To explain what I mean, powers that can be taken that are not specific to a class, so that a rogue, ranger, fighter or warlord can take them.
I personally want to see this, I don't know if anyone else would, but it would be intersting, and give more options to characters. Such generic powers would make the martial power book more useful, and thus maybe more a 'needed' purchase. Any concerns about such an idea?
I want them to implement concepts that weren't given enough detail in the PHB. Otherwise fix them, such as with TWF being viable for other classes, Mounted combat, and Shield bashing. Oh and perhaps more weapon unique powers, and not just the axe, hammer, being the same. Well they're similar anyways, but they shouldn't make pointless weapon groups either.
Oh. and it should be good value for my $$$, not some wimpy 90 page softcover POS.
[indent]- At least 35 new powers for each martial class? Including:
- At least two new 1st-level At-Will Attack powers for each martial class?
- At least two new builds for each martial class?
- At least four new paragon paths for each martial class?
- At least two new martial-themed epic destinies?
- At least six new class-specific feats for each martial class?
- At least one new race-specific martial-themed feat for each PH1 race?
- At least ten generic martial-themed feats?
- At least one new multiclass feat for each martial class?
- Support / viability for equipment and class combinations not found in PH1? Specifically, [indent]- TWF Fighters and Rogues;
- Light/no-armor duelist Defenders (Fighters);
- Semi-ranged Warlords, and;
- Two-handed melee weapon Rangers.[/indent]
- Some substantial discussion about creating and playing martial characters at each tier?
- A power, feat, and magic item selection guide from levels 1 - 30 for each martial build?
- A brief guide to effective multiclassing as a martial character?[/indent]
I've deliberately left two things I thought of off of this list. First, martial-focused magic items; items are easier to track down when they're pooled in Player's Handbooks and Adventurer's Vaults. Second, sample PoL-compatible* martial organizations and locations; I'd like to have these, but upon reflection, I'd prefer if they (particularly locations) were detailed in a DMG rather than a player's supplement.
*Note: When I say I want something to be PoL (Points of Light Setting) -compatible, I'm referring to direct tie-ins to the organizations and locations presented in the DMGs and in the published PoL adventure series; H1, H2, H3, P1, P2, P3, E1, E2, and E3 specifically. I like stuff to tie together.
Nah, I'm not asking for much :P.
...Would it be selfish to want all of:
[indent]- At least 35 new powers for each martial class? Including:
- At least two new 1st-level At-Will Attack powers for each martial class?
- At least two new builds for each martial class?
- At least four new paragon paths for each martial class?
- At least two new martial-themed epic destinies?
- At least six new class-specific feats for each martial class?
- At least one new race-specific martial-themed feat for each PH1 race?
- At least ten generic martial-themed feats?
- At least one new multiclass feat for each martial class?
- Support / viability for equipment and class combinations not found in PH1? Specifically, [indent]- TWF Fighters and Rogues;
- Light/no-armor duelist Defenders (Fighters);
- Semi-ranged Warlords, and;
- Two-handed melee weapon Rangers.[/indent]
- Some substantial discussion about creating and playing martial characters at each tier?
- A power, feat, and magic item selection guide from levels 1 - 30 for each martial build?
- A brief guide to effective multiclassing as a martial character?[/indent]
I've deliberately left two things I thought of off of this list. First, martial-focused magic items; items are easier to track down when they're pooled in Player's Handbooks and Adventurer's Vaults. Second, sample PoL-compatible* martial organizations and locations; I'd like to have these, but upon reflection, I'd prefer if they (particularly locations) were detailed in a DMG rather than a player's supplement.
*Note: When I say I want something to be PoL (Points of Light Setting) -compatible, I'm referring to direct tie-ins to the organizations and locations presented in the DMGs and in the published PoL adventure series; H1, H2, H3, P1, P2, P3, E1, E2, and E3 specifically. I like stuff to tie together.
Nah, I'm not asking for much :P.
I'd be surprised if we got even half that, but I'm thinking more realistically. Didn't we hear somewhere that mounts and animal companions were being put into an upcoming book? Was it this book? Not that I want them, I just remember something like that vaguely.
What I want is one more build for each martial class, some powers to go with the builds, as well as numerous feats for all tiers. A new paragon path for each martial class and one new epic destiny they all can use would make me extra happy.
I personally want to see this, I don't know if anyone else would, but it would be intersting, and give more options to characters. Such generic powers would make the martial power book more useful, and thus maybe more a 'needed' purchase. Any concerns about such an idea?
This is a bad idea. What do a rogue, a ranger, a warlord, and a fighter have in common? One's a defender, two are strikers, and one is a leader. What sort of power would it be, exactly, that makes sense for all three?
It also makes characters of different classes more similar, which is a bad thing (TM).
I want them to implement concepts that weren't given enough detail in the PHB. Otherwise fix them, such as with TWF being viable for other classes, Mounted combat, and Shield bashing.
There already are mounted combat rules; why would they change them in the next book? I wouldn't be surprised to see some mounted combat related stuff, but I've always felt it was a little sketchy in the first place due to the unsuitability of mounts for a lot of places.
TWF has a class devoted to it; there's no need to make it better for other classes. If you want to TWF, be a ranger.
And Shield Bashing is just an improvised attack, and frankly, I've always thought it was pretty dumb. I see some fighter powers which already exist which can be partially flavored that way anyway (hit them, smack them with your shield to make them back up).
TWF Fighters and Rogues;
These don't need to exist, especially the latter; the latter is just a ranger.
Light/no-armor duelist Defenders (Fighters);
These don't need to be fighters.
Semi-ranged Warlords, and;
Not sure exactly what you mean by this.
Two-handed melee weapon Rangers.
Definitely not.
- At least one new multiclass feat for each martial class?
What for, exactly? I don't see a need for them at all. What would it do?
Things I would like to see:
- At least 35 new powers for each martial class? Including:
- At least two new 1st-level At-Will Attack powers for each martial class?
- At least two new builds for each martial class?
- At least four new paragon paths for each martial class?
- At least two new martial-themed epic destinies?
- At least six new class-specific feats for each martial class?
- At least one new race-specific martial-themed feat for each PH1 race?
- At least ten generic martial-themed feats?
I would like to see some more weapon-specific powers for the fighter, particularly for the neglected weapon types (picks in particular).
I would like to see a couple powers (not sure for which class) which use heavy thrown weapons. This doesn't necessarily have to be in martial power, but I'd like to see them at some point and martial power seems like an okay spot for them, though really there shouldn't be many.
I would like to see a couple power substitution feats.
I would like to see a couple utility powers which use Althletics to do something cool for the fighter and/or ranger.
I would like to see a power which requires Endurance to be trained.
I would like to see some more tome of battlish stuff (tiger claw, iron heart, and stone dragon stuff particularly).
Duelist fighters are not currently feasible in 4E; is it so hard to imagine a high-hit-point, marking, agile (if not mobile) Defender who wears light armor and wields light blades? This concept is firmly distinct from a rogue, and could be provided by one new fighter build or a couple of feats.
I don't understand your aversion to more equipment options across roles. AFAIK, class features are the primary defining factor of a character's role. So, what's unreasonable about two-handed weapon rangers? TWF Fighters? Lightly armored Fighters?
I concede you might be right about a ranged-weapon-focus Warlord and the TWF Rogue, Titanium Dragon. The rest, you'll have to explain. (If you answer well, you might actually convince me.)
I would like to see some more weapon-specific powers for the fighter, particularly for the neglected weapon types (picks in particular).
I would like to see a couple powers (not sure for which class) which use heavy thrown weapons. This doesn't necessarily have to be in martial power, but I'd like to see them at some point and martial power seems like an okay spot for them, though really there shouldn't be many.
I'm totally with you on these two points.
...Would it be selfish to want all of:
[indent]- At least 35 new powers for each martial class? Including:
- At least two new 1st-level At-Will Attack powers for each martial class?
- At least two new builds for each martial class?
- At least four new paragon paths for each martial class?
- At least two new martial-themed epic destinies?
- At least six new class-specific feats for each martial class?
- At least one new race-specific martial-themed feat for each PH1 race?
- At least ten generic martial-themed feats?
In an over 200 page book with no races, new classes, or magic items I would be surprised if we DIDN'T see at least that much. Builds being the exeption because they're basically just a starting off suggestion, nice for new players, waste of space for anyone who really knows the game.
I'd be surprised if we got even half that, but I'm thinking more realistically. Didn't we hear somewhere that mounts and animal companions were being put into an upcoming book? Was it this book? Not that I want them, I just remember something like that vaguely.
Animal companions for Rangers will be in Martial Power(no I do not remember who said that or when). I think that that really is the only specific thing we know so far about it.
-=Edit: I take that back, I just remembered it has been stated that there will be more multiclassing feats for the martial classes.=-
Would it be selfish to want all of:
...
- At least one new multiclass feat for each martial class?
What for, exactly? I don't see a need for them at all. What would it do?
...I just remembered it has been stated that there will be more multiclassing feats for the martial classes.=-
:D
I want more multiclassing feats (and believe we need them) because, at the moment, to my knowledge, multiclassing is generally considered suboptimal beyond the first feat. I imagine that additional options might change this situation.
I'd like to see more multiclass feats, perhaps at different tiers, that offer alternative class features to the multiclass feats presented in PH1, as well as class-specific multiclass feats that develop those class features. For example, I allowed one of my players, a Fighter, to alter his Warrior of the Wild feat so that instead of Hunter's Quarry as an encounter power, he is now able to wield a one-handed weapon in each hand. I would like to see official options in this vein.
In an over 200 page book with no races, new classes, or magic items I would be surprised if we DIDN'T see at least that much. Builds being the exeption because they're basically just a starting off suggestion, nice for new players, waste of space for anyone who really knows the game.
This was my logic; like you said, with no new races, classes, or magic items, all that's left is powers and feats, which, as long as they're balanced, is fine by me.
- There's only a need for a couple more builds for each class, and that may be their maximum limit; builds also tend to only take up about a quarter-page each.
- If we estimate a conservative eight powers per page, 35 new powers per class is going to take up not quite 18 pages. (Which leads me to believe we might be able to expect a hell of a lot more powers.)
- If we estimate a conservative 10 feats per page, (lots of artwork), we'll see 200 new feats in 20 pages. (That's a ton of feats. I love them, but if I get too many I'll worry about whether they're all balanced.)
- Paragon Paths. Each one takes up roughly one page. This is how I imagine a ton of space will get filled; I speculate they might be able to present a dozen
new Paths for each class without ever doing the same thing twice.
I don't have a problem with a few pages being fluff or advice. Overall, I'm looking for about a "10% fluff - 90% delicious crunch" balance.
In short: Martial Power: Make it crunchy!
It's sort of thier Modus Operandi.
Both putting new classes in splat books, and doing things they deny right up until the last second. That's not a criticism, just an observation, albiet a critical one... :p
That aside, I hope to see basically what DoctorHook outlined above. If that's what the book contains, I will be EXSTATIC.
Also, if they book has like two or three new martial classes, I won't complain. I'll make jokes about it, but I won't complain.
P.S. Martial Controller. Just saying...
I know they've said that they aren't putting new classes in splat books, but I will honestly be completely suprised if there isn't some new martial class in the MP book.
It's sort of thier Modus Operandi.
Both putting new classes in splat books, and doing things they deny right up until the last second. That's not a criticism, just an observation, albiet a critical one... :p
That aside, I hope to see basically what DoctorHook outlined above. If that's what the book contains, I will be EXSTATIC.
Also, if they book has like two or three new martial classes, I won't complain. I'll make jokes about it, but I won't complain.
P.S. Martial Controller. Just saying...
I'm flattered that you want what I want! This is reinforces my conclusion that we want something crunch-heavy!
...However, IMHO Tiwaz, I wouldn't hold my breath about that Martial Controller.
- You know those fighter powers that reward light blades? More of those are needed. Rain of Blows and Armour-Piercing Thrust, for instance, are pretty nice, but after that it starts to get a little dull and ditching the rapier for a bastard sword gets to be a better idea before long (especially when you consider that Dex 17 is less out-of-the-way for a fighter than Dex 21). This seems likely given that we've had "sword dancer" powers hinted at.
- More stuff for heavy blade fighters, I guess. Heavy blades are already a pretty nice weapon category, granted, but I'm itching to see more of this sword dancer build, which will presumably involve stuff for heavy blades as well given what I've heard from sources like WotC's Rodney (namely, he plays an eladrin wizard who took advantage of his racial longsword proficiency and multiclassed into fighter, using feats and powers from the Martial Power book).
- A little somethin' somethin' for fighters that don't dump Intelligence and Charisma could be nice, if only in the form of a handful of fighter-useful feats (and perhaps a paragon path or two) that aren't superpowered, but have a nice flavour and a good enough mechanical effect to justify saving some room for Int 13 or Cha 13 instead of putting more points into Con/Dex/Wis. In the same vein, a little somethin' somethin' for rogues that don't dump Intelligence or Wisdom, rangers that don't dump Intelligence or Charisma, and warlords that don't dump Wisdom.
- This is getting slightly more ambitious, but a light blade mastery feat (crit range on light blades = 19-20 instead of just 20) that's more accessible to artful dodgers than the current one (which requires Str 17) would be nice. Light blade mastery is a no-brainer for brute rogues (that aren't daggermasters, anyway), but artful dodgers have to go out of their way for it. Failing that, some other kind of epic-tier feat that's really nice for artful dodgers but that brutes would have to make an investment in Charisma to get.
- A feat to use Dexterity for basic melee attacks instead of Strength. I rate this as "conservative" because I've heard it hinted at.
Some of the ambitious stuff I want from Martial Power:
- A Dex-primary fighter build, complete with powers that use Dexterity for attack and damage, enough to go all the way from level 1 to level 30--this could be the "sword dancer" build we've had hints of, and could also be the origin behind some of the new multiclass feats (a fighter multiclass feat that requires Dex 13 instead of Str 13?). I would note that some of the enemies in the Monster Manual use longswords, but clearly use Dexterity as their attack stat, which might be a sign that Wizards is open to Dexterity-based heavy blade attacks for player characters. Failing that, the dancing fencer (which sounds to me like it would use light blades) was explicitly mentioned as a potential build option for the fighter (not the rogue!) in the old Races and Classes book.
- A two-weapon fighter build, focusing more on a mix of offense and defense than on one or the other. It wouldn't be too hard to insert this as a third Fighter Weapon Talent (+1 to weapon attack rolls when wielding two melee weapons, plus an extra small benefit) or just play it off of the one-handed version thereof, and the two-weapon fighter was explicitly mentioned as a potential build option for the fighter (not just the ranger) in Races and Classes.
- Int rogues?
- Alternate class features? I mentioned perhaps a little somethin' somethin' for fighters that don't dump Intelligence and Charisma; would it be possible to get an alternate fighter class feature that replaces the Wisdom bonus to opportunity attacks in Combat Superiority and instead gives a bonus based on Intelligence or Charisma?
- Features for characters who paragon multiclass into a martial class? This really needs to happen. Ideally they'd be offered up for "free" to a character who goes as far as paragon multiclassing, since charging More Feats would kind of be insult after injury considering the four feats it takes to paragon multiclass in the first place unless they are amazing. Paragon multiclassing just needs to stop sucking.
- Anything for knight-in-shining-armour-styled fighters?
- Fistfighting? This one is probably too much to ask for.
Everything Belladonna said, edited for brevity.
This.
If I say it again, will it become more likely to happen?
This.
A mounted Fighter build (special fighter powers that are obviously geared for mounted combat duh)
A few more at wills so the human doesn't seem so damned appealing.
(all martials)
More utilities. -alot- more.
More dailies.
Mounted Fighter build option.
Don't really have anything for the others than some general requests.
...Would it be selfish to want all of:
[indent]- At least 35 new powers for each martial class? Including:
- At least two new 1st-level At-Will Attack powers for each martial class?
- At least two new builds for each martial class?
- At least four new paragon paths for each martial class?
- At least two new martial-themed epic destinies?
- At least six new class-specific feats for each martial class?
- At least one new race-specific martial-themed feat for each PH1 race?
- At least ten generic martial-themed feats?
- At least one new multiclass feat for each martial class?
- Support / viability for equipment and class combinations not found in PH1? Specifically, [indent]- TWF Fighters and Rogues;
Nah, I'm not asking for much :P.
Well, if ye look upMartial power in the Products listings, it's apparently 160 pages.
So they will probably spend 40+ pages on description, "ideas" for characters. Although don't seem to be much for characters otherwise. Since the PHB, can handle an approximate average of 8 powers per page. That 35 yer wanting, may just take up 20 pages total (35/8=5 pages, 4 classes or 4x5=20). I guess the other stuff will take up some small bits of page room.
So I guess.......
40+ pages of description
20+ of Powers
15+ Paragon Paths and Epic destinies?
X Feats (X= have no clue)
=85 pages to my estimate?
So sounds to me, they could do well over what ye want. So I guess we hope that his supplement will be really good. As Doctorhook said, that it should be indeed quite heavy with it's newer options and rules.
EDIT: Oh and I'm sure one of my players is rooting for some "Mage slayer" feats. Such as from the Complete Arcane? of 3.5? I believe.
P.S. Martial Controller. Just saying...
Seriously doubt we'll see this, for a variety or reasons, the least being they have stated they are not obsessing about filling out the power source/role grid, and every idea for one I have seen so far has been incredibly contrived.
Please no one mention engineer, alchemist or dragoon, that business is doing me old noggin in.
Duelist fighters are not currently feasible in 4E; is it so hard to imagine a high-hit-point, marking, agile (if not mobile) Defender who wears light armor and wields light blades? This concept is firmly distinct from a rogue, and could be provided by one new fighter build or a couple of feats.
It is.
The idea of a defender in low armor is pretty dumb in and out of itself.
Just because it looks cool, doesn't mean it should work. The Swashbuckler was a pretty terrible class in 3.5 after all and the basic idea behind the Swashbuckler is pretty much an artful dodger as is!
What mechanic (aside from not losing speed... which isn't an issue with scale mail prof) would a light armor fighter gain anyway?
I pretty much agree with that TD said - We don't need DW feats and Dex fighters option taking up the page... this is for people who are more attached to the fighter 'label' then the actual mechanism/role of the class. That would be wasted space... if you want a twf fighter, make a ranger, and call yourself a fighter.
What I'd like to see:
- Powers/Feats that mimic some of the monster's ability. A good example of this is the 'Sniper' ability many monsters have as well as all those 'free shift' move. Sometime the PC feel downright sluggish compared to some of the monsters.
FOR ROGUES:
More Rogue Tactics options, more specifically an INT-based one, plus new exploits that benefit from it. I like the archetype of the clever, cunning rogue, and this doesn't seem to be mechanically viable as of yet. Yes, I realize that DEX and INT share the same defenses, and so I think this INT-based Rogue Tactic should be either A) be slightly more powerful than other Rogue Tactics or B) (more likely) it should allow the Rogue to add his INT to his Will Defense instead of WIS or CHA. Slippery Mind would be a good name for this...
FOR WARLORDS:
More Commanding Presence options, more specifically a WIS-based one, plus new exploits that benefit from it. I trust a wise, empathic, focused leader more than I do an intelligent one or a charismatic one, but there doesn't seem to be be any reason currently for a Warlord to have a good WIS at all. Even if one selects to be the Tactical option, there are still many CHA-based powers to take advantage of such that one will likely still select to have a higher CHA and to dump WIS...
FOR RANGERS:
All right, this request it a little bit more crazy... I want a Zweihander option and a Sword-&-Board option for Rangers, plus new exploits that benefit from those styles. I know, it's insane, but hear me out. See, the flavor of Rangers has been changed in 4E such that they now seem to simply be more of a martial striker that focuses on a specific fighting style. It would be cool to have a martial striker who could use a greatsword to great effect or who could supplement spear stabs with shield bashes. If these styles are going to be present in a martial striker at all, I submit that the Ranger should be the one to do it, because adding another class for this would seem superfluous to me...
FOR FIGHTERS:
Well, I would request more build options for Fighters like I have for the other three (and like I still want more pacts for Warlocks and more implements for Wizards), but it doesn't seem the the Fighter has any options to expand upon. :P
I would still prefer, though, that I had more than one exploit option at each level that favored my weapon, such that my polearm fighter isn't exactly the same as everybody else's polearm fighter...
I would also like to note that I prefer there NOT be any new classes. They seem to me to be completely unneeded if we can just add new exploits and base option to the existing class...
OH! but I would like some exploits or paragon paths geared towards mounted combat. That would be cool...
Also, more weapons to pick from...
...
I'm not asking too much, am I?
EDIT:
Oh, I forgot about Multi-Class feats. We should definitely have more of them.
The idea of a defender in low armor is pretty dumb in and out of itself.
Just because it looks cool, doesn't mean it should work. The Swashbuckler was a pretty terrible class in 3.5 after all and the basic idea behind the Swashbuckler is pretty much an artful dodger as is!
What mechanic (aside from not losing speed... which isn't an issue with scale mail prof) would a light armor fighter gain anyway?
I pretty much agree with that TD said - We don't need DW feats and Dex fighters option taking up the page... this is for people who are more attached to the fighter 'label' then the actual mechanism/role of the class. That would be wasted space... if you want a twf fighter, make a ranger, and call yourself a fighter.
I'm flattered that you think my idea "pretty dumb in and out of itself." However, I'm not even close to the only one who wants to see it.
I don't think you understand what I'm suggesting. I would like to see support for a defender who can meaningfully wield two weapons, or meaningfully defend with swashbuckling style. This is not the same as a striker who has "Fighter" written on his character sheet. Strikers (regardless of what they've been renamed) suck as defenders.
FOR WARLORDS:
More Commanding Presence options, more specifically a WIS-based one
Oooh, that'd be nice.
I think Warlord is a great class on a conceptual level for a Dwarf. But sadly, they aren't very good at it mechanically. Having a Wisdom option for the class would make Dwarf (And elves) very good at the class.
I don't think you understand what I'm suggesting. I would like to see support for a defender who can meaningfully wield two weapons, or meaningfully defend with swashbuckling style. This is not the same as a striker who has "Fighter" written on his character sheet. Strikers (regardless of what they've been renamed) suck as defenders.
Which is exactly what doesn't make sense :P.
Your job (as a defender) is to take it in the face and like it... what sane, logical person would go in there knowing full well they will get hit wearing leather armor?
And the Swordmage is different - he does have armor in the form of wards and magic shields.
The whole 'I'm so good at parrying I get an AC bonus!' angle doesn't make much sense either... if you're stunned/dazed/restrained/grappled/unconscious/prone - you can't parry properly. If it's 'magic parry everything field that works even when I'm stunned' - then you're basically into Swordmage/Arcane defender territory anyway.
I can see the appeal to a degree, because it does look kinda cool - but that's because Swasbuckler are cool, but realistically speaking - a swashbuckler would be a striker, so would a duel wiedling warrior, those are style that focus on offense rather then defense, to make them into defender is... weird.
Think of a concept and apply role to it... don't try to make any concept fit any role... otherwise we'll end up with Defender wielding Staff and no armor aside from long billowy robes... because I want my fighter to look like a wizard because I think wizard look cool and I want mechanic to support it. :P
Titanium Dragon: You don't seem to think it's reasonable for anyone other than Rangers to have access to TWF. I'm not suggesting that every martial class be equal to Rangers in TWF capability, (or even comparable), but I think we could benefit from a half-dozen more TWF feats. (And possibly a limited few TWF Feat powers or substitution powers.)
And a half dozen more feats for two handed weapons? And a half-dozen more feats for weapon + shield?
What exactly are these feats supposed to do?
TWFing is not supposed to be all that awesome for non-rangers; the point is to condense the TWF powers down into one class, so that the TWFer has a lot of options.
And really, as people expect extra attacks from TWFing, its pretty much striker territory.
Duelist fighters are not currently feasible in 4E; is it so hard to imagine a high-hit-point, marking, agile (if not mobile) Defender who wears light armor and wields light blades? This concept is firmly distinct from a rogue, and could be provided by one new fighter build or a couple of feats.
Thing is, what exactly does this accomplish? What does this add to the game? And really, what is he going to do with light blades?
I don't understand your aversion to more equipment options across roles. AFAIK, class features are the primary defining factor of a character's role. So, what's unreasonable about two-handed weapon rangers? TWF Fighters? Lightly armored Fighters?
Several are unreasonable.
Two handed weapon rangers lack powers. There's only a tiny number of powers which apply to them. Moreover, they overlap too much with the rogue - single, strong attacks are the rogue's speciality, not the ranger's. This is why it shouldn't be viable - it steps on the toes of another class. Moreover, it decreases the amount of material given to characters which already exist, and character options which already exist.
TWF fighters, likewise, step on the toes of the ranger, as well as on the toes of the two-handed weapon fighter. Moreover, they're really rangers who wear heavy armor if you're expecting multiple attacks, and it is indeed quite possible to BUILD a ranger who wears heavy armor, so there's absolutely no need for it. They also, again, hurt already extant characters.
The reason the fighting styles were spread out was to prevent linearity. It is far better to keep them within their class, and give them a broader diversity of powers to choose from, than to dilute the other classes.
Basically, if you give all the classes all the fighting styles, they are much less likely to be interesting and far more likely to cause everyone to gravitate towards the same style. If you keep them distinct, then you have the class who is good at TWFing and using bows, and the class who is good at going weapon-and-shield and 2HW, and each of those have a variety of in-class options to choose from.
I'd like to see more INT and CHA based Warlord exploits, to the extent that one could effectively "dump" STR.
I don't. Warlords need to use their bodies, and as far as I remember ALL of their powers use strength to attack, so these would greatly restrict their options - a bad thing.
I want more multiclassing feats (and believe we need them) because, at the moment, to my knowledge, multiclassing is generally considered suboptimal beyond the first feat. I imagine that additional options might change this situation.
And people are generally completely clueless about it. They are whining because multiclassing isn't broken anymore. Its fair and multiclass characters are plenty strong.
- You know those fighter powers that reward light blades? More of those are needed. Rain of Blows and Armour-Piercing Thrust, for instance, are pretty nice, but after that it starts to get a little dull and ditching the rapier for a bastard sword gets to be a better idea before long (especially when you consider that Dex 17 is less out-of-the-way for a fighter than Dex 21). This seems likely given that we've had "sword dancer" powers hinted at.
I have no problem with having a light blade power at each of the levels with a weapon specific power, but they shouldn't be made better than other weapons. The reality is that they're supposed to be and need to be worse for balance reasons, as they're the best type of weapon. You have the rogue to thank for that.
- A little somethin' somethin' for fighters that don't dump Intelligence and Charisma could be nice, if only in the form of a handful of fighter-useful feats (and perhaps a paragon path or two) that aren't superpowered, but have a nice flavour and a good enough mechanical effect to justify saving some room for Int 13 or Cha 13 instead of putting more points into Con/Dex/Wis. In the same vein, a little somethin' somethin' for rogues that don't dump Intelligence or Wisdom, rangers that don't dump Intelligence or Charisma, and warlords that don't dump Wisdom.
I'd rather not, honestly. Fighters are MAD enough as-is.
- This is getting slightly more ambitious, but a light blade mastery feat (crit range on light blades = 19-20 instead of just 20) that's more accessible to artful dodgers than the current one (which requires Str 17) would be nice. Light blade mastery is a no-brainer for brute rogues (that aren't daggermasters, anyway), but artful dodgers have to go out of their way for it. Failing that, some other kind of epic-tier feat that's really nice for artful dodgers but that brutes would have to make an investment in Charisma to get.
No. This is bad.
The point of weapon mastery is that they're hard to get. They have to be because they are so powerful. It SHOULD be hard for the artful dodger to grab it. In any event, they have other options (like, say, daggermaster).
In short, tough. If you aren't willing to make the same sacrifices clerics, warlords, and even fighters have to make to acquire those feats, you shouldn't have them.
- A Dex-primary fighter build, complete with powers that use Dexterity for attack and damage, enough to go all the way from level 1 to level 30--this could be the "sword dancer" build we've had hints of, and could also be the origin behind some of the new multiclass feats (a fighter multiclass feat that requires Dex 13 instead of Str 13?). I would note that some of the enemies in the Monster Manual use longswords, but clearly use Dexterity as their attack stat, which might be a sign that Wizards is open to Dexterity-based heavy blade attacks for player characters. Failing that, the dancing fencer (which sounds to me like it would use light blades) was explicitly mentioned as a potential build option for the fighter (not the rogue!) in the old Races and Classes book.
Ah yes, let's make a whole bunch of fighter powers which are useless to most fighters.
This would suck. A lot. And would really be bad.
- Features for characters who paragon multiclass into a martial class? This really needs to happen. Ideally they'd be offered up for "free" to a character who goes as far as paragon multiclassing, since charging More Feats would kind of be insult after injury considering the four feats it takes to paragon multiclass in the first place unless they are amazing. Paragon multiclassing just needs to stop sucking.
How much it sucks is mostly a matter of opinion at this point; I have yet to see a single example of anyone testing it out at all. People gripe and gripe, and while it seems somewhat underpowered, at-will swapping is rediculously powerful. People would have to actually test to tell.
I've already mentioned how it would work, but you aren't going to get full class features by doing it, because that is horribly broken. You're likely to get very watered down versions.
And honestly, I think that paragon multiclassing shouldn't have existed at all; we'd hear less whining about it.
A mounted Fighter build (special fighter powers that are obviously geared for mounted combat duh)
I don't want this at all, because this character is likely to cause all sorts of incredibly awkwards issues in most campaigns. Mounts + dungeon crawls = very dubious.
- Powers/Feats that mimic some of the monster's ability. A good example of this is the 'Sniper' ability many monsters have as well as all those 'free shift' move. Sometime the PC feel downright sluggish compared to some of the monsters.
There's already at least one ranger one, IIRC; a few more could be interesting.
I don't think you understand what I'm suggesting. I would like to see support for a defender who can meaningfully wield two weapons, or meaningfully defend with swashbuckling style. This is not the same as a striker who has "Fighter" written on his character sheet. Strikers (regardless of what they've been renamed) suck as defenders.
The problem is that TWF is a striker technique; people see it as something which gives you extra attacks. Its just the way it goes.
I wouldn't mind seeing a class which used TWF defensively, but I don't think martial power is the place for it or fighter is the class for it. Fighters should continue to focus on the sword-and-board and the two-handed weapon stuff so that stuff is interesting, diverse, and viable. They should be the go-to class for those two fighting styles if you want them to matter. Same with the ranger being the go-to class for archery and two-weapon fighting.
Maybe a TWF defender would make an interesting ki class. But I'll tell you its a bad idea for a fighter, as there are few enough fighter powers which care about shields or two-handed weapons as-is.
More requests:
More fighter powers which care about you having a shield.
More fighter powers which care about you wielding a two-handed weapon. These are in particularly short supply; there should be a number of them.
One interesting thing to do with those is to either put them at daily or put them at the "off levels", the encounter power levels between the weapon-specific feats, which would help act to distinguish characters who use the same weapons but with different styles.
As, the title of the thread states, there is something I want from martial power, and in fact all the power source books, and that is generic powers that can only be taken if you have that power source.
That's a great idea. But, the attack stat of even a 'generic' power would limit it's apeal. A generic power that uses DEX, for instance, would only apeal to Rogues & archer-Rangers. A generic STR power would apeal to Fighters, Warlords & TWF-Rangers. A hypothetical martial power based on CON would apeal to the occasional dwarf hammer-fighter, and that's about it...
I don't. Warlords need to use their bodies, and as far as I remember ALL of their powers use strength to attack, so these would greatly restrict their options - a bad thing.
That's just the point, the Warlord player's options are limited. I just don't see why the "brilliant tactician" and "leader of men" archetype should be inextricably linked to being a hulking brute.
Two handed weapon rangers lack powers. There's only a tiny number of powers which apply to them.
True, but it stands to reason that if such an option were added, then new exploits would also be included.
Moreover, they overlap too much with the rogue - single, strong attacks are the rogue's speciality, not the ranger's.This is why it shouldn't be viable - it steps on the toes of another class.
Ah, but you misunderstand the request. I don't want my Zweihander Ranger to make single, strong attacks like the Rogue. I want him to attack many times with his single weapon, kind of like an Archer Ranger already does. This steps on the toes of nobody.
Moreover, it decreases the amount of material given to characters which already exist, and character options which already exist.
There are currently no options for a Striker that uses a two-handed weapon, and there's no reason such a character shouldn't exist. Instead of making an all new class for it, a much more reasonable solution is to make it an option for Rangers, who are already masters of fighting styles.
what sane, logical person would go in there knowing full well they will get hit wearing leather armor?
A barbarian maybe, I think the barbarian might be a lightly armoured defender (primal).
That's a great idea. But, the attack stat of even a 'generic' power would limit it's apeal. A generic power that uses DEX, for instance, would only apeal to Rogues & archer-Rangers. A generic STR power would apeal to Fighters, Warlords & TWF-Rangers. A hypothetical martial power based on CON would apeal to the occasional dwarf hammer-fighter, and that's about it...
Oh I disagree with a dex based power only appealing to rogues and archer rangers. I made a dex oriented fighter - yes I still need strength, that's a given, but my secondary attribute for this elven fighter was Dex, and there were a lot of abilities that played off it - especially if you take powers that specifically mention light or heavy blades, or flails. Those all give bonus' for dex. Now while yes, they may appeal to certain classes, they give OPTIONS to everyone. Remember that there are brutal scoundrels as well in the rogue section, who focus on strength, over charisma. Str based powers would be nice for them as well.
what sane, logical person would go in there knowing full well they will get hit wearing leather armor?
Adventurers. Of course, when you think about it, they aren't sane or logical either.. after all, they go into dungeons filled with tombs, traps, an tragedy. The kind that the locals say are haunted and avoid. Adventurers go right there, like a moth to a flame, usually.
That being said, defenders can wear light armour. I made an elven fighter that had as high a dex as their strength, and did not use heavy armour. It is possible, it's not the norm however, but it can be done.
As, the title of the thread states, there is something I want from martial power, and in fact all the power source books, and that is generic powers that can only be taken if you have that power source.
To explain what I mean, powers that can be taken that are not specific to a class, so that a rogue, ranger, fighter or warlord can take them.
I personally want to see this, I don't know if anyone else would, but it would be intersting, and give more options to characters. Such generic powers would make the martial power book more useful, and thus maybe more a 'needed' purchase. Any concerns about such an idea?
Classes in 4e are largely the sum of their powers, the class itself doesnt get many class defining things aside from its powers.
This means that generic powers would create more generic classes. Fighters and rangers having the same damaging powers is a nerf to rangers and a buff to fighters.
Fighters are not ment to deal the same damage as rangers, thats why rangers get less armor, less life, less healing surges, etc.. but with a generic attack power, that balance would be undone.
So i guess I would have to say no, i dont think generic powers are a good idea in 4e.
That being said, I do not have faith that wizards will keep the balance they have created in 4e. I fully expect more powerful classes in new books that are just plain better then others. Rangers are top dog damage dealers right now, but just wait until the new striker comes out and then there wont be any use for rangers.
I fully expect more powerful classes in new books that are just plain better then others.
This would disappoint me greatly; I do not want what ToB did to 3.5, well, the bad part (making other classes obsolete).
I'll just have to hope, and hope is the best of things.
A barbarian maybe, I think the barbarian might be a lightly armoured defender (primal).
A barbarian hardly qualifies as sane or logical ;p
The barbarian's style is that he'll take the hits, but shrug them off and become stronger/madder because of it. The concept is extremely far from the 'swashbuckler' example.
Adventurers. Of course, when you think about it, they aren't sane or logical either.. after all, they go into dungeons filled with tombs, traps, an tragedy. The kind that the locals say are haunted and avoid. Adventurers go right there, like a moth to a flame, usually.
Yeah, and an adventurer can make as much money in one adventure than a farmer does in several years. Sounds like calculated risk to me.
That being said, defenders can wear light armour. I made an elven fighter that had as high a dex as their strength, and did not use heavy armour. It is possible, it's not the norm however, but it can be done.
So then, why do we need more rules/feat for it if it can be done and it's not the norm? >_> So the 5 people who try to do it can have more info that the rest of us will consider wasted ink? :\
That's a great idea. But, the attack stat of even a 'generic' power would limit it's apeal. A generic power that uses DEX, for instance, would only apeal to Rogues & archer-Rangers. A generic STR power would apeal to Fighters, Warlords & TWF-Rangers. A hypothetical martial power based on CON would apeal to the occasional dwarf hammer-fighter, and that's about it...
Or you could take the dragonborn route--pick Str, Dex, or Con for this power, and the decision can't be changed. That would make it useful for any martial character.
A barbarian hardly qualifies as sane or logical ;p/QUOTE]
As I said, I don't think adventurers as a whole are that sane or logical.. then again, it may just be the players. ;)The barbarian's style is that he'll take the hits, but shrug them off and become stronger/madder because of it. The concept is extremely far from the 'swashbuckler' example.
Yep, definitely more a "RAARGH! HULK SMASH!" feel to them.. though, I still wish they would call them berserkers over barbarians.Yeah, and an adventurer can make as much money in one adventure than a farmer does in several years. Sounds like calculated risk to me.
Sort of like playing one round of Russion Roulette then, hmmm?So then, why do we need more rules/feat for it if it can be done and it's not the norm? >_> So the 5 people who try to do it can have more info that the rest of us will consider wasted ink? :\[
Just an FYI, I do agree that we don't need a swashbuckling variant of a fighter, that can be a rogue or a ranger, though using non heavy armour is viable for a defender and can simulate such, where in previous posts you say that it is not. A character in light armour that gets either their intelligence or dexterity bonus is very much like a swashbuckler, and with the right weapon, can do the job just as well as a rogue for feel of such.
A defender no more needs heavy armour, than a rogue MUST use a dagger.
Now, as to only 5 people wanting something like that, well maybe you're right, it's like someone wanting warlords to have a wisdom based build for dwarves.I think Warlord is a great class on a conceptual level for a Dwarf. But sadly, they aren't very good at it mechanically. Having a Wisdom option for the class would make Dwarf (And elves) very good at the class.
^--- Now I wonder who said that.. ah well, probably only 1 of the 5 who want such a thing, where to the rest of us it would be a waste of ink.;)
Fighters already get a lot out of having a high dex (Shield Profiency, Scale Mail Prof, Heavy Blades feats + better mileage out of some power) so high dex race can actually make good fighters.
The idea of a Defender in light armor who dual wield/swashbuckler is taking a concept that for all intent and purpose SCREAM striker and making a Defender out of it... just cuz. Just like my idea of a staff fighter in wizard's robe >_>.
Now, as to only 5 people wanting something like that, well maybe you're right, it's like someone wanting warlords to have a wisdom based build for dwarves.
^--- Now I wonder who said that.. ah well, probably only 1 of the 5 who want such a thing, where to the rest of us it would be a waste of ink.;)
I'd like for you to defend this. What about a WIS-based Warlord option is a waste of ink? It's most certainly logical and flavorful, and it would open up the class to more varied build possibilities. I'm not seeing a downside here...
Also, the reason I'd like a WIS-based Warlord option isn't for dwarves. I don't actually care at all about dwarves. I just like for concepts that work reasonably, logically, and flavorfully in theory to be representable in the mechanics...
Big difference between making a change to a class so more core race can be good at it and adding some rules to allow some illogical concept to work mechanically.
I'm saying you don't have to make ANY changes to a fighter to play a swashbuckler, though I do think rogues (and maybe rangers) do it better.
Here's how it can be done:
Wear light armour, take the two weapon fighting feat, use either one handed light blades or heavy blades, make your character heavy on dex (or intelligence, though this does very little) and viola! You have a swashbuckling defender. This is done without making ANY changes to the class, if your dex is high enough you will have an ac equal to scale mail, not to mention a higher reflex, and is a viable option that I am sure more than 5 people want to play
Fighters already get a lot out of having a high dex (Shield Profiency, Scale Mail Prof, Heavy Blades feats + better mileage out of some power) so high dex race can actually make good fighters.
I agree with what you are saying here. What I don't understand is why you are saying that it shouldn't be done because defenders are supposed to wear heavy armour.
The idea of a Defender in light armor who dual wield/swashbuckler is taking a concept that for all intent and purpose SCREAM striker and making a Defender out of it... just cuz. Just like my idea of a staff fighter in wizard's robe >_>.
So, because you don't like such an idea, the people who do are in the minority? You also seem to be saying that making a character like this is wrong. If someone wants to make a swashbuckling defender, and can still do what the role entails, then I say go for it. No need to stifle creativity because it's not how *I* envision it.
Saying that defenders can only be played in one way is very limiting, and if that's how you truly feel about that, then I pity you.
I'd like for you to defend this. What about a WIS-based Warlord option is a waste of ink? It's most certainly logical and flavorful, and it would open up the class to more varied build possibilities. I'm not seeing a downside here...
You misread my intent. I'm not saying that there aren't people that want such an thing, only that tyrandor had sad that only 5 people want swashbuckling defenders, but had earlier posted about wis based warlord powers so dwarves can be good at that class. As he is saying that the swashbuckling defenders is a minority, because he thinks some people want to change the class, I quoted him talking about wisdom based powers so dwarves make good warlords.
I was only quoting what tyrandor said in a facetious way.
Also, the reason I'd like a WIS-based Warlord option isn't for dwarves. I don't actually care at all about dwarves. I just like for concepts that work reasonably, logically, and flavorfully in theory to be representable in the mechanics...
I don't care either way about wisdom based powers for the warlord other than the fact that the class already has 3 stats to focus on (STR, INT, CHA) and there is no need to add a fourth, just to make some races better at it.
Now just because you don't have the stat mods for a given class doesn't mean you can't play that class, and do a very good job of it to boot.
As, the title of the thread states, there is something I want from martial power, and in fact all the power source books, and that is generic powers that can only be taken if you have that power source.
To explain what I mean, powers that can be taken that are not specific to a class, so that a rogue, ranger, fighter or warlord can take them.
I personally want to see this, I don't know if anyone else would, but it would be intersting, and give more options to characters. Such generic powers would make the martial power book more useful, and thus maybe more a 'needed' purchase. Any concerns about such an idea?
I'd like to see that too, but there is at least one concern. Consider multiclassed characters. Should a cleric that multiclasses fighter (I just sorta chose two random classes there) be able to use any martial powers and feats? Or would he only be able to do it with his multiclass power swap feats?
I was only quoting what tyrandor said in a facetious way.
Oh... :P
I don't care either way about wisdom based powers for the warlord other than the fact that the class already has 3 stats to focus on (STR, INT, CHA) and there is no need to add a fourth, just to make some races better at it.
Actually, Warlord only currently need to focus on 2 stats: STR and either INT or CHA. A tartiary stat is up in the air, but I usually go for CON, possibly DEX if Inspiring. Adding a WIS option would only change the two primary stats to STR and one of INT, WIS, or CHA...
Now just because you don't have the stat mods for a given class doesn't mean you can't play that class, and do a very good job of it to boot.
While I'm sure you already get this, I just want to make it clear again for everybody else that the desire for a WIS-based Warlord option has nothing to do with races at all. The fact that this would make Dwarves and Elves better at being Warlords is purely incidental, and while that may appeal to people such as tyrandor, it's only a side effect, not the main point.
While it's not really a priority for me, I'll go ahead and back you up on the viability of a lightly-armored, DEX-based martial defender. It certainly sounds like a viable concept to me. Remember that HP in D&D doesn't actually mean you get hit, so this defender isn't trying to get hit and indeed doesn't want to get hit. What the swashbuckler wants to do is simply keep the foe focused on her and she parries the blows, and this prevents the enemy from attacking allies. The swashbuckling defender even has the advantage that her speed is higher thanks to her independence from heavy armor, and so she's able to move to where she's needed much more efficiently.
Things I would like to not see:[/quote
I agree and disagree with some of your statements, here. Specifically, I agree on the most part about what I don't want to see in Martial Power; however, I disagree with your thoughts on WHY.These don't need to exist, especially the latter; the latter is just a ranger.
Disagree. It's not that they don't NEED to exist, but that they ALREADY exist, and are both VIABLE. Both the Fighter and the Rogue (ESPECIALLY the rogue) can benefit from the TWF and TWD heroic tier feats. It makes the Fighter more of a hybrid between the basic fighter builds, doing damage in between the sword and boarder and two-handed fighter, and also keeping some of the defense that the two-hander loses out on. For the rogue, TWF is OPTIMAL. An optimal rogue should pick up TWF without even considering a shield proficiency if he wants to be an optimal rogue; and for another feat, TWD, he can gain the advantages of a light shield anyway!These don't need to be fighters.
Swashbucklers? Why not, because you can't envision them that way? I agree it doesn't need to be in Martial Power but that's because it's already viable AS-IS. And I wouldn't mind seeing a little more support for the concept, tbh.
I'm saying you don't have to make ANY changes to a fighter to play a swashbuckler, though I do think rogues (and maybe rangers) do it better.
Here's how it can be done:
Oh, I know it can be done and how. You're of course hurting yourself in the long run, since you'll need to keep bumping your dex to keep your AC up, so you'll have less HP/Healing Surge then your average warrior -Who's most likely boosting STR/Con with maybe some dipping in Dex for Heavy Blade feats... you're right that HP are an abstract concept, but they are still important.
You're also limiting your weapon dice to D8 unless you intend to take a feat and/or not use swords (And you're not really a Swashbuckler anymore if you're going around with Warhammers :D ).
Then again, I guess you could grab Scimitar dance too, which might not be a bad idea.
But yes, it's possible. I do believe however, that you're gimping yourself for the sake of flavor. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, and to me makes perfect sense... the guy in plate is going to be better at taking hits then the guy in a leather jacket who's pracing about with his rapier.
I agree with what you are saying here. What I don't understand is why you are saying that it shouldn't be done because defenders are supposed to wear heavy armour.
Not that it shouldn't be done, as much as it shouldn't be given extra development time and page count in a book designed around Martial Characters.
I'd rather have more powers and have more mechanical difference between Shield+Sword and 2hander, etc... then have something that only applies to one build of the class (And rather stand-off ish at that... the 2 build suggest are 2hander and Board/Sword...). I'm pretty sure they'll be more Light Blade related feats as well as Fighter exploits that work with Lightblade... but going as far to make it a new 'focus' for the class is a waste.
You're right that I don't have any info to back my claim that 'only 5 people' want to play it (which is tongue in cheek), but I'm fairly confident the majority of people who play a Defender, don't do it because they want to play an agile/swashbuckler style character. They are already class in the game that do a much better job of mimicking what Swashbucklers movie/book characters do... and it isn't the Fighter.
I don't care either way about wisdom based powers for the warlord other than the fact that the class already has 3 stats to focus on (STR, INT, CHA) and there is no need to add a fourth, just to make some races better at it.
Common logic when making a Warlord usually make you max STR and Cha OR int... there's little sense in a Tactical Warlord using Cha abilities, and vice versa. Adding a Wisdom path wouldn't really cause any MAD issue nor would it make the Warlord 'steal the flavor' of another class.
Also given the build choices and options that we have now (unlike what we had before.. YES I AM EYEING YOU OLD PALADIN) where characters are 'forced' to pick up a mount a player could ask his Dm how wilderness heavy the campaign will be ((Most dms would know ahead of time. at least in my experience we do *L*))
I would much rather see this, than a two weapon fighting fighter, or some kind of swashbuckling fighter.
This would disappoint me greatly; I do not want what ToB did to 3.5, well, the bad part (making other classes obsolete).
Yeah, making more powerful classes is bad, though the Tome of Battle was good because the classes it supplanted weren't fun to play.
The 4e classes are fun to play, though, which means supplanting them would be a bad thing.
Disagree. It's not that they don't NEED to exist, but that they ALREADY exist, and are both VIABLE. Both the Fighter and the Rogue (ESPECIALLY the rogue) can benefit from the TWF and TWD heroic tier feats. It makes the Fighter more of a hybrid between the basic fighter builds, doing damage in between the sword and boarder and two-handed fighter, and also keeping some of the defense that the two-hander loses out on.
Um, no. The damage of a TWF fighter isn't even remotely comparable to a 2HW fighter. It is 1 greater than the sword and board fighter, and his AC is worse.
For the rogue, TWF is OPTIMAL. An optimal rogue should pick up TWF without even considering a shield proficiency if he wants to be an optimal rogue; and for another feat, TWD, he can gain the advantages of a light shield anyway!
Again, no. For two feats, I can choose between:
+1 damage on my attacks and +1 AC and Reflex.
+2 to AC and Reflex.
Swashbucklers? Why not, because you can't envision them that way? I agree it doesn't need to be in Martial Power but that's because it's already viable AS-IS. And I wouldn't mind seeing a little more support for the concept, tbh.
No, because they aren't defenders.
Titanium Dragon, the thing is with a Mounted Fighter build it would not necessarily be as limiting as it was before, the powers do not necessarily require you to be mounted to use them, more along the lines of if you are on a mount they give the added effect of 'x' .
The problem is that they'll either be weak most of the time, or overpowered some of the time. Mounted combat is one thing, but a lot of powers which are dependent on it are something else. Not to mention the fact that people will try to finagle their mount into every dungeon.
Maybe some Mounted combat feats?
Um, no. The damage of a TWF fighter isn't even remotely comparable to a 2HW fighter. It is 1 greater than the sword and board fighter, and his AC is worse.
Um, okay. Um, that's exactly what I said. Um, you aren't actually disagreeing with me, you're agreeing with me and pretending otherwise. Quite strange, but whatever.
Again, no. For two feats, I can choose between:
+1 damage on my attacks and +1 AC and Reflex.
+2 to AC and Reflex.
Um, great. That contradicts what I said HOW? How does it have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with what I said? In short, nothing. Um, how's that?
Quit pretending to disagree with me when you're talking about entirely different things.
No, because they aren't defenders.
So you wouldn't allow characters that are completely and totally buildable and mechanically acceptable via RAW just because you personally don't like the FLAVOR? Man, I would hate to play with you as DM.
In my games, if someone wanted to create a fighter and chose to pump up his Dex and wear leather and call him a "swashbuckler," I'd allow it. I'd also allow rogues who flavored their characters as ninjas or thieves, or even -gasp- swashbucklers! I would never tell a player that he isn't allowed to reflavor a class concept and force him to call a fighter a fighter, a rogue a rogue, etc.
You DM your way, and I'll DM my way. Don't tell me (or heavily suggest) how I, or anyone else, should DM.
Um, okay. Um, that's exactly what I said. Um, you aren't actually disagreeing with me, you're agreeing with me and pretending otherwise. Quite strange, but whatever.
No, I'm saying you're wrong. It isn't between them in a meaningful sense; its a bad sword-and-board fighter.
No, I'm saying you're wrong. It isn't between them in a meaningful sense; its a bad sword-and-board fighter.
No, you aren't saying I'm wrong. You haven't shown me to be wrong, AT ALL.
Have fun saying I'm wrong without backing it up.
-A barbarian hardly qualifies as sane or logical
-The barbarian's style is that he'll take the hits, but shrug them off and become stronger/madder because of it. The concept is extremely far from the 'swashbuckler' example.
-That's completely debatable, especially considering the word "Barbarian" is culturally subjective, so, well, I guess that's why many people want the name of the class to change.
-Ah, sorry, I was talking about a lightly armoured Defender (barbarian), not the swashbuckling concept, which I agree can already be realized.
The 'clever rogue' whose powers are keyed off INT seems like a good idea, and is currently not implemented in the rules. 'Insightful Warlords' (WIS-based) also seem like a good concept.
Alternate multiclass feats may be a good idea, too: there might be one that grants the Ranger's combat style. That could be useful for making TWF Fighters and Rogues. There may also be feats that interact with abilities, such as a 'Sharpshooter' feat that lets a Rogue sneak attack with a bow.
Will there be a two-weapon build for fighters?
Yes, in Martial Power, and it will be uniquely a fighter (that is, not like a two-weapon rogue or ranger).
Good news true believers, two weapon fighters will be in Martial Power. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080815
I love vindication! (Swells my head. :P)
I imagine, like Squaredcircle, that a Fighter TW build would use one blade to defend and one to assail (a very traditional method of dual wielding, in keeping with actual martial arts) and a TW Rogue build will use one weapon to distract or feint at an opponent, causing an opening to exploit. Both would be VERY different from the Ranger's full on assault.
TD, just because people want to build characters you wouldn't doesn't make the idea invalid; telling them they are wrong because they have a different idea from you is too limiting. This edition of the game is about customization, and archetypes, and there are more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.
Fighter TW builds (Samurai, anyone?)
. . . WTF? How is Samurai a two-weapon build?
Every example of a fantasy samurai I've seen puts them at a build which switches up between one-handed and two-handed with their single weapon... Which is exactly what a Fighters with a Bastard Sword (aka, Katana) can do right now...
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not in any way against a two-weapon Fighter option. I just don't get your example...
. . . WTF? How is Samurai a two-weapon build?
Every example of a fantasy samurai I've seen puts them at a build which switches up between one-handed and two-handed with their single weapon... Which is exactly what a Fighters with a Bastard Sword (aka, Katana) can do right now...
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not in any way against a two-weapon Fighter option. I just don't get your example...
3.5E's Complete Warrior had a Samurai class that was heavily TWF-based.
(And let's not turn this into a debate about cultural and historical accuracy in D&D; it's a losing fight for everyone.)
3.5E's Complete Warrior had a Samurai class that was heavily TWF-based.
That Samurai class wasn't exactly the best class design WotC has ever produced...
(And let's not turn this into a debate about cultural and historical accuracy in D&D; it's a losing fight for everyone.)
I have no desire to do that. I don't know any more about the historical or cultural accuracy of samurai than your average guy. What I do know, however, it what I've seen in movies and videogames, which is what I care about, and as far as I've seen, I don't understand why having a two-weapon build would in any way be required in order to make a samurai fighter. Even if I had a two-weapon build as an option, I wouldn't use it to make a samurai...
Some stuff representing "dirty fighting", perhaps some floating Powers based around dirty fighting.
Lots and lots of unique little feats and multiclass feats.
That Samurai class wasn't exactly the best class design WotC has ever produced...
I have no desire to do that. I don't know any more about the historical or cultural accuracy of samurai than your average guy. What I do know, however, it what I've seen in movies and videogames, which is what I care about, and as far as I've seen, I don't understand why having a two-weapon build would in any way be required in order to make a samurai fighter. Even if I had a two-weapon build as an option, I wouldn't use it to make a samurai...
Don't stress, my comment wasn't directed at you specifically, so much as at the discussion participants in general.
(Mentioning "samurai" has this funny way of sometimes getting people all worked up about their own impression of "accuracy".)
Nothing about the archetypical samurai suggests TWF, so why would you make a samurai class based around it? Its just stupid. To my knowledge, there was one samurai who was famous for it. But the great mass of samurai in literature, anime, ect. wield a single weapon.
As for TWF fighters being in the Martial Power book, that is really dumb. I hope they don't get multiple attacks, and rather are defensively oriented, but I know what will actually happen.
Andy Collins pointed out here that by the time this mini releases, you'll be able to use the upcoming Martial Power sourcebook for rules on ranger animal companions, like Farris' raptor.
TWF Rogues TWF Figthers
2HW Rangers 2HW Rogues
Duelist Fighters Archery Fighters
Int/Cha warlords
Int Rogues
More classes
Maybe a martial knight (Defender/Leader)
Martial controller (Probably something from dynasty warriors) (Think Xiao Quu, (or whatever her name was) the younger shorter female with the large fans. who you had to unlock, maybe something like spinning fans of slicing)
Barbarian (if not PHB2)
Feats for martial classes
substitute multiclass feats (to fix paragon multiclassing)
paragon paths and epic destinies
Hybrid power sources, Such as Gish. (martial, arcane)
Anyone else notice that animal companions for rangers are going to be in Martial Power? It's in the Gen Con: DDM report. Here's the juicy bit:
Nope none noticed it. We were just talking about it on the first page.
good ideas i've seen
TWF Rogues TWF Figthers
2HW Rangers 2HW Rogues
Duelist Fighters Archery Fighters
Int/Cha warlords
Int Rogues
More classes
Maybe a martial knight (Defender/Leader)
Martial controller (Probably something from dynasty warriors) (Think Xiao Quu, (or whatever her name was) the younger shorter female with the large fans. who you had to unlock, maybe something like spinning fans of slicing)
Barbarian (if not PHB2)
Feats for martial classes
substitute multiclass feats (to fix paragon multiclassing)
paragon paths and epic destinies
Hybrid power sources, Such as Gish. (martial, arcane)
Umm wow, I'm not even sure where to begin with this. There will be no new classes in Martial Power(that is confirmed). Babrbarian is the in the PHBII. I'm not sure where you got the idea of anything arcane being in the go to book for martial characters....And an archery based fighter is just a bad idea. I think I covered all the main points there. The rest of the list looks fine though.
Umm wow, I'm not even sure where to begin with this. There will be no new classes in Martial Power(that is confirmed). Babrbarian is the in the PHBII. I'm not sure where you got the idea of anything arcane being in the go to book for martial characters....And an archery based fighter is just a bad idea. I think I covered all the main points there. The rest of the list looks fine though.
Don't forget to mention how unlikely Martial Controllers are!
we need a martial controller, we also need an arcane leader (not in martial power) a divine striker and a divine controller.
come on, dynasty warriors themed martial controller would be awesome, AoE Damage through Giant fans.
Suggestions for when they come up with the Ki power source, Rename it to Chi, make Geomancer (Feng Shui) Shinban (similar to a cleric, but more diversisfied, but more specialized too)
Don't forget to mention how unlikely Martial Controllers are!
Thank you, I knew I was forgetting something.:D
sorry. by hybrid power source, i mean martial characters that could mimic other power sources.
we need a martial controller, we also need an arcane leader (not in martial power) a divine striker and a divine controller.
come on, dynasty warriors themed martial controller would be awesome, AoE Damage through Giant fans.
Suggestions for when they come up with the Ki power source, Rename it to Chi, make Geomancer (Feng Shui) Shinban (similar to a cleric, but more diversisfied, but more specialized too)
What the fudge would mimicing another power source mean? A power source is simply the way you get your powers. Mimicing another power source is effectively just either changing the fluff or having a characterwho lies about how he does what he does.
We do not need a martial controller. Symmetry for symmetry's sake is being done away with. And we are already getting two arcane leaders. How many more do you want.(and we are slowly getting completely off topic) And we do not need either of those divine classes. We can want them, we'll probably get them soon, but we hardly need them.
A amartial controller who depends on a single weapon is not practical, and there is more to controlling then simply hitting large number of enemies.
The Ki classes are completly off topic, so I'm not going to bother with responding to them as I've done enough off topic talking in this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoho_Niten_Ichi-ryu
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/
TD once again, you are just labeling something as stupid, just because you don't agree with it.
Please try to be a bit more open to new ideas. Or, erm, old ones, as the case may be.:P
Its not even about accuracy; its about making sense.
Nothing about the archetypical samurai suggests TWF, so why would you make a samurai class based around it? Its just stupid. To my knowledge, there was one samurai who was famous for it. But the great mass of samurai in literature, anime, ect. wield a single weapon.
...This is exactly the sort of ignorant and inflammatory comment I was warning against anyone making.
As for TWF fighters being in the Martial Power book, that is really dumb. I hope they don't get multiple attacks, and rather are defensively oriented, but I know what will actually happen.
What's dumb about it? More specifically, what's inherently "strikerish" about two-weapon fighting, TD?
The Samurai is a perfect example. While Miyamoto Musashi was the most famous example of a dual wielding samurai, his book, Go Rin No Sho, or the Book of Five Rings, inspired many different schools, or Ryu, of swordsmanship based on wielding both Wakazashi and Katana, or the Daisho, simultaneously. It was utilized mostly in situations when one warrior faced many. Duels were traditionally fought with the Katana alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoho_Niten_Ichi-ryu
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/
TD once again, you are just labeling something as stupid, just because you don't agree with it.
Please try to be a bit more open to new ideas. Or, erm, old ones, as the case may be. :P
Thanks for your insightful post, Malckuss.
Now that we've got this Samurai business all cleared up, let's make sure this thread stays on topic, Titanium Dragon.
As for Multiclass feats, I think what we will get in Martial Power will either expand the basic building blocks, or give us some new one, like perhaps allowing limited access to basic class features. I don't understand why we would need power swap feats, unless they trump Paragon Multiclassing and would allow an At-Will power trade.
Now here's why I think these are bad ideas. If we were to give fighters the ability to make multiple attacks via TWF, what would be the purpose of doing so? Most likely, the TWF Fighter would be dealing more damage, which would be the Striker territory that TD had mentioned. Not only that, but by wielding two weapons, he has opted to neglect a shield, which diminishes his role as Defender. Now, traditionally (and this is from my fencing experience), an off-hand weapon would be used as an impromptu shield, not an actual weapon to attack simultaneously with the main. And the finally, by giving Fighters TWF abilities, you've just negated half of what a Ranger offers. A lot of this applies to Archery Fighters as well, which could negate the entire Ranger class.
As for the duelist fighter, and, again, this is from my fencing experience, but fencers are mobile fighters. Half of what we learn, well before we learn blade-work, is footwork. A good portion of a fencer's defense is in skill placing of one's body. A fighter's stats and powers are built around locking down foes and acting as a human wall. Walls don't move (I don't mean any offense by this, but I can't let a snarky remark go when the opportunity arises). Then there's the very nature of the weapon of choice for a duelist: the rapier. A rapier is made to concentrate a lot of force onto a lethally tiny point, which is the tip. That type of damage is more in line with, again, the striker. You can easily make a swashbuckling duelist with the rogue class (just need to use acquire the Weapon Proficiency: Rapier feat).
That being stated, I would like to hear your arguments on what benefits would we reap, mechanically, by making these changes. Please explain to me why you think these are good ideas.
PS. Just because the 3.5 Samurai was a TWF build, doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. I like the idea of a more accurate Samurai class. If I were to imagine a Samurai class for 4E, I would imagine a striker build, but with access to Two-handed weapons and little or no bonus damage (like Hunter's Quarry, Sneak Attack, or Warlock Curse). And maybe access to Hide, or even Scale. However, that already sounds a lot like the Great Weapon Fighter build...
I have read second-hand accounts of Ki being confirmed, but don't recall seeing anything official myself, so I leave it as an if.
In any event, what I would like to see are:
More exploits at every level for every class.
More Paragon paths.
More martial-themed epic destinies.
A few feats that anyone could take, but would be geared towards the martial characters.
And whatever they are going to do with animal companions and expand that into warmounts and mounted combat.
I know that they have said no new classes, at least not for this book. Obviously they won't introduce a new power source. I don't know what else I would want.
If there is going to be a "Ki" power source, then that is where I would put the samurai. Nothing to do with the martial power source.
I have read second-hand accounts of Ki being confirmed, but don't recall seeing anything official myself, so I leave it as an if.
Looks like you need to reread your PHB, specifically page 54.
As a side note, I am opposed to making Samurai into a seperate class, but we'll see how that plays out.
We know we are getting these new two weapon builds, so further speculation IMO seems redundant.
I would like to see some feats regarding unarmed combat, and improvised weaponry, as well as some more weapon group specific feats, to allow easier builds of a specified style. Some weapons seemed to get alot of love, while others got one feat, if at all.
More options in general would make me happy.
I know we are getting new gear in the Adventurer's Vault (at least I think that is what they are calling it now, but it would be nice to see some new weapons and armor types, with maybe some options to customize each.
I hope the animal companion stuff isn't broken in either direction; they seem to have problems with this, and I hope it has the right balance and feel.
Some ideas/advice for multiclassing, and some obvious cross-class type Paragon Paths would be nice. And we need more Epic Destinies, 'cause four is very limiting.
I mentioned the Samurai as it is the example of a heavily armored two-weapon style figure I am most familiar with
Really, wasn't that just that Muhashi (sp?) fellow, the samurai usually wielded the katana two handed, and used a variety of other weapons (bows etc) from what I have read?
For the record, while I have no problem with the Ki power source, I do not want every class with an Asian/Oriental title to be lumped in there, the samurai being one of them – a paragon path, at most, please.
Really, wasn't that just that Muhashi (sp?) fellow, the samurai usually wielded the katana two handed, and used a variety of other weapons (bows etc) from what I have read?
For the record, while I have no problem with the Ki power source, I do not want every class with an Asian/Oriental title to be lumped in there, the samurai being one of them – a paragon path, at most, please.
Yes the same with me, sure they confirmed that Monk is pretty well ki striker, but I really don't want them grouping all Asian classes into the ki power source.
For example the Wu Jen should either be a Primal or Elemental class, because it uses wizard-druid-like powers based on the 5 Taoist elements, and gets its powers from spirits.
The ninja should be a shadow power source class.
They've often said that Yogi=Psion through out a lot of 3e.
And they might as well take one of the ToB or Incarnum classes and dump them into Ki instead, just so they all aren't grouping anything that's Asian into Ki.
Honestly I'd think ninja would be rogues, seriously. Maybe a paragon path or alternate (Wisdom-based?) build, but not a whole new class--at least, if they decide to go with the more historic/low-key interpretation, which I don't think is a bad idea. If they decide to go more anime-ish on ninja (eh), I could see them being either ki or shadow--you do have to remember that the 3.x ninja got some pretty explicitly "ki" abilities, like the ki pool, the ki dodge, the ghost step, etc.--and so I'd kind of wager ki before shadow if they use the 3.x version for inspiration.
Samurai should still probably not be its own class, though. Maybe a fighter build or paragon path, or I could see an Oriental Adventures book containing a slightly modified fighter (perhaps a few different skills, for instance, like access to Diplomacy instead of Streetwise). Two-weapon fighter is already confirmed, if you want to go the 3.x route of katana in one hand and wakizashi in the other.
Honestly I'd think ninja would be rogues, seriously. Maybe a paragon path or alternate (Wisdom-based?) build, but not a whole new class--at least, if they decide to go with the more historic/low-key interpretation, which I don't think is a bad idea. If they decide to go more anime-ish on ninja (eh), I could see them being either ki or shadow--you do have to remember that the 3.x ninja got some pretty explicitly "ki" abilities, like the ki pool, the ki dodge, the ghost step, etc.--and so I'd kind of wager ki before shadow if they use the 3.x version for inspiration.
The mythical ninja, the one that was described by myths was said to be able to become invisible and walk through walls. That seems more like a shadow power source schtick to me. Yes, I could see the shadowdancer being a likely name for a shadow-striker, but something tells me that having the name ninja will make it more popular than shadowdancer. And that the ninja will beat up the shadowdancer and take it's stuff.
The mythical ninja, the one that was described by myths was said to be able to become invisible and walk through walls. That seems more like a shadow power source schtick to me. Yes, I could see the shadowdancer being a likely name for a shadow-striker, but something tells me that having the name ninja will make it more popular than shadowdancer. And that the ninja will beat up the shadowdancer and take it's stuff.
Point.
At least, we can hope it's shadow and not ki.
At least, we can hope it's shadow and not ki.
I would also like it if they didn't lump all classes with an Asian/Oriental title in the Ki power source, but the Kensei paragon path gives me hope that they won’t.
While I have no problem with the monk being Ki, other Asian/Oriental classes could come from any power source – I'm just throwing these out there:
-Yogi (psionic)
-Ninja (shadow)
-Wu-Jen (elemental)
Oh, and as for Ki, since it is the power source of the soul, how about an Incarnate?
Likewise, this seems to be all Sengoku rather than say, the Genji epic. (hero with magic sword and helm, monk with naginata, and Yoichi's bow being the biggies)
Many carried two swords
The Daisho (katana and wakizashi), right?
If non-samurai wore it, didn't they have a hot poker rammed up their ass or something?
For example if i wanted to make a ranger who used a 2 handed weapon to take a fet that would allow me to change "bow or 2 weapons" too "bow or a 2handed weapon"
Is there a chance that they may allow you to get a feat that would allow the swapping of keywords.
For example if i wanted to make a ranger who used a 2 handed weapon to take a fet that would allow me to change "bow or 2 weapons" too "bow or a 2handed weapon"
That wouldn't be changing keywords as keywords are things like "martial", "fire", "weapon", and "reliable". So instead you are asking for a feat that lets you alter the powers itself. There is almost no chance for that as a feat, and I'd guess a very low probability of it as a paragon path or epic destiny. The whole idea is just opening things up to way too many potential problems.
Additionally, I doubt they would do one for keywords as you would have to alter too many factors on the power for it to have any meaningful purpose.
What's dumb about it? More specifically, what's inherently "strikerish" about two-weapon fighting, TD?
First off, its dumb because there's already a class focused on it, whereas the fighter has a lot of potential ground to cover in unique fighting styles rather than duplicating material.
Second multiple attacks = striker because multiple attacks = more damage. Now, if the TWF fighter doesn't use multiple attacks, this isn't a concern, but due to lack of imagination and overlap with shields it is likely that's exactly what we'll see.
I'd see why not, this way not like ye are getting the same powers all over again. Versatility is what they'll need if they want to sell. However if they plan to make another martial book every year, they might just hold back some good stuff.
I want them to implement concepts that weren't given enough detail in the PHB. Otherwise fix them, such as with TWF being viable for other classes, Mounted combat, and Shield bashing. Oh and perhaps more weapon unique powers, and not just the axe, hammer, being the same. Well they're similar anyways, but they shouldn't make pointless weapon groups either.
I agree, there needs to be more feats/paragon paths distinguishing the weapons and styles.
I like the general idea of a Martial controller, just for the sheer giddiness of being able to have an all martial campaign
You still can, you in no way need every role covered to have an effective party.
I doubt we'll ever see this martial controller some are clamouring for. Every idea I have seen for one so far has been incredibly contrived (alchemist, engineer, dragon etc). Plus, we already basically have one – the archer build ranger.
Second multiple attacks = striker because multiple attacks = more damage.
Ummm, that doesn't follow. High level powers = striker because high level powers = more damage. Fighters are strikerish anyway, dealing more damage than paladins, so I don't see a problem.
It shouldn't matter what weapon we choose to use in order to defend nature. Rangers in general should do this naturally. Whether I hack the guys head off with two swords or turn him into my personal pin cushion - it shouldn't matter.
We need to have more connection to Nature. If there wasn't supposed to be one - they should have named the class Archer.
Also, I can't wait until the animal companions are returned to us.:D
If anyone agrees, feel free to say so.