Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 kieferz May 26, 2009 20:17:05	I'm considering altering the Fighter's Dual Strike power to reduce the damage it can deal to a single target; instead of targeting a single target twice, what if it targeted two creatures once, or one creature once if there isn't a second available? The potential problem that I see is that it would allow a Fighter to mark two creatures each round, which no other at-will can do. Would it be terribly bad for game balance if this were possible? Of the other Defenders, only the Warden gets to mark multiple targets at-will. At the moment, I'm leaning towards using this houserule; it admittedly makes the Fighter better at distracting enemies, but then, that means he'll be taking more damage. If this is unbalanced, what could be done to fix that? Would making it only deal Strength mod instead of 1[W] balance it?
#2 Crimson_Concerto May 26, 2009 20:27:43	I'm considering altering the Fighter's Dual Strike power to reduce the damage it can deal to a single target; instead of targeting a single target twice, what if it targeted two creatures once, or one creature once if there isn't a second available? I've seen this suggested before by many people. Seems reasonable to me...
#3 vaelan May 27, 2009 1:01:04	I play a Tactical Warlord with a Fighter. I throw Commander's Strike around a lot, usually to give the Fighter another attack and another mark (I almost always delay until right after the Fighter). The thing is, you can only make one mark-related attack per round. Having two people marked isn't incredibly useful. If you attack the first guy, the second guy gets to run free. If you don't attack the first guy, the second guy is still pinned down, but then he doesn't do anything to provoke you and you feel like an idiot. I think that this would be a fine alteration. Dual-wielding Fighters are going to deal less damage on a basic attack anyway and they don't even get the additional effects a shield-bearing Fighter can acquire.
#4 eldiran May 28, 2009 18:12:03	I second the comments made in the replies. Though marking two people is pretty useful, it isn't brokenly so, unlike the initial iteration of Dual Strike. So go for it! You probably don't even need to change the damage output at all, just the target line.
#5 Namagem May 28, 2009 19:15:18	The thing is, you can only make one mark-related attack per round. Having two people marked isn't incredibly useful. If you attack the first guy, the second guy gets to run free. If you don't attack the first guy, the second guy is still pinned down, but then he doesn't do anything to provoke you and you feel like an idiot. A round is one character's turn. What that does isn't making it so the fighter having two marks is useless, it makes it so that the fighter can't hit the same target twice (such as a monster having a power that lets them shift twice, provoking the mark's attack twice. With the once per round restriction, you only get one attack against the monster.) This would affect the mark a little, and make the fighter just a little more sticky, but I can't see any obvious problem. One question, though: Does this make Cleave obsolete?
#6 rikiji May 28, 2009 21:36:20	To me it falls into the category of "not worth changing the default rule." It probably isn't game breaking to change it, but it doesn't really accomplish much either. Save your houserules for things that actually have an impact - it makes the game less confusing for your players.
#7 kieferz May 29, 2009 20:49:01	A round is one character's turn. What that does isn't making it so the fighter having two marks is useless, it makes it so that the fighter can't hit the same target twice (such as a monster having a power that lets them shift twice, provoking the mark's attack twice. With the once per round restriction, you only get one attack against the monster.) This would affect the mark a little, and make the fighter just a little more sticky, but I can't see any obvious problem. No, Vaelan's right. A turn is one character acting; a Round is every character acting. You only get one Immediate per Round, so having two creatures marked only imparts the attack penalty. I hadn't spotted that before.
#8 eldiran May 30, 2009 12:00:48	To me it falls into the category of "not worth changing the default rule." It probably isn't game breaking to change it, but it doesn't really accomplish much either. Save your houserules for things that actually have an impact - it makes the game less confusing for your players. I think if his game includes a tempest fighter at all, it will be worth changing. Otherwise he might risk the fighter outshining the strikers on raw damage (if the fighter optimizes, at least), in addition to stickiness. And thankfully, a houserule like this will only complicate things if there happens to be a tempest fighter, and only for that one person. So it seems pretty reasonable to me. Though I actually enjoy houseruling things that seem too good or out of place, so maybe it's just me. Naturally it's up to both the players and the DM. @Namagem: As for Cleave being obseleted... it isn't really something you have to worry about. A tempest fighter would (if they were wise) never take cleave anyway, since they will never wield two-handed weapons. And a great weapon fighter will never take Dual Strike. So, it's guaranteed that Cleave still has a place in the game, which is nice. Also, Cleave does still have the advantage of only requiring one attack roll, as well as dealing auto-damage to a foe, which is superb for slaying minions.
#9 Sakebito May 30, 2009 12:11:56	I'm wondering why would you want to reduce the damage dual strike does to a single target? If a fighter is weilding 2 weapons he's giving up his shield bonus for the +hit and extra damage. He will take more hits and more damage to compensate this (if he's still marking that is). This creates the balance. Why would you offset that? Would you also change Twin Strike on the ranger? I don't mean to sound mean, just playing the devil's advocate here. If you want to change the power to mimic Twin Strike more (i.e. attacking 2 targets) so the fighter has some more ability at marking, go ahead. If your party is getting hurt because the fighter has some sticky problems then I say don't punish the whole party because he didn't create his character to be a fly-trap. Whatever creates more fun in your party and works well.
#10 kieferz May 31, 2009 12:30:25	I'm wondering why would you want to reduce the damage dual strike does to a single target? If a fighter is weilding 2 weapons he's giving up his shield bonus for the +hit and extra damage. He will take more hits and more damage to compensate this (if he's still marking that is). This creates the balance. Why would you offset that? Would you also change Twin Strike on the ranger? The problem is that the tempest fighter has the same AC as the Greatweapon Fighter, but can dish out more damage. Consider a Tempest dual-wielding shortswords using Dual Strike vs. a Greatweapon Fighter with a maul using Cleave: The Tempest gets ~50% of 2d6 + 2*Enhancement + 2*2 (from class feature) + 2*Any other bonuses, of which there are many around paragon tier. The Greatweapon gets ~50% of 2d6 + Enhancement + 2*Strength + Any other bonuses. The problem is that the Tempest gets to stack damage modifiers multiple times on a single target. For a Striker like a Ranger, this is fine, they're supposed to do loads of damage. But Fighters aren't, although they sub Striker. Even if we decide that the extra damage is how the Tempest subs Striker, it still eclipses the Greatweapon Fighter, which is never a good thing. So, what I'm trying to do is split up the Tempest's damage. He no longer gets to stack modifiers on a single target, he only gets to put them once on each of several targets. Controllers do this all the time. The only thing I was worried about was marking, and that doesn't seem to be a real problem.
#11 Grimbus May 31, 2009 18:08:43	Fighers are supposed to be able to inflict massive damage upon a single target. You may upset the game balance, as elite monsters are also able to inflict massive damage upon single targets too - especially when it comes to fighting powerful individual "boss" monsters at the end. You may end up slowing the combat down by a considerable degree if you choose this option. Maybe try it out in a "practice" combat first with your players and then decide -
#12 kieferz May 31, 2009 19:40:08	No...Fighters are supposed to withstand massive damage and keep the attention of the monsters. Strikers like the Ranger and Rogue are meant to dish out massive damage, and you'll notice I'm not proposing to change that.
#13 Sakebito Jun 01, 2009 0:23:36	The Tempest gets ~50% of 2d6 + 2*Enhancement + 2*2 (from class feature) + 2*Any other bonuses, of which there are many around paragon tier. The Greatweapon gets ~50% of 2d6 + Enhancement + 2*Strength + Any other bonuses. firstly, looking at the first 3 items here, the greatweapon would deal same or more damage (unless the fighter doesn't have str, which would be a weird fighter). Before you start saying "but the other bonuses which there are a lot of in paragon tier" read secondly secondly, this is an at-will, there are plently of encounter/dailies that deal 3[W] and 4[w], using a short sword makes these attacks a lot less effective. The greatweapon fighter can still deal plenty more damage, and if combat is lasting so long that everyone is down to using nothing but at-wills then the party would need the extra damage dealt from your earlier argument anyway. Therefore, if you have short to medium duration combat encounters the greatweapon fighter would deal more damage. If you have lengthy combat encounters in your campaign then you really shouldn't be taking away any damage from anyone because obviously you need the damage to hurry up the combat. EDIT: Thirdly, fighter is going to be putting more money into having 2 magical weapons instead of one. His large Fullblade or Mace or whatever should be getting more residuum put into it.
#14 eldiran Jun 01, 2009 0:47:18	Don't forget about double weapons! Even without including the wonky double sword, the fighter could easily get d8s on both hands. Also, I'm no mathemagician, but I'm pretty sure the fact that the Tempest Fighter makes two attacks per at-will increases his damage potential a good deal.
#15 Grimbus Jun 01, 2009 12:50:55	No...Fighters are supposed to withstand massive damage and keep the attention of the monsters. Strikers like the Ranger and Rogue are meant to dish out massive damage, and you'll notice I'm not proposing to change that. "Defenders have the highest defences in the game and good close up offense (PHB p16) The general idea seems to be that fighters stand toe to toe with their enemies take out the heavies in front, whilst the strikers duck and dive between them to try and pick out the spellcasters and soften up the commanders before the fighters get crushed. If you reduce the fighters offensive power, you will slow combat down by a considerable amount and also make the fighter a less attractive class - the rouge and the ranger get stronger skill sets than the fighter too.
#16 eldiran Jun 01, 2009 14:15:40	"Defenders have the highest defences in the game and good close up offense (PHB p16) The general idea seems to be that fighters stand toe to toe with their enemies take out the heavies in front, whilst the strikers duck and dive between them to try and pick out the spellcasters and soften up the commanders before the fighters get crushed. If you reduce the fighters offensive power, you will slow combat down by a considerable amount and also make the fighter a less attractive class - the rouge and the ranger get stronger skill sets than the fighter too. I think your argument is mostly a moot point, because that quote is from the PHB -- and our entire discussion revolves around a supplement in Martial Power. Another words, the fighter of the PHB was apparently powerful enough, so bringing a supplement's fighter style down to match seems pretty reasonable. Either way, the fighter will not lose its attractiveness; the only thing that will become less attractive is Dual Strike.