fighter: Shortsword +4(+3 prof, +1feature) 1d6 +2 / Shortsword +4 1d6+2
Which would you rather use? My vote is on the dual shortswords as the scimitars only outperform them 5% of the time (which isn't technically true since the shortswords HIT 10% more often for more damage than the high crit property...). If the fighter burns a feat he's using Katar and now beats the dual scimitars with ease. The only thing the ranger has going for him is his quarry which is an extra die of damage, once a round.
While the fighter is marking 2 targets, and potentially unloading opportunity attacks at anyone that moves away from him. Ranger does 1d8 extra once a round with his quarry with a feat, our fighter does 1d6+2+STR high crit with each inturupt that also stops their movement. And to further add insult to injury this fighter can just multiclass into ranger ANYWAY to gain that vaunted "mobility" everyone was yammering about to beat the ranger at his own game without breaking a sweat. (especially if he just uses hand axes and gets the fight turning all axes into high crit weapons. So now he can melee and ranged on the fly whenever he wants, marking everyone, in better armour than ranger boy, with more hp, using the same powers, once a round using the same quarry, getting all his inturupt combative challenge goodness.)
At higher level the ranger gets more dice, but at higher level the Fighter has magical weapons buffing his damage output.
The difference in their damage is not nearly what people are suggesting. There's no need for this build, the core made the two weapon defender just freakin dandy.
Seriously, this is stupid.
Oh, so it's wrong to call someone out on stealing and tell the dumbass to actually pay for someone's hard work?
It's wrong to threaten a person using your relationship to them as leverage to give them an ultimatum. It's not what honorable or decent people do.
It's wrong to threaten a person using your relationship to them as leverage to give them an ultimatum. It's not what honorable or decent people do.
Awesome_Dude, I didn't intend to convey that I was using my friendship with them as leverage, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. Regardless of whether or not my friend actually chooses to pay for the book, we will be friends outside of D&D. At D&D, however, I expect him to support (or at least not steal from) the company that makes the game we enjoy together. In this way, we are doing our fair share to encourage the company that makes this game to continue making the kinds of products we want more of. I don't think that this is unreasonable, and I don't believe that my friend thinks so either.
Does this make me a dishonourable or indecent person? I hope not.
Awesome_Dude, I didn't intend to convey that I was using my friendship with them as leverage, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. Regardless of whether or not my friend actually chooses to pay for the book, we will be friends outside of D&D. At D&D, however, I expect him to support (or at least not steal from) the company that makes the game we enjoy together. In this way, we are doing our fair share to encourage the company that makes this game to continue making the kinds of products we want more of. I don't think that this is unreasonable, and I don't believe that my friend thinks so either.
Does this make me a dishonourable or indecent person? I hope not.
It was the impression that you were using your relationship with him as leverage that offended me. Having expectations is fine as long as you enforce them even-handedly and honorably.
Does this make me a dishonourable or indecent person? I hope not.
Nope, that's your friend.
It was the impression that you were using your relationship with him as leverage that offended me. Having expectations is fine as long as you enforce them even-handedly and honorably.
Well, that's okay; it's people who won't pay for products but expect companies to continue producing them that offend me.
I'm glad we could resolve this amicably, Awesome_Dude.
concerning the whole 4th edition being complete vs playable thing.
Although some of the decisions about what to include and what to postpone for future books was suspect, I feel that the overall product is worthy of standing on it's own without the other material that is "missing."
The Warlord being a fighting Bard is the most disappointing aspect of the whole thing, the dark aspect of the Warlock and the delay of the Gnome comes close to the top. These things are minor though, and the overall presentation is better than the first books in the previous edition, or the revision.
I still think that some of the theatric nature of the skills use and the lack of common sense concerning the selling and crafting of magical items will be changed in the 4.5 rules.
Speak for yourself. ;)
That comment has made my entire day.
I think that really says something about my life.
Well, that's okay; it's people who won't pay from products but expect companies to continue producing them that offend me.
I'm glad we could resolve this amicably, Awesome_Dude.
So am I. I hope you forgive me for attaining an illegal copy for use in my laptop for ease of reference. When I'm in school, sometimes I get an idea for an NPC or encounter and this is so much easier than lugging my entire library to school.
So am I. I hope you forgive me for attaining an illegal copy for use in my laptop for ease of reference. When I'm in school, sometimes I get an idea for an NPC or encounter and this is so much easier than lugging my entire library to school.
Well, you've paid for a copy haven't you? (It sounds like you have.) I wouldn't say I condone using an illegal copy per se, but I'm really more concerned that the fine folks who make this game receive the money that they deserve for their efforts.
And I definitely sympathize with you about not wanting to carry a wagonload of books to school. (School itself will have you doing that, if you let it. :P )
Well, you've paid for a copy haven't you? (It sounds like you have.) I wouldn't say I condone using an illegal copy per se, but I'm really more concerned that the fine folks who make this game receive the money that they deserve for their efforts.
I did pay for hard copies too. Even though I have a laptop, I use it while DMing so it's good to have the books themselves for my players to reference if they need it.
Plus, like you said, compensation. I want to be compensated for my work, so why should I cheat others? Golden rule FTW.
And I definitely sympathize with you about not wanting to carry a wagonload of books to school. (School itself will have you doing that, if you let it. :P )
Oh yeah. Researching papers = great workout.
I think the +1 to hit/+2 to off-hand weapon damage is what's teetering it over the balancing edge from defender to striker.
Also, the Tempest has an encounter power that gives the daily "jaws of the wolf" a serious run for its money, (with the exception that Jaws still damages on a miss)
I guess it will depend on the dailies. I have no issue with a dual wielding warrior, though I think their focus should remain firmly on defending, as opposed to striking. I think perhaps a better defensive bonus for using two ofhands might have served this better than the damage bonus.
Either way, for the poster who is saying that they will not allow this in their games, I see nothing wrong with that. 4E is a great game with just the 3 core books.
I'm running a game that I'm only allowing PHB races in. I have an MM and can easily allow races from there, but I didnt feel it fit the game I wanted to run, and my players seemed okay with that.
On a side note, I would have liked to have seen a "double weapon" version of quater staff that was considered a martial proficiency. +2 to hit, 1d8/1d8 and defensive.
I may just slide it in to my own games.
For right now, I'm in the camp with Tempest Fighters being a bit wonky.
I think the +1 to hit/+2 to off-hand weapon damage is what's teetering it over the balancing edge from defender to striker.
Also, the Tempest has an encounter power that gives the daily "jaws of the wolf" a serious run for its money, (with the exception that Jaws still damages on a miss)
I guess it will depend on the dailies. I have no issue with a dual wielding warrior, though I think their focus should remain firmly on defending, as opposed to striking. I think perhaps a better defensive bonus for using two ofhands might have served this better than the damage bonus.
Either way, for the poster who is saying that they will not allow this in their games, I see nothing wrong with that. 4E is a great game with just the 3 core books.
I'm running a game that I'm only allowing PHB races in. I have an MM and can easily allow races from there, but I didnt feel it fit the game I wanted to run, and my players seemed okay with that.
On a side note, I would have liked to have seen a "double weapon" version of quater staff that was considered a martial proficiency. +2 to hit, 1d8/1d8 and defensive.
I may just slide it in to my own games.
Well Im not currently running a game but if I did this would be the only thing Ive seen so far that would be banned.
The Warlord being a fighting Bard is the most disappointing aspect of the whole thing, the dark aspect of the Warlock and the delay of the Gnome comes close to the top. These things are minor though, and the overall presentation is better than the first books in the previous edition, or the revision.
Warlords are more than a "fighting Bard". They are tactical masters. They don't just gie piddly bonuses to allies, they can swing the entire battle by manouvering and bolstering allies.
Warlocks are as "dark" as you want them to be. Nothing is inherintly "Evil" about them, not even Infernal pact.
Gnomes are in the MM. That's all they need, really.
I still think that some of the theatric nature of the skills use and the lack of common sense concerning the selling and crafting of magical items will be changed in the 4.5 rules.
There will be no 4.5. The devs have said as such.
By the by, what is the "theatric nature" of the skills? Or the "lack of common sense" for magic item selling/creation? Please explain.
Still, my main concern is that the Tempest powers we have seen seem far more appropriate for a Rogue character than a Fighter character. I would say that I am more concerned on the Tempest build stepping on the toes of the Rogue than I am for it stepping on the toes of the Ranger, at the moment.
There will be no 4.5. The devs have said as such.
No 4.5, but you're kidding yourself if you think there won't be a revision at some point.
In fact, as a 4E Fanb0i, I welcome the idea. Somewhere towards the time when they've released all the major power sources, and given 4E a substantial library of material, (five or six years from now), I hope that they do release a revised 4E, which I hope will examine 4E's compiled library of material and rebalance it all.
Okay, maybe I'm the one who's dreaming. But I would like it to happen that way, and I do think we'll see a revision. (It just won't be a "4.5E".)
Two weapon fighting is NOT, I repeat, NOT a unique ability or a class definition. It is a fighting style. Fighting with two weapons does NOT, I repeat, does NOT mean 2x more damage. You can effectively fight with two weapons defensively.
Don't believe me? Miyamoto Musashi of Samurai fame has rolled over in his grave and wishes to speak with you.
Musashi used techniques called Niten Ichi from the Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū style often where he used his main hand to attack and the off hand for parrying and deflecting blows.
Sounds incredibly defender to me.
Not to mention Two weapon fighting does not make a ranger. If it did , a sword and shield would define a fighter or a Great weapon would define a Paladin. Its not the weapons you use. Its the style of weapon.
Both Paladin and Fighter are most often seen with either a sword and board style fighitng or a two handed weapon. So why isnt anyone *****ing and moaning that the fighter and paladin are too much alike? Because there style of fighting is completley different. Whats the difference between a wizard and a warlock? They both use magic implements and arcane energy to use there powers. Seriously people its not hard for people with working brains to put together.
Again two-weapon fighting is not what makes a ranger. Neither is it the fact that most use bows , although it is a more defining feature for them. What makes rangers "rangers" is there natural flavor. Any warrior could use two weapons. The question is how do they use them? Only one class can be the nature friendly woodsman , the tracker. THAT'S what ranger is all about. They are supposed to be quick , wise , deadly , and one with nature but not as much as a druid is. They are the essence of a hunter. Thats what a ranger is.
So stop whining about the fighter TWF. Some of us want to play a natural non cross-class MAD character to be a defensive style Two weapon fighter , that wears armor heavier than hide and is more of a mercenary, a general , or a soldier than a woodsman or hunter. The flavor is completely and utterly different. Get over it and be happy for the people gaining something they want to play.
p.s. I think the real question here should be Why the hell is Ranger a Martial character and not primal? They used to cast divine spells and everything.
Well Im not currently running a game but if I did this would be the only thing Ive seen so far that would be banned.
Yeah, we know. You and thaX are two of a kind that way. You don't actually care about your players' character concepts and ban stuff for self-gratification.
Sounds incredibly defender to me.
So long as the powers reflect that (defender-style), I'll be happy with them.
I really don't get what this whining is about with the two weapon fighting.
Two weapon fighting is NOT, I repeat, NOT a unique ability or a class definition. It is a fighting style. Fighting with two weapons does NOT, I repeat, does NOT mean 2x more damage. You can effectively fight with two weapons defensively.
Don't believe me? Miyamoto Musashi of Samurai fame has rolled over in his grave and wishes to speak with you.
Musashi used techniques called Niten Ichi from the Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū style often where he used his main hand to attack and the off hand for parrying and deflecting blows.
Sounds incredibly defender to me.
Not to mention Two weapon fighting does not make a ranger. If it did , a sword and shield would define a fighter or a Great weapon would define a Paladin. Its not the weapons you use. Its the style of weapon.
Both Paladin and Fighter are most often seen with either a sword and board style fighitng or a two handed weapon. So why isnt anyone *****ing and moaning that the fighter and paladin are too much alike? Because there style of fighting is completley different. Whats the difference between a wizard and a warlock? They both use magic implements and arcane energy to use there powers. Seriously people its not hard for people with working brains to put together.
Again two-weapon fighting is not what makes a ranger. Neither is it the fact that most use bows , although it is a more defining feature for them. What makes rangers "rangers" is there natural flavor. Any warrior could use two weapons. The question is how do they use them? Only one class can be the nature friendly woodsman , the tracker. THAT'S what ranger is all about. They are supposed to be quick , wise , deadly , and one with nature but not as much as a druid is. They are the essence of a hunter. Thats what a ranger is.
So stop whining about the fighter TWF. Some of us want to play a natural non cross-class MAD character to be a defensive style Two weapon fighter , that wears armor heavier than hide and is more of a mercenary, a general , or a soldier than a woodsman or hunter. The flavor is completely and utterly different. Get over it and be happy for the people gaining something they want to play.
p.s. I think the real question here should be Why the hell is Ranger a Martial character and not primal? They used to cast divine spells and everything.
Winner
The answer to your question is that Rangers are no longer solely hunters. Now they can be skirmishers, assassins or even soldiers just like the Fighter. They no longer have that inherent connection to nature that they once did.
And note that the Primal power source is supernatural. Like, "set yourself on fire and run screaming at your enemies" supernatural. Sort of like this.
Barbarians ate the Ranger's supernatural side and are now crazy forces of nature.
Winner
The answer to your question is that Rangers are no longer solely hunters. Now they can be skirmishers, assassins or even soldiers just like the Fighter. They no longer have that inherent connection to nature that they once did.
And note that the Primal power source is supernatural. Like, "set yourself on fire and run screaming at your enemies" supernatural. Sort of like this.
Barbarians ate the Ranger's supernatural side and are now crazy forces of nature.
Which is awesome. That cover freaking rocks.
Strangely enough i really enjoyed the new splats especially the FRPG. They seem really easy to use/adapt and full of new options. Still not too pleased with the multiple Draconomicons they plan to release but guess what? Will probably buy them all anyway...my tinfoil hat must be malfunctioning.... :D
By the by, what is the "theatric nature" of the skills? Or the "lack of common sense" for magic item selling/creation? Please explain.
Their is a whole thread dedicated to this, but the main jist of the whole Magical Item creation/selling thing is that one has to sell it for 1/5th of the list price, even if he made the damn thing, and buying it would cost 10% to 40% more than the list price.
It is stupid rule that attempts to balance characters by making them poor, or at the very least keep them at a wealth level to keep them having to hunt for more income instead of buying houses, setting up retirement, or even cutting loose one night with a celebratory trip to the Brothel and such.
The Skills are done in such a way as to always be a 50/50 chance to succeed. Flipping a coin would serve the same purpose. Having to waste feats to raise skills above the mediocre levels that they stay at otherwise is not my idea of fun.
Bah, this is the internet. If you ask how to make a pie, you'll end up with a 10 page argument over how many eggs you are supposed to use.
It's two eggs, as all true Scotsmen know.
No way. I'm pretty sure it's three eggs. :D