Martial Power: the new class features

[Baumi]

I just flipped through the Martial Power and I think the new class Features are worth a good discussion...

General:
What I don't like about the class features is that they give you options on one hand (new features to choose) but limit's you power choices on the other, since the more Class features exist, the more powers are not written for yours.

Fighter:
For giving up your Fighter Weapon Talent you can get either Battlerager Vigor or Tempest Technique. Both new Features look very interesting but I worry about balance because you just have to give up a +1 Attack for either a virtual Damage Reduction (temp Hitpoints every time you are damaged) or a big upgrade to two weapon fighting.

Both try to lure you into lower armor, but both compare still (too?) good to the Fighter Weapon Talent if you ignore it. If you really go the lower armor path you seem to become more and more strikerlike which might be good or bad.

Ranger:
The Beast Mastery seems a very good and unique addition to the Ranger. But again there is a downside, there are only two new At-Wills and both are only for the Beast Master. Since Sure Strike sucks, the ranger could have needed a few new at-wills for every build. I cannot say if the Mastery is balanced or not since it is so different to the other features that I would have to play it first to see it's effect.

Rogue:
I don't see the Point in Ruthless Ruffian. I mean you get proficiency and can use your powers with two SIMPLE weapons (mace and club)! What's the advantage in that, especially since you might eventually want to use superior weapons where you have to take a light blade again? You also get +str damage on rattling attack but thats certainly fewer than the bonus from Brutal Scoundrel. Also what's the fluff difference between Ruthless Ruffian and Brutal Scoundrel?

I think the proficiencies and power use for mace and club would have been better handled with a feat..l

Warlord:
The class features seems very compareable to the one from the PHB and don't stand out. I think the difference between the "builds" depend more on the connected powers which I haven't read yet.


So what do you think?

 

[Drakhar]

Tempest Fighter's actually don't have to give up their +1 Attack they simply get it with off hand weapons, along with a damage boost to them if they're in anything but scale or plate. Battle Ragers get to actually stack temp hp which could be interesting, but I'm not sure it's worth the loss of attack.

Beast master Rangers definately seem more for the tactical thinking player then other additions especially at heroic, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I haven't really looked over the new Rogue or Warlord class features.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm toying with the idea of a houserule that turns these class features (and the normal ones) into feats - and each class gets one of them as a 1st level bonus feat.

Members of the class could then use feats to gain additional class features (and people who have multiclassed into a class can similarly take feats to gain otherwise 'missing' class features too).

This would obviously increase the potential power of the classes, but it would also reduce the relatively heavy-handed siloing of classes and their class features which happen at the moment. (I'm not talking about sneak attack or hunters quarry here, BTW - I'm talking about the various features which classes have to choose between at the moment such as TWF vs Bow ranger, Brutal scoundrel vs artful dodger etc).

Cheers

 

[GlaziusF]

I'm toying with the idea of a houserule that turns these class features (and the normal ones) into feats - and each class gets one of them as a 1st level bonus feat.

There's a warlock feat that gives you another pact. I think it was paragon tier, but can't remember. Maybe make these feats paragon tier but you can take one at first level anyway?

 

[JackSmithIV]

I'm kind of worried about the new class features for reasons listed in previous posts and on other threads. I hate the feeling that they make certain class features from the Player's Handbook simply obsolete.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I would have thought the ruthless rufian would have fit better as a swap for the rogue's weapon talent with daggers/shuriken. The idea of a bludgeoning rogue is a neat idea ... but it just seems really odd to force a subpar power attached to the end. [Admitedly, a mace wielded two handed is the highest damage output a rogue can get weapon wise as 1d8 with versatile ... giving up a bit in the prof department]

Really, the only benefit from ruthless ruffian would come when you have rattling [possible to take enough to have it "always one", but it's very limiting] but can't get your sneak attack.]

There are some feats that are effectively "multi-option" feats, like street thug that can get a rogue a mace, but at a cost of a sneak attack die [comparable to the feats for eladrin or dwarves that allow them to use other weapons as light blades]. That may be another solution to mixing and matching.

However, at least with some build options, silo'ing isn't as bad. A beastmaster ranger can "subclass" in wielding two weapons or archery. The ruthless ruffian is concerned both in strength and to a lesser extent charisma (for intimidation), so there are at least powers shared by ruthless ruffian and brutal scoundrel builds. The warlord is still charisma based or intelligence based or both ... so bravura can share with inspiring, and resourceful can share with any of the other three, etc ...

If nothing else, they have learned a bit about silo'ing ... apparently the rogue was originally going to have a build that was charisma based [i.e. attacks based on charisma] but seeing how stuff has gone so far, they seem to be leaning more to the warlord/rogue approach of a single attack based ability score, and a choice of two secondary scores being made more or less important. If that design philosophy is followed [the Barbarian and Bard seem to have it] then silo'ing will hopefully be less of a problem. Ranger's have the problem because of their choice being not only attached to the ability score they use to attack, but also powers requiring they have a certain combination of things on them. You can't just pick up a beast companion, and swapping between ranged weapon and dual wielding is hard unless your ranged weapon is a vastly inferior thrown melee weapon. (bad as both melee weapon and ranged weapon).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Here are my snap opinions:

Fighter--Battlerager Vigor: you become unkillable at great cost. Those temp hp, combined with a lot of invigorating power, is going to end up in unmatched ability to survive everything. You give up the Fighter's +1 to attack rolls, and in addition the path encourages you to take +2 proficiency weapons. It doesn't synergize well necessarily with some of the Fighter's best stuff, since the burst 1 Fighter powers that mark everything aren't invigorating. You also end up with only one good defense since you focus on Str/Con. I'm half of the opinion that this feature is overkill, since even a Str/Wis Fighter/Pit Fighter is still plenty difficult to kill.

Fighter--Tempest Technique--This seems to work well, but is very specific and bland for it. Fighter's can plus-stack damage into the stratosphere, and I have no doubt this can lead to striker like damage. This isn't as bad as it sounds, because you aren't going to have Striker style mobility to chase and finish off weakened enemies, and the fact that your marking and defenderish abilities are important and powerful by themselves, and greatly interfere with performing the striker role outside of damage dealing(mobility, concentrated fire, picking off the weak). Also, this will tend to follow a very specific path of options. Most Tempest powers give plusses for dex, which combined with getting +1 attack with off-hand weapons means that you are looking at either the Double Sword or Double Flail as your weapon, as any other choice simply pales in comparison. This build is similiarly focused in other areas. Overall, I think will work well and be fun to play, despite being somewhat one-dimensional, and I don't think the Defender/Striker hybrid will be as bad as people think, since they really don't synergize and mobility is more important to the striker role than people give it credit for.

Ranger--Beastmaster--I think this is definitely interesting. I don't think I can comment on this without seeing it in play. On the surface, it seems to give you Rogue like accuracy since you can maintain combat advantage with little sacrifice, and none of the Beastmaster powers require two weapons, so Fullblade and Execution Axe Rangers can exist. Beasts are fragile, but a lot less threatening than the PCs and taking them out doesn't accomplish much, so unless your DM is a jerk it shouldn't be as big of an issue as it looks. I haven't looked deeply into the powers yet.

Rogue--Ruthless Ruffian--You are basically sacrificing +2/+3 to attack rolls for little benefit. You lose the +3 proficiency most light blades get, +1 for dagger, and the additional +1 to combat advantage(which you should almost always have) from the nimble blade feat. This is a flavor choice, and a bad one. With as much as you sacrifice for this, it could easily be a feat.

Warlord--Bravura Presence--Probably the most offensively focused Leader they've produced. Suicidal unless paired with at least two Defenders IMO, as Warlords already have a reputation for extreme fragility. Still, the extra offense this build provides looks really good, you just need the entire party on board to take advantage of it and keep you alive.

Warlord--Resourceful Presence--Focus > versatility in D&D, and 4E isn't an exception to this. I don't see any real advantages here, though I haven't looked closely.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I'm kind of worried about the new class features for reasons listed in previous posts and on other threads. I hate the feeling that they make certain class features from the Player's Handbook simply obsolete.

For the fighter: each of the four options has a value. Dual wielding drops your AC a bit compared to the shielded fighter. The battlerager is a different way to go with the fighter where you give up the +1 to hit that the other 3 builds have in order to get temp HP (and you have to be even more inaccurate by wielding hammers or axes to get the most use out of it). Wouldn't same obsoletion is there.

For the rogue: Arguably brutal scoundrel makes the ruthless ruffian obsolete. However, if you are willing to give up some accuracy, a mace wielded in both hands packs a bit more punch than anything else a rogue can swing, and if you pick exclusively rattling powers you can be arguably better at what you do than the brutal scoundrel with the +1 from versatile and the +str applying even if you don't get the sneak attack off.

For the warlord: Neither of the options obsolete the old ones ... they offer alternatives. The resourceful one combines elements of the two previous ones, but getting a bonus to hit is better than a bonus to damage in most situations, and guaranteed healing is better than a potential for healing.

The ranger is the only one that is arguable. Ultimately, you can't have a beast companion without picking that feature, but you can still wield a pair of weapons, or a bow, while you have the pet. Then again, the same question arose when the ranger first came out, except for the paragon paths, you could just pick the two-weapon ranger, and be a ranged ranger ... it's a combination of silo'ing and NOT silo'ing that was the issue ... the ability to pick the melee option, and take all the ranged powers anyway, makes it easier to obsolete the ranged path. That has more to do with the ranged path being nothing but a bonus feat and a prereq for paragon paths (and no power being modified by having that path, like rogue powers that give bonuses for having the brutal scoundrel option).

In general ... most class options won't be obsoleted by new stuff ... the exceptions, like the ranger, comes out of the class options being bonus feats only [which the animal companion is much better than in comparison].

They should perhaps have included powers that were keyed to the specific build option to give incentive over the beastmaster that is also a dual wielder or archer.

 

[Obryn]

I think thecasualoblivion kinda nailed most of the good points. My own thoughts, much smaller in comparison...

(1) The Battlerager is a cool pseudo-barbarian, and finally makes great weapon fighters more viable. While they have a low AC, they'll be racking up the temporary HPs, giving them some staying power. OTOH, I have been convinced that a +1 to attack is insanely good in 4e, and I'm not 100% sure that this is a great trade-off. Still, it's a good addition to 4e, that makes defender-barbarians possible.

(2) Tempest Fighters are kinda neat, but I haven't gotten a good feel for them yet. I'd need to see one in play. As mentioned above, double-weapons are a must. I can see these guys dealing massive amounts of damage.

(3) I love Beastmaster rangers. Really, this was worth the book, just here. I know action sharing is a very gamist intrusion, but I think it's been handled very, very well - plenty of Ranger powers allow both the Ranger and the Beast to attack, and both get to move with the same move action. Also, I like the approach they took with the generic beast categories. "Here's some stats. Flavor them to taste."

(4) I'm decidedly "eh" about the Rattling stuff and the new Rogue abilities. I don't get the demand for it, and I think it may be a poor trade-off. Like most things, though, I guess I'd need to see it in action.

(5) So far, I'm not really getting the new Warlord options. Neither of them seems as interesting or flavorful as the PHB versions. They feel kind of like an add-on, rather than anything that anyone's been asking for. Resourceful just seems like another flavor of Tactical, and Bravura seems a little ... crazy? I dunno.

It's really cool, though, that I now understand why we had 4 Martial classes in the PHB - to allow this book to come out so soon.

-O

 

[TerraDave]

first impression: fighters and rangers are well served by 4E.