Containing Strike? (Fighter Exploit?)

Reaper Steve · Jun 2, 2008

The Swordmaster path feature called 'Steel Grace' lets the character use Containing Strike or Reaping Strike (fighter at-will) instead of a basic melee attack when he charges.

I can't find Containing Strike. Anyone know where it is?

I thought maybe it was a power for a different class (a neat way to encourage/reward multiclassing) but since there's not a master power index, I haven't really looked.

Or maybe it's a forthcoming power from the Martial Power book.

More likely, the name changed from Containing Strike to something else in late development, but that change missed this reference.

Help?

fnwc · Jun 2, 2008

Hmmm.. I couldn't find it in the Fighter powers either. Like you said, it might be a mistake on a legacy power.

Also, I'm disappointed that the Fighter is still called 'Fighter'. Didn't one of the WOTC guys post a humor thread about stupid class names in which 'Fighter' was on it? I was hoping it would be relabeled as 'Warrior' or something else about more evocative.

Maybe it's just me, but 'Fighter' falls in the same category as 'Magic-User'.

themilkman · Jun 2, 2008

Yeah, "Containing Strike" seems to be missing.

I'd just replace it with another at-will power. Tide of Iron looks like a good one.

excepti0n · Jun 2, 2008

MM p.50

Containing Strike (standard; at-will) ✦ Necrotic, Weapon
Requires soulsword; +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 12 plus 5 necrotic
damage, and the death knight can make a melee basic attack as
an immediate interrupt against the target if the target shifts on
its next turn.

GMforPowergamers · Jun 2, 2008

excepti0n said:
MM p.50

Containing Strike (standard; at-will) ✦ Necrotic, Weapon
Requires soulsword; +23 vs. AC; 1d8 + 12 plus 5 necrotic
damage, and the death knight can make a melee basic attack as
an immediate interrupt against the target if the target shifts on
its next turn.

I wounder if that means it is ment for DKs, or if there was a fighter varriant in the PHB that didn't make the final cut

Reaper Steve · Jun 2, 2008

Thanks, excepti0n!

It looks like the vanilla flavor of that exploit is 'make a melee basic attack as
an immediate interrupt against the target if the target shifts on
its next turn.'

Now I need to see if that effect is part of a proper fighter exploit...

chitzk0i · Jun 2, 2008

Reaper Steve said:
It looks like the vanilla flavor of that exploit is 'make a melee basic attack as
an immediate interrupt against the target if the target shifts on
its next turn.'

Now I need to see if that effect is part of a proper fighter exploit...

Yup, all of 'em. That's the effect of a fighter's mark. They must have promoted it from an at-will power to part of the mark ability at some point.

Reaper Steve · Jun 3, 2008

chitzk0i said:
Yup, all of 'em. That's the effect of a fighter's mark. They must have promoted it from an at-will power to part of the mark ability at some point.

Well, look at that.

So, either:
a) Containing Strike started out as a fighter at-will but then got absorbed into the Combat Challenge Feature (but they missed updating the Swordmaster's Steel Grace), or
b) Containing Strike for a fighter is different than for a Death Knight and for some reason it didn't make it into the book.

Either way, we need either:
c) errata for Steel Grace to use an exploit in place of the missing Containing Strike, or
d) errata to make Containing Strike exist as a fighter exploit.

IanB · Jun 3, 2008

fnwc said:
Hmmm.. I couldn't find it in the Fighter powers either. Like you said, it might be a mistake on a legacy power.

Also, I'm disappointed that the Fighter is still called 'Fighter'. Didn't one of the WOTC guys post a humor thread about stupid class names in which 'Fighter' was on it? I was hoping it would be relabeled as 'Warrior' or something else about more evocative.

Maybe it's just me, but 'Fighter' falls in the same category as 'Magic-User'.

They had already reached the statutory limitation on class names starting with W.

Amphimir Míriel · Jun 3, 2008

Reaper Steve said:
Well, look at that.

So, either:
a) Containing Strike started out as a fighter at-will but then got absorbed into the Combat Challenge Feature (but they missed updating the Swordmaster's Steel Grace), or
b) Containing Strike for a fighter is different than for a Death Knight and for some reason it didn't make it into the book.

Either way, we need either:
c) errata for Steel Grace to use an exploit in place of the missing Containing Strike, or
d) errata to make Containing Strike exist as a fighter exploit.

I'd allow this power to use any at-will fighter power... Nothing gamebreaking there, I expect

Containing Strike? (Fighter Exploit?)

Reaper Steve

Explorer

fnwc

Explorer

themilkman

First Post

excepti0n

Explorer

GMforPowergamers

Legend

Reaper Steve

Explorer

chitzk0i

Explorer

Reaper Steve

Explorer

IanB

First Post

Amphimir Míriel

Explorer

Similar Threads