Now I must admit the character stood out like dragon balls because one, it hit all the time (+24 to hit without bonuses) and it did a lot of damage and two, the otther players had made up dismal characters who were lucky to hit the door on the barn (talking 0nly +17 to hit against AC 30 and above).
The end result is that the GM has banned Dual strike and RoB's from the game (has allowed twin strike). What do people think of this? I'm fine with RoB's but dual strike?
And another point. At one what stage should a player purposely limit what one can build so you can fit into others less strongly built characters?
as far as your question... well... Its tough to say. Mainly, i think that it just hurts the flow of the game when one player builds optimally and the rest don't.
as a GM who has 1/2 optimized groups lots, i must admit that often after a few encounters the players who play the poorly constructed PCs often get the feeling that they did it wrong and cease to care about their PCs, making the game less fun for everyone. They end up suiciding and rerolling another suboptimal build ad nauseum.
+24 v/s 30ac is nice... means that you hit often, or always depending on rolls, and that can be annoying to players who want to shine. OToH you are a party, and players should also realize that you are contributing, and sometimes one is better than another. A linebacker runs fast, a scientist doesn't, usually. If you build a linebacker/scientist then you are probably in for suboptimal performance on each end. Many players fall into this trap though, because it is a fantasy game and in the past there were ways in which to build the linebacker/scientist.
That being said, +17 to hit ac 30 is no joke, its a hit fairly often, and with a competent leader that number increases, as well with CA.
what is your party composition, and how do your compatriots play their roles? I play a chally, and it is always subpar in damage to the fighter in my group, but I didn't design to do damage... you would be my dream teammate, mainly because you would fill my damage gap, allowing me to use status effects and maneuvering and marking more to our mutual advantage.
Broken is a term often thrown around on these boards, but it loses alot of meaning because it is often used ignorantly, or because of greater understanding than any player (and most GMs) are likely to have in game. If you have a build that is optimal, and they didn't build that way, but are aware of the CharOp boards and just felt that would be cheating, then shame on them.
Dual strike isn't the end of the world, as a GM if i were seeing that abuse, i would simply create a monster power that basically (and i know this is metagmaing) disarmed, much like the 3.x disarm. Still i would never do that, simply because a tempest fighter/avenger at 16th level has weaknesses... sounds like your GM might have less exp than you as a gamer, and needs to ban something to make up for it.
If he gets to ban your at-will, you should get to make a new PC. If you like the dual strike, you can do worse than becoming a striker and MCing into fighter.
as for you gimping your PC builds? never do it. If the party thinks its broken, make a ranger that puts out more damage, then when they get more upset, make an orbizard. When they think that is broken, make an artful dodger that outputs less, but is incredibly debilitating. Again and again, there are better builds, don't let the mediocrity of others make your bright shine dull. Inspire them to greater heights. That is the DnD i grew up playing.
If you can't understand THAC0, go home. Its a little more subtle now, but the rule still applies.
Here's the story. Made up a human/Tempest fighter/avenger/adroit explorer 16th built around Dual strike and RoB's.
Call me noob, but for the life of me I cant figure out what "RoB's" is. I have not slept for about 30 hours now, but could you enlighten my over-tired brain?
Thanx
-=R=-
Call me noob, but for the life of me I cant figure out what "RoB's" is. I have not slept for about 30 hours now, but could you enlighten my over-tired brain?
Thanx
-=R=-
Rain of Blows, Level 3 fighter power.
Rain of Blows, Level 3 fighter power.
Duh... just could not come up with that for some reason. Thank ya.
-=R=-
Duh... just could not come up with that for some reason. Thank ya.
-=R=-
No big, it took me a second too.
"The DM is banning Fox McCloud's robot sidekick ... ?"
That's why its broken. It is perfectly valid for the DM to ban it. It was a mistake to include as-is. However, as others have said, you should be able to rebuild your character if he does in fact ban it.
If you want to play a two-weapon fighter, I'd ask your DM if you could "flip" dual strike - rather than make two attacks against one creature, only be able to make one attack against each of two creatures (same damage).
human/Tempest fighter/avenger
Dual class or multiclass?
Dual class or multiclass?
MC.
Did your DM play 3e before this? It's hard for people with that background to grasp that characters are actually supposed to be awesome and powerful in 4e. If he won't overturn his decision to ban powers because he and others got jealous, I would find a new table.
This post isn't about GM bashing. I can respect his decision with RoB's, however, I think banning DS is going to far. In saying that he has allowed me to make another toon.
I was more interested what people thought of banning DS and if it is OP in the hands of a well built fighter. I'm also still interested in whether I had broken the 'spirit' of the game by making an OP toon or whether its just a case that I'm suffering because everyone else made average toons'....
Its not (just) a matter of the rest of the group making suboptimal characters; even if someone else was running an optimal ranger, they'd still be weak compared to you. Them running suboptimal characters will make things worse, however.
I explained to the player that his build was making the game less fun for the other strikers and defenders at the table (a total of 4 characters).
Long and short of it is at my table dual strike has to target 2 separate creatures and BRV temp hitpoints don't start happening until the fighter is bloodied. The player thought the character was more fun after the nerf.
RoB is just stupid. Banz, plz. :S
Did your DM play 3e before this? It's hard for people with that background to grasp that characters are actually supposed to be awesome and powerful in 4e.
I lol'd a little when i read this. ;)
3e was the system where a 7th level barbarian is charging with pounce, leap attack, shock trooper, ect, and killing CR 15 monsters with one turn. 3e characters make 4e characters look like kids with nerf swords.
Requirement Dex 13 and flail, light blade, or spear to get the secondary attacks.
You get 2 initial attacks, and a follow up attack on each initial attack if it hits.
I don't want to turn this into a debate about the brokenness of RoB though (pleeeaaase).
Try and run the "Dual Strike only gets one attack against one or two targets, rather than just two attacks against one enemy," thing by your DM. It works very well, in my experience, and might make your Party feel better while letting you remain.
C'mon guys. The reason Dual Strike can only target one enemy is because being able to continuously mark two separate enemies every single round of combat is overpowered for a fighter.
I know this gets overlooked when the heat of a DPR debate gets going. But really, if I were a fighter who was given a choice between Dual Strike as written and Dual Strike like you're offering, I'd take your offer. Two marks, ALL the time? Much more powerful than my own DPR.
"The DM is banning Fox McCloud's robot sidekick ... ?"
Thank God I'm not the only one...!C'mon guys. The reason Dual Strike can only target one enemy is because being able to continuously mark two separate enemies every single round of combat is overpowered for a fighter.
I know this gets overlooked when the heat of a DPR debate gets going. But really, if I were a fighter who was given a choice between Dual Strike as written and Dual Strike like you're offering, I'd take your offer. Two marks, ALL the time? Much more powerful than my own DPR.
Not really. The enemies aren't dead, they're just Marked. They can still kick your butt, you need two of them to be adjacent to you, and you don't get your Strength Mod to damage. As it currently is, it's just, "I'm a Striker but better, 'cause this guy's dead now."
There are plenty of ways to get Multi-marking every single round of Combat. Having an At-Will with mediocre damage that Multi-marks is fine.
C'mon guys. The reason Dual Strike can only target one enemy is because being able to continuously mark two separate enemies every single round of combat is overpowered for a fighter.
I know this gets overlooked when the heat of a DPR debate gets going. But really, if I were a fighter who was given a choice between Dual Strike as written and Dual Strike like you're offering, I'd take your offer. Two marks, ALL the time? Much more powerful than my own DPR.
Which is why it should say two seperate enemies you may choose to mark ONE of them of your choice.
Dual Strike is broken, as is Rain of Blows. Dual Strike makes the fighter a better striker than any striker is, and they're still the best defender.
Martial Power gives me the impression that Dual Strike makes the fighter more like a striker, while Beastmaster makes the ranger more like a defender (+1 baddie stuck). I think this provides a crossover option.
Dual Strike and Twin Strike are almost as good as encounter powers, which suggests that they are a bit strong. As a DM, I'm considering imposing a -2 penalty on those attacks.
Rain of Blows is alot of attacks for a lvl 3 power. That too might get a penalty.
But then a good DM should definately compensate. Have any you ever met a BBEG with Dual Strike or RoB?
If you can't understand THAC0, go home.
I just had to comment on this. Please, no. Just, no. We don't need a rehash of the old THAC0 elitism. If we want tabletop RPGs in general, and D&D specifically, to survive for another 30 years as a hobby we need to bring new people in to the game, not drive them away because they (for instance) can't figure out some needlessly convoluted equation. But that's a topic for another thread.
To the OP: It sounds like your DM isn't quite that confident in his DMing role yet, and overreacted a bit. Try talking to him about the problem outside the gaming sessions and work with him to houserule the powers, or explain why you're hitting so much more often than everyone else. If he sees how weak the rest of the party made their characters, then maybe he might budge a little. By 16th level characters should have (as a baseline, your actual mileage may vary) +6 from ability, + 3 from enhancement, + 1 from feat, +2 or 3 from proficiency, and +8 from level. That puts the expected attack bonus around +20-21. (Can someone check my math as far as expected bonuses to make sure I didn't miss something, I'm away from my books at the moment.)
And another point. At one what stage should a player purposely limit what one can build so you can fit into others less strongly built characters?
When it screws up the game for everybody else. The point is to have fun, if your character ruins the fun then it gets removed. If the only way you can have fun involved ruining other peoples fun, then you get removed also.
There is nothing wrong with optimizing a character if the other players are doing that also. But if they are building things more for theme, fun in playing or style then you should build your characters the same way also.
The end result is that the GM has banned Dual strike and RoB's from the game (has allowed twin strike). What do people think of this? I'm fine with RoB's but dual strike?
As several people have pointed out, Dual Strike is over powered for a character built to exploit it. Still, outright banning is rather extreme, I would instead talk the DM about detuning the character a bit. Look at what makes the character too efficient and move some of it around.
Jay
Maybe you should point that out and suggest before he nerfs your build that the other PC's could probably be much more effective.
There is nothing wrong with optimizing a character if the other players are doing that also. But if they are building things more for theme, fun in playing or style then you should build your characters the same way also.
The thing is he's not optimizing really. The other players built flat out weak characters (from an objective, core math of the game, perspective) They're behind on attack bonus by 4 points from where they should be, roughly.
The end result is that the GM has banned Dual strike and RoB's from the game (has allowed twin strike). What do people think of this? I'm fine with RoB's but dual strike?
Actually, he's not doing anything I haven't considered before. We have a tempest fighter and ranger in our party, and they hit significantly more often then anyone else in the party ( and do WAY more damage).
Now, I haven't actually banned it yet, largely because they'd have to remake their characters from scratch, (and ranger without twin strike is damned weak) but next game I run, I'm probobly going to ban it.
And another point. At one what stage should a player purposely limit what one can build so you can fit into others less strongly built characters?
Less strongly built? Of the classes your PC's play, how many builds are there that come anywhere NEAR a dual strike / twin strike based character in the heroic tier?
But getting back to your question, the limit comes in when players aren't having fun because one player is significantly more powerful.. or when the GM has trouble with encounters because one player is too good.
If your hacking up equal level elites in ONE ROUND, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that something's screwed up, particularly considering your not supposed to be a striker.
I suppose your GM could also make a version of dual strike for every class :D
Warlock Dual Strike!!!!! Magic Missiles (Pew pew!) Paladin Double... something strike. Yeah, I got nothing.
I was also considering some modifications to the way the two at wills work, maybe something like.
Dual Strike, Melee, Standard, At Will
Str vs AC +1
Hit: (W) Main Hand + (W) Off Hand + Str Damage
Only add the enhancements, critical bonus and properties of the Main Hand weapon when you attack.
You must have a melee weapon in each hand to make this attack.
There. No more 2 rolls to hit (the first problem with why it's too good) and no more stacked damage bonuses (the other big problem). Unfortunately it's pretty awkward, and I don't know if it would be worth using at higher levels.
The thing is he's not optimizing really. The other players built flat out weak characters (from an objective, core math of the game, perspective) They're behind on attack bonus by 4 points from where they should be, roughly.
True, but the end result is GM banned Dual strike, which is reasonable because Dual strike is broken. He didn't demand the guy lower his to hit or anything. If the op speaks truth I'm thinking both a little nerf on that and some serious aid to the other characters is needed here.
Otherwise, yeah, RoB and DS are pretty unreasonable as written, and in anything less then an optimized party, an optimized tempest fighter is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
True, but the end result is GM banned Dual strike, which is reasonable because Dual strike is broken. He didn't demand the guy lower his to hit or anything. If the op speaks truth I'm thinking both a little nerf on that and some serious aid to the other characters is needed here.
I disagree that Dual Strike is necessarily broken, but I agree that some serious help needs to go to the other players. 4 points behind on attack bonus isn't a small amount, it's 20% of what they should have is completely missing. This is one of those instances where you really see the gap between optimized and non-optimized.
Just making sure: Do you play Rain of Blows correctly?
Requirement Dex 13 and flail, light blade, or spear to get the secondary attacks.
You get 2 initial attacks, and a follow up attack on each initial attack if it hits.
I don't want to turn this into a debate about the brokenness of RoB though (pleeeaaase).
According to my PHB, it says that RoB has a Dex requirement of 15 or higher to make the secondary attack.
Dual Strike is broken... Dual Strike makes the fighter a better striker than any striker is, and they're still the best defender.
Could someone please explain to me how this statement is at all true?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic.
Dual Strike is nothing more than a limited version of Twin Strike.
It only allows you to attack one enemy as opposed to 2.
You can't add your strength bonus.
Yes, I realize you can stack up those static damage bonuses pretty quickly.
But so can a frickin TWF Ranger.
Rangers get Twin Strike, which, against one target does the same thing as Dual Strike.
So how exactly does this make a Tempest Fighter a better striker than a TWF Ranger?
Rangers also get quarry damage.
TWF Rangers can often wield more damaging weapons due to their class feature. 1d12 High Crit Waraxes anyone? Bastard Swords?
Rangers can get all the same static bonuses to damage that a Tempest Fighter can, or even more if you count certain builds. Tempest Fighters get +2 damage if they are wearing light armor, but this severely restricts them to boosting Dexterity at every opportunity, and the Ranger can still make up for this with other bonuses.
The only advantage I can see for a Tempest Fighter is a +1 to-hit from their weapon talent. That's it.
With Weapon Expertise, decent team support and tactics this advantage is not nearly as great as it once was.
Something else that I often see ignored on these boards are actual encounter and daily powers. Yes, if you are wielding a compatible weapon RoB is a great power... but if you look at the other TWF fighter powers, the majority of them specifically target multiple foes, not just many attacks against a single foe. As well, you often need combat advantage just to add some dex mod damage.
A Ranger doesn't have this issue. They have a multitude of encounter and daily powers that attack the same foe multiple times. The often get excellent riders or status effects to their attacks as well. They can do a lot more damage in a Nova, and have better burst damage.
Yes, I suppose if you are willing to multi-class, a tempest fighter could cherry pick a lot of the better multiple attack powers from other classes... however, you do this at a major cost of feats and/or paragon path features.
So could someone please explain to me how Dual Strike suddenly makes the Tempest Fighter the most damaging and broken character in the game?
Could someone please explain to me how this statement is at all true?
It's not really, IMHO. A lot of the people on this board have a definition of broken that basically comes down to "I don't like it." As such popular opinion is that it's broken.
Having all the other characters (albeit poorly designed) requiring approximately a 13 to hit is to be expected.
Regardless of the class combo's etc, all the character should be in the same ballpark....some better at hitting AC, some better at Reflex etc. etc.
Ban away DM...or houserule or something, but having a character like that in a game just ruins it for both the DM and other players.
Nex
Having all the other characters (albeit poorly designed) requiring approximately a 13 to hit is to be expected.
Requiring a 13 to hit isn't expected. A 9-11 is the expected roll to hit against appropriate leveled monsters. 6 means the character was working to boost his to-hit, 13 means they were working to be subpar.
Could someone please explain to me how this statement is at all true?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic.
Dual Strike is nothing more than a limited version of Twin Strike.
It only allows you to attack one enemy as opposed to 2.
You can't add your strength bonus.
Yes, I realize you can stack up those static damage bonuses pretty quickly.The problem is that the ranger is ment to bring significantly above-par damage to the table. The fighter is supposed to do a reasonable amount of damage, but not that much.
When you give a fighter twin strike, you give him damage output approaching the best strikers in the game, all while detracting at a minimum from his ability to also serve as a defender. You are effectively getting a two-for-one in power.
That is what makes Dual Strike so significantly ahead of the power curve.
Could someone please explain to me how this statement is at all true?
I'd like to repeat this request. I think Ravennus made a good argument. This is why I'm against the DM banning your character from the table; it's not your character's fault that everyone else made their characters with a less than satisfactory understanding of the game. Give everyone a complete retrain if they are really upset with their characters. Does your DM really expect you to join the rest of the party in the misery of rolling a 13 or higher to hit? Will this make the table more fun, or just bring your fun back in line with the lack of fun the rest of the party is having?
This is why I suggested sticking to your guns or leaving the table.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic.
Dual Strike is nothing more than a limited version of Twin Strike.
And therein lies the problem. The problem is that Twin Strike is a really, really strong striker power, which is only allowable for a striker because it, by itself, puts you on top of the at-will DPR list.
It only allows you to attack one enemy as opposed to 2.
You can't add your strength bonus.
Yes, I realize you can stack up those static damage bonuses pretty quickly.
It deals a LOT more damage than a single attack does. You lose out on your strength bonus, but you double all your other static modifiers as well as your weapon dice - that's far larger than your attribute modifier in a very short period of time.
So how exactly does this make a Tempest Fighter a better striker than a TWF Ranger?
Three reasons:
1) Fighters have a +1 bonus to hit. Rangers don't.
2) Fighters have better feats than rangers do for boosting their damage, so they end up with higher damage potential (stuff like Marked Scourge, Reckless Attacker, ect.)
3) Fighters have much better class features than rangers do.
A dual striking fighter does as much or more damage as a TWF ranger does, AND they are as good at being a defender as any defender. Better, sometimes, with something like Heavy Blade Opportunity, which allows them to make a dual strike in the place of an OA and thus further ensure that they hit a foe and prevent them from moving.
Rangers also get quarry damage.
TWF Rangers can often wield more damaging weapons due to their class feature. 1d12 High Crit Waraxes anyone? Bastard Swords?
Or you can wield a double sword, and get an additional +1 to hit and an additional +1 to your AC. The damage die is lower, but your to-hit bonus is higher because its a light blade so you can use Nimble Blade.
Or you can take the feat which allows you to wield weapons like a ranger.
Rangers can get all the same static bonuses to damage that a Tempest Fighter can, or even more if you count certain builds. Tempest Fighters get +2 damage if they are wearing light armor, but this severely restricts them to boosting Dexterity at every opportunity, and the Ranger can still make up for this with other bonuses.
They cannot. They lack Marked Scourge and Reckless Attacker, among other things.
Also, the Tempest Fighter can wear chainmail as well to get that bonus.
So could someone please explain to me how Dual Strike suddenly makes the Tempest Fighter the most damaging and broken character in the game?
Because you deal more damage than the best striker and you're as good as any other defender.
And remember, TWF rangers are the TOP of striker damage. They deal a lot more damage than, say, rogues, which makes things even worse.
Its basic game design. Its broken the same reason druids and wizards were in 3.x - it can do too much and fill too many roles, and worse still, it is the BEST at those roles.
And remember, TWF rangers are the TOP of striker damage. They deal a lot more damage than, say, rogues, which makes things even worse.
This is important to point out so I'll do it again. Even if you disagree with TD's assessment that Fighters can push their damage past Rangers the fact that they can come close puts them near the top of the heap as far as strikers are concerned. Except Fighters are Defenders and they have one of the best marks in the game.
....So much so that SOME players and the GM said it was broken. So okay, I built something that destroyed an elite death knight in one round, but it was all within the rules.
.....the otther players had made up dismal characters who were lucky to hit the door on the barn (talking 0nly +17 to hit against AC 30 and above).
The problem with public forums is that they are public forums..... what do you think Dressy?
Yes, it is within the rules, but as per the above comments by Titanium, I tend to think this particular build goes against the intended role of the fighter.
Here is another point people seem to always ignore:
This is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. Shock, horror: some people actually deliberately create characters that are not combat optimised, as they select feats and powers that contribute in other ways to the game.
If the only goal of a session is combat and killing stuff, count me out.
Just making sure: Do you play Rain of Blows correctly?
Requirement Dex 13 and flail, light blade, or spear to get the secondary attacks.
You get 2 initial attacks, and a follow up attack on each initial attack if it hits.
I don't want to turn this into a debate about the brokenness of RoB though (pleeeaaase).
Yes I am using it correctly. Using an Urgrosh.
The problem with public forums is that they are public forums..... what do you think Dressy?
And?Yes, it is within the rules, but as per the above comments by Titanium, I tend to think this particular build goes against the intended role of the fighter.
Really? Why? I really don't see the argument that fighters should be defenders only. Particularly when some players seem to get stuck in the position because other players wont play them. I see nothing wrong in a fighter being a striker as some people have attested too on this post so far. I mean why else would Wizard create so many fighter feats that deal damage? Maybe the problem lies in that a tempest fighter for example has a mark?Here is another point people seem to always ignore:
This is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. Shock, horror: some people actually deliberately create characters that are not combat optimised, as they select feats and powers that contribute in other ways to the game.
If the only goal of a session is combat and killing stuff, count me out.
Yeah...maybe we all should just say that we are a ranger or fighter or whatever and leave stats and other stuff out of the game? We can then kill mobs with the power of our words...
Having other powers that can contribute to the game is fine, however one usually has to hit with them for those powers to contribute. Watching the other players roll misses and basically giving themselves uppercuts because they were missing so much was interesting to see.
There is an enjoyment in creating interesting and effective characters that is a part of the game. Its as much a part as hanging with good mates and enjoying good story lines. The question here is, should players lower their own levels to fit with everyone else or should people just accept each others play styles without forcing their own opinions onto others?
We can then kill mobs with the power of our words...
Having other powers that can contribute to the game is fine, however one usually has to hit with them for those powers to contribute. Watching the other players roll misses and basically giving themselves uppercuts because they were missing so much was interesting to see.
There is an enjoyment in creating interesting and effective characters that is a part of the game. Its as much a part as hanging with good mates and enjoying good story lines. The question here is, should players lower their own levels to fit with everyone else or should people just accept each others play styles without forcing their own opinions onto others?
This tells me you did not understand my previous statement about contributing to other parts of the game, ie the non-combat aspect.
I contend that effective characters do not have to be effective in combat. In some circumstances there are opportunities to use that often under-utilised section of the character sheet called "skills".
This tells me you did not understand my previous statement about contributing to other parts of the game, ie the non-combat aspect.
I contend that effective characters do not have to be effective in combat. In some circumstances there are opportunities to use that often under-utilised section of the character sheet called "skills".
One of the 4e philosophies of design was that you shouldn't have to sacrifice combat ability for non-combat utility. In other words, all characters should be able to contribute in both combat and noncombat encounters.
This is important to point out so I'll do it again. Even if you disagree with TD's assessment that Fighters can push their damage past Rangers the fact that they can come close puts them near the top of the heap as far as strikers are concerned. Except Fighters are Defenders and they have one of the best marks in the game.
Fighters who go strikery may still have great marks, but aren't exactly the best "tanks" when it comes to the aggro they get.
It does balance out ... between fighters anyways.
And remember, TWF rangers are the TOP of striker damage. They deal a lot more damage than, say, rogues, which makes things even worse.
I thought Avengers were now, what with Oath being even more broken than Twin Strike?
I thought Avengers were now, what with Oath being even more broken than Twin Strike?
Neither one is broken.
But then a good DM should definately compensate. Have any you ever met a BBEG with Dual Strike or RoB?
Yes. And it made me very sad.
Reckless Attacker: You get a free basic attack if and when you critical, but take a -2 to AC. Again, woopdefriggindoda. This might not even 'proc' during an encounter.
Meanwhile a well-built ranger can take...
Prime Punisher: Apply Prime Shot class feature in melee to any enemy when you are the only party member adjacent (+1 to hit)
Called Shot: +5 damage to Prime Shot target
And the Ranger has other feats that can boost his damage or to-hit even further.
So while it IS conditional, it should be useful more often than your Wis bonus to damage once a round and an extra attack you may not even get in most encounters.
I also ask yet again.... why the HECK do people on these boards typically only compare at-wills?
Looking past Dual Strike, what fighter powers (other than RoB, which has a LOT of conditions to even use fully) can compare in Single Target damage to TWF Ranger powers? Encounters and Dailies?
Do I see anything like Blade Cascade or Off Hand Strike on the fighter power list? No!
Something else to consider.... after looking at the class write-ups in the PHB2, it's clear that the developers intended for classes to have a secondary role that they could potentially be good at.
Heck, we have a Barbarian build that emphasizes charisma and leader abilities.
I only wish they would have had the foresight to write this into the original PHB.
It's clear that there are some builds that favor a striker role. I still believe they potentially give up some of their ability to defend in order to do so... ESPECIALLY if they want to focus solely on damage and multi-class to get better powers.
The Tempest Fighter, or even a one-handed weapon talent fighter who uses dual-strike... to me, is a clear case of combining a defender role and a striker role.
A well built ranger will still do more damage.
A ranger might not be able to defend as well, but they still get other things which help them out... like more mobility built into their powers, more skill selection, etc.
I concede that a tempest fighter might do more damage than a rogue, warlock, and especially the Avenger.... but ideally these other classes have other things they bring to the table as well as just damage.
I also think it's a testament to how ill-defined the 'striker' role is, and how powerful multiple attack powers are. Any class, particularly a striker, who doesn't have multiple attack powers (*ahem* Avenger) will do significantly less damage than any class that DOES have them (Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian).
Let me also add that this issue is NO WHERE NEAR the level of 3rd edition wizards, clerics, and druids.
Please. Do we really need to bring that up?
To call a 4th edition fighter broken, and compare it to a 3rd edition druid is ludicrous.
So can we all please stop the blatant exaggeration and over reaction?
If you think 4th edition is this bad, and spend the majority of your waking hours on these forums trying to convince other people, then perhaps your time would be better spent writing your own game. Good luck to you.
As far as the original poster's comment.... it's my opinion that the DM was out of line. If you honestly weren't doing anything illegal, and especially if you avoided the typical cheese (bloodclaw, reckless, iron armbands)... then you were only playing the game as intended. Heck, even those items are perfectly legal and intended. If you thought it was a bit too much cheese and stayed away from them, the DM should be thankful... not banning powers all willy-nilly.
It's a lot harder to purposefully gimp yourself in 4th edition, in my opinion.
When you decide you want to play a class, and find out that a lot of your class features and your main attacks key off of a certain attribute.. then it's within your best interests to make sure you keep that stat high.
Unless of course you played with some people who purposefully built 'ROLE'playing characters that went against all common sense within the mechanics of the system....
I.E.- Built a fighter with a 8 Strength and 18 Charisma, who took feats like linguist and superior weapon proficiency: Rapier.
In that case, they are either being arsehats on purpose, completely stupid, ignorant of anything in the books, or are simply playing the wrong game entirely.
Unless of course you played with some people who purposefully built 'ROLE'playing characters that went against all common sense within the mechanics of the system....
I.E.- Built a fighter with a 8 Strength and 18 Charisma, who took feats like linguist and superior weapon proficiency: Rapier.
In that case, they are either being arsehats on purpose, completely stupid, ignorant of anything in the books, or are simply playing the wrong game entirely.
I wouldn't say it's that bad, but as I've pointed out, twice now actually, the rest of the party is 4 points behind on attack bonus. That's just going off the game's internal "expected" math for level 16.
I regularly roleplay with a group where most of it's players are very casual.
Casual.... as in, they don't own the books, and wouldn't go near these forums with a 10 foot pole.
I'm one of the youngest, and I'm 27.
We are all (supposedly) grown-ups who have day jobs, families, etc.
Oh, and did I mention that on most nights we have more girls at the table than guys?
A couple things I learned... being an experienced roleplayer, as well as a self-professed 'power' gamer (i.e.- I like math, and like to have efficient characters)....
Help out the other players!
Especially the casual gamers, and those that don't have the books.
By this, I don't mean MAKE their characters.
Just help them to design a character mechanically that does what they want thematically.
I'll often sit down with someone and just simply ask them....
what kind of character do you want to play?
What do you want to do?
What movie or book characters do you want to be like?
Once we have a general idea, I'll help them to make a fairly optimal character using the books and rules that I know.
I also try to educate them during this process, and make the character with them so they know what everything does and how it all works together.
This is really helpful because it gives them a character they wanted in the first place, and who can achieve the heroic feats they envisioned in the game because they've been mechanically optimized for it.
An heck, if for roleplaying purposes they want to speak a bunch of different languages... I help them optimize for that too!
"Hey, no problem! There's this feat here called Linguist..."
So basically... if you are more experienced and hardcore about D&D and chargen, then help out your fellow gamers. This isn't a competition.
I wouldn't say it's that bad, but as I've pointed out, twice now actually, the rest of the party is 4 points behind on attack bonus. That's just going off the game's internal "expected" math for level 16.
Yeah, I read that. Sorry. Was doing a little exaggeration myself. ;)
I agree with what you said originally, Scipio.... give it a little time, then talk to the DM alone. Try to reason with him, and help him to recognize the issue isn't necessarily these powers but maybe the other characters not being made that well.
Like my previous suggestion... try and be pro-active, and offer to help out the other players.
They've already seen what you can do, so what could it hurt to work with them on their own characters?
I thought Avengers were now, what with Oath being even more broken than Twin Strike?
Avengers are garbage unless you grab another class's at-will power.
No. Avengers have a higher percentage to land a Crit. It doesn't matter if their at-wills suck or not.
wrong any class with multiple attacks has as much if not more chances to get a crit of course if you manage to get multiple attacks and OoE your pimping crit damage big time throw in an increased crit range and it's just cake.
OoE is so much better on other classes powers it's not even funy.
Fighter damage, at it's best, doesn't come close to ranger or avenger damage. Even barbarian damage outclasses the fighter. Sure fighter beats things like rogue and warlock but really those classes are on the low end of striker damage output while fighter is on the high end of defender damage output.
Expecting every striker to deal more damage then every defender isn't realistic. A lot of classes are going to end up more hybrid versions of two different roles then pinnacles of a single role. The ranger is a straight up striker but the rogue and warlock are more striker/controller hybrids. The fighter is a defender/striker hybrid. That said, the fighter is over powered because it is one of the top two defenders in the game while also being the top damage output defender in the game.
(+24 to hit without bonuses)
Dressy, can I ask how you have an attack bonus of +24 at level 16. (using an Urgrosh). This is what I have so far:
+8 from level, +2 from Weapon Expertise, +2 from weapon prof, (maximum) of +7 from strength, +4 from magical weapon. At the moment, that's +23. Is there something I'm missing?
Dressy, can I ask how you have an attack bonus of +24 at level 16. (using an Urgrosh). This is what I have so far:
+8 from level, +2 from Weapon Expertise, +2 from weapon prof, (maximum) of +7 from strength, +4 from magical weapon. At the moment, that's +23. Is there something I'm missing?
+1 bonus from fighter weapon Talent.
That alone should explain the problem.
At one what stage should a player purposely limit what one can build so you can fit into others less strongly built characters?
Putting aside your actual character a moment, the question of what to do when you are significantly "better" at gaining mechanical advantages from character building than all the other players combined, is to try to work with everyone to tone them up, and/or simply tone yourself down to a level you and the DM can live with.
I think it would be fair to say you built this character as a "power gamer." You might do better to tone it down to simply the level of an "optimizer." That would keep you still very good at what you want to do, but not incredibly overshadow other players.
Characters made with "power gamer" intent basically only fit well in groups of other power gamers. This isn't a value judgment, it's just a statement of what I consider a general RPG fact.
I don't have any problem with "power gaming" in general, which I consider to be combining as many rules as possible to be advantageous and greatly exceed the "default." It is only a problem in groups that don't also enjoy powergaming. If you don't know the other gamers well, it's safest to only come with an "optimized" character at most, or two versions of the character you want to play.
As a disclaimer, I personally agree Tempest Fighters are simply "too good" in general. If you have no striker in the party, it can fit in alright. If you have one or more "real" strikers in the party, they will often find themselves outclassed by the party "tank," who has better defenses, better attack, and very high damage and to-hit while fully doing his job as a defender.
I also personally believe that Rain of Blows and Dual Strike are "too good" for fighter powers, statistically.
Essentially, you really forced the DM's hand though, by heavily exploiting those two very powerful attacks, to the levels where they were essentially god-like (at least Rain of Blows). If you had held back and settled for "optimized" Tempest Fighter, following more of a theme than pure damage numbers, you would be high damage -- likely still higher than others -- but not to a degree where you stand out as ridiculously overpowered.
+1 bonus from fighter weapon Talent.
He is a Tempest Fighter, so he doesn't get that.
Dressy, can I ask how you have an attack bonus of +24 at level 16. (using an Urgrosh). This is what I have so far:
+8 from level, +2 from Weapon Expertise, +2 from weapon prof, (maximum) of +7 from strength, +4 from magical weapon. At the moment, that's +23. Is there something I'm missing?
Tempest fighters gain +1 to attack rolls with offhand weapons (which the Urgosh is), when wielding two weapons (which double weapons are considered equivalent to.) That's the missing attack bonus.
+ 7 Strength mod,
+8 level bonus,
+2 weapon Proficiency,
+4 enhancement bonus ( its a vicious axe)
+ 1 tempest technique,
+2 weapon Expertise (axe).
*As intended: By this I mean going for off-hand weapons. Not abusing the fact that dual weapons are "off hand", just regular weapons with the off-hand property. Not stacking bloodclaw and reckless, I think those also have more problems than just tempests. It seems that sticking with daggers, parrying daggers, katars, and short swords (can't remember any more off-hand weapons if any) will yield a character that is not OP. I know this doesn't make the powers balanced in the context of all possible bonuses you can give, but with just these they seem fine, and they seem to be the what the path had in mind.
To Themocaw: Yes, it is 4 attacks. See indenting rules under "reading a power" at the end of the PHB2
The OP's character is able to fulfill the weapon requirements of using a spear, because an Urgrosh (being a double weapon) has one spear end, and thus the whole weapon is a "spear" by the way the AV is written, so 4 attacks can be made. I imagine though that with those axe feats, the actual attacks come from the higher damage axe head.
Even just two attacks total still puts Rain of Blows firmly at the top of the damage chart for most Fighter powers.
Partly a symptom of double weapons being very, very poorly implemented.