Proposal - Martial Power

hafrogman · Feb 18, 2009

Yeah, I know we're kind of proposal heavy at the moment, but since it's eligible as of today, I figured I'd throw this out there.

A good book all around, I feel. I've seen complaints against the battlerager, but I'm not familiar with it myself. (The tempest, too, but only in relation to double weapons, now a moot point.)

I think it adds some interesting versatility to the martial classes that were all fairly limited in their design scope in the PHB.

Plus I like stabbing things with swords*.

*not in real life, in the game.

Atanatotatos · Feb 18, 2009

Marked scourge, we need to get that out!

Ozymandias79 · Feb 18, 2009

I vote "YES!" in allowing Martial Powers but especially at the Battlerager :devil:

Dunamin · Feb 18, 2009

I luuuv Martial Power

. In fact, I’ll probably give it a hug – despite it being a book full of fisticuffs!

Still, at least the Battlerager does seem problematic. You could cut it down to only the first paragraph of the feature and I’d still consider if it wasn’t too good, compared to +1 to hit.

hafrogman · Feb 18, 2009

Atanatotatos said:
Marked scourge, we need to get that out!

Wow, you're right. I hadn't noticed that one, sort of makes the whole Pit Fighter path obsolete.

Atanatotatos · Feb 18, 2009

There's a mistake. You shouldn't compare the battlerager to the great weapon fighter, but to the shield-and-weapon fighter. Then I thin it's balanced. Am I the only one worried for Marked scourge? °__°

Hafro, it's worse than making it obsolete: you take both and stack twice your wisdom...

Dunamin · Feb 18, 2009

Atanatotatos said:
There's a mistake. You shouldn't compare the battlerager to the great weapon fighter, but to the shield-and-weapon fighter. Then I thin it's balanced.

I'm comparing it to both Fighter Weapon Talent options and it still seems unbalanced. Battlerager as written appears to be the clearly superior choice for shield-wielders as well as two-handers.

hafrogman · Feb 18, 2009

Atanatotatos said:
Hafro, it's worse than making it obsolete: you take both and stack twice your wisdom...

Eh, I think that's addressed by strict interpretation of stacking rules. The source (your wisdom) cannot be added twice to the same thing (your damage). But it a level 11 feat which replaces a level 16 paragon path feature, and is poorly worded, to boot. Anything you've marked? You're a fighter, you mark everything you attack.

Ozymandias79 · Feb 18, 2009

From what I have read the battlerager misses A LOT more than the OHF or the THF, which makes up for the powerful ability it gets IE if you don't hit, then the ability is useless.

hafrogman and Atanatotatos, that is like saying the footpad's friend weapon is broken because rogues get to the charisma twice on a sneak attack when they use sly flourish. furthermore I think we has misunderstood the rules as I think you can't do a minor action during a standard action ie you attack, roll to see if you hit or miss, if you hit roll for damage and then use your minor action to mark the target.

hafrogman · Feb 18, 2009

Ozymandias79 said:
hafrogman and Atanatotatos, that is like saying the footpad's friend weapon is broken because rogues get to the charisma twice on a sneak attack when they use sly flourish. furthermore I think we has misunderstood the rules as I think you can't do a minor action during a standard action ie you attack, roll to see if you hit or miss, if you hit roll for damage and then use your minor action to mark the target.

Sneak attack is limited to once per round. This feat is every attack, the paragon path feature is every weapon attack. But you're probably right that my stacking interpretation is wrong. So it could stack with Pit Fighter. Meaning a fighter would add 2x Wisdom and Strength to every damage roll they make. That's a lot for a defender.

And there is no action to mark. Fighter's mark by attacking.