Fighter, specifically Battlerager, in the new CB - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Fighter, specifically Battlerager, in the new CB

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
pfoooti
May 20, 2011 15:44:37 So, hey. I haven't played D&D for a while, and it was 3.5 ed back then. I bought some of the books when they came out (notably the PHB and Martial Power), but didn't buy anything else since my group wasn't interested in 4e. New group, time to dust off these books. First problem I have: what the heck is going on with the Temp HPs with battlerager? Google tells me it has been errata'd, so I look for those. No problem, but now I have an errata document that is nearly as long as the original PHB.

Maybe, I think, maybe I should subscribe to D&Di and see if I can put together my character using the latest version of the text for all these feats and so on. That'll make life easier, I think. Paid my ten bucks, fired up the character builder, updated silverlight, fired up the character builder again, and ....

No fighter.

Okay, they renamed him to Weaponmaster (kind of lame from a "get off my lawn, I've been playing since the original red box" perspective, but whatever). Problem is: no new class features from Martial Power. My whole goal was setting up a pretty simple dwarf Battlerager Fighter tank.

Now that I've gotten my complaints out of the way, my question: is the lack of material from Martial Power 1 an oversight, related to the cryptic bug thing posted 5/17? Or is it instead intentional? Is the Vanilla Fighter forever gone from the playing table? Will there be no Tempest Dual Wielders? Is wizards actually intending to deprecate entire books a few years after they're relased?
#2
salla
May 20, 2011 15:49:32 Did you select 'Custom' on the first screen? I have no problem creating a Battlerager or Tempest Weaponmaster in the CB.

Essentials did not replace anything that wouldn't have gotten errata'd anyway. All the new class/subclass builds are additions, not replacements.
#3
pfoooti
May 20, 2011 16:00:04 Huh, second time around it was there. I'm still a little sad that I'm now a Weaponmaster instead of a Fighter, but hey. Pressing reload FTW. Thanks.
#4
salla
May 20, 2011 16:01:15
Huh, second time around it was there. I'm still a little sad that I'm now a Weaponmaster instead of a Fighter, but hey. Pressing reload FTW. Thanks.

So, scratch out Weaponmaster and write in Fighter. There's absolutely no difference.
#5
DMaple
May 20, 2011 17:32:51 I'm not sure why you are even called a Weaponmaster? Why not just call them a Battlerager and save Weaponmaster for the fighters (can I still use that term) that take one or two handed weaponmastery.
#6
Damon_Tor
May 30, 2011 1:40:23 They really should go ahead and make Battleragers, Tempests, Brawlers and Gladiators proper subclasses already. A brawler is considerably less of a "weaponsmaster" than a knight or slayer is, and their class features are just as different from the weaponsmasters as the other subclasses' are.
#7
drnick
May 31, 2011 12:16:55 I agree. That would be much cleaner. Though it would constitute a pretty significant rewrite and I can't imagine the gnashing of teeth that would generate.

There's always 5e, I guess.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pfoooti May 20, 2011 15:44:37	So, hey. I haven't played D&D for a while, and it was 3.5 ed back then. I bought some of the books when they came out (notably the PHB and Martial Power), but didn't buy anything else since my group wasn't interested in 4e. New group, time to dust off these books. First problem I have: what the heck is going on with the Temp HPs with battlerager? Google tells me it has been errata'd, so I look for those. No problem, but now I have an errata document that is nearly as long as the original PHB. Maybe, I think, maybe I should subscribe to D&Di and see if I can put together my character using the latest version of the text for all these feats and so on. That'll make life easier, I think. Paid my ten bucks, fired up the character builder, updated silverlight, fired up the character builder again, and .... No fighter. Okay, they renamed him to Weaponmaster (kind of lame from a "get off my lawn, I've been playing since the original red box" perspective, but whatever). Problem is: no new class features from Martial Power. My whole goal was setting up a pretty simple dwarf Battlerager Fighter tank. Now that I've gotten my complaints out of the way, my question: is the lack of material from Martial Power 1 an oversight, related to the cryptic bug thing posted 5/17? Or is it instead intentional? Is the Vanilla Fighter forever gone from the playing table? Will there be no Tempest Dual Wielders? Is wizards actually intending to deprecate entire books a few years after they're relased?
#2 salla May 20, 2011 15:49:32	Did you select 'Custom' on the first screen? I have no problem creating a Battlerager or Tempest Weaponmaster in the CB. Essentials did not replace anything that wouldn't have gotten errata'd anyway. All the new class/subclass builds are additions, not replacements.
#3 pfoooti May 20, 2011 16:00:04	Huh, second time around it was there. I'm still a little sad that I'm now a Weaponmaster instead of a Fighter, but hey. Pressing reload FTW. Thanks.
#4 salla May 20, 2011 16:01:15	Huh, second time around it was there. I'm still a little sad that I'm now a Weaponmaster instead of a Fighter, but hey. Pressing reload FTW. Thanks. So, scratch out Weaponmaster and write in Fighter. There's absolutely no difference.
#5 DMaple May 20, 2011 17:32:51	I'm not sure why you are even called a Weaponmaster? Why not just call them a Battlerager and save Weaponmaster for the fighters (can I still use that term) that take one or two handed weaponmastery.
#6 Damon_Tor May 30, 2011 1:40:23	They really should go ahead and make Battleragers, Tempests, Brawlers and Gladiators proper subclasses already. A brawler is considerably less of a "weaponsmaster" than a knight or slayer is, and their class features are just as different from the weaponsmasters as the other subclasses' are.
#7 drnick May 31, 2011 12:16:55	I agree. That would be much cleaner. Though it would constitute a pretty significant rewrite and I can't imagine the gnashing of teeth that would generate. There's always 5e, I guess.