So I have the Martial Powers book.

[Mirtek]

If people have specific questions before then I'll answer what I can.

Any new 1h heavy blades? Or any heavy blade feats attainable without high Str/Dex?

PS: Yes, I a swordmage curious if I can get something out of MP

 

[Sitara]

I have a question thats relevant to a curent pc of mine:

The fighter has a dual weild option. Now I am wondering, is it possible to get these dual weild powers using multiclass feats? (I play a paladin and would liek to dual weild twin warhammers via fighter multi feat.) And is there any reason to take this over a ranger multi feat?

 

[James McMurray]

Any power/tactical choice that forgoes the use of Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority is inherently a weaker choice for a Fighter to take. A ranged attack forgoes those.

Congratulations on your numerical superiority. Some of us are here to play a game, not crunch out the maximum efficiency. But I can see we won't agree, so I'll leave you to your straight jacketed mindset and traipse away happily in my tactically challenged one.

I will point out though, since apparently you weren't reading, that one of the abilities I proposed most definitely did not forego the fighter class abilities. There is room for many others like it which would expand the fighter's abilities (not unlike the dual-wielding path).

Luckily (for one of us) neither of us matters in the grand scheme of things, and WotC will do what WotC will do.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Congratulations on your numerical superiority. Some of us are here to play a game, not crunch out the maximum efficiency. But I can see we won't agree, so I'll leave you to your straight jacketed mindset and traipse away happily in my tactically challenged one.

I will point out though, since apparently you weren't reading, that one of the abilities I proposed most definitely did not forego the fighter class abilities. There is room for many others like it which would expand the fighter's abilities (not unlike the dual-wielding path).

Luckily (for one of us) neither of us matters in the grand scheme of things, and WotC will do what WotC will do.

Weren't you, in another thread, explaining how horrible the choice of Sneak of Shadows was for bards who would need to use a subpar weapon to use the sneak attack?

 

[LittleElvis]

Congratulations on your numerical superiority. Some of us are here to play a game, not crunch out the maximum efficiency. But I can see we won't agree, so I'll leave you to your straight jacketed mindset and traipse away happily in my tactically challenged one.

Well you really told him how to more correctly have fun!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Congratulations on your numerical superiority. Some of us are here to play a game, not crunch out the maximum efficiency. But I can see we won't agree, so I'll leave you to your straight jacketed mindset and traipse away happily in my tactically challenged one.

Luckily (for one of us) neither of us matters in the grand scheme of things, and WotC will do what WotC will do.

What I'm saying is that putting these powers under the Fighter banner makes a false choice. Because of the lack of synergy with the Fighter's core abilities(marking and movement denial), any ranged attack is inherently a bad choice and a trap build. 4E does not offer bad choices and trap builds.

If you want to use ranged attacks as a Fighter, there are a lot of ways to do this using the existing system:

1. Use heavy thrown weapons and basic ranged attacks. This works perfectly well for all Fighters, and Javelins are ranged 10 which likely is more than you'll ever need.

2. Boost Dex at every level and you are dangerous with basic ranged attacks with the bow.

3. In addition to #2, multiclass into Ranger and take Ranger powers. If you want to go further, Paragon Multiclass into Ranger.


What I am saying is that there SHOULDN'T be ranged attacks in the Fighter class, because the what the Fighter is about is Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge, which require you to be adjacent.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I have a question thats relevant to a curent pc of mine:

The fighter has a dual weild option. Now I am wondering, is it possible to get these dual weild powers using multiclass feats? (I play a paladin and would liek to dual weild twin warhammers via fighter multi feat.) And is there any reason to take this over a ranger multi feat?

Any of the at-will/encounter/daily/utility powers would be received the same way via multiclass feats/paragon multiclassing ... so it would ultimately be comparing the powers as to which is better.

It would probably depend on the paragon paths/higher level multiclass feats.

If nothing else ... the ranger paragon paths have, so far, all been inaccessible to non-rangers [even mc'd rangers], so a two weapon fighter paragon class might be accesible.

 

[LittleElvis]

If I may please ask for a small bone to be thrown this way, how does the new Rogue at-will work? Thanks in advance.

 

[The Little Raven]

And is there any reason to take this over a ranger multi feat?

You want more Defender-oriented powers than Striker-oriented powers is the only reason I can see.

 

[James McMurray]

Weren't you, in another thread, explaining how horrible the choice of Sneak of Shadows was for bards who would need to use a subpar weapon to use the sneak attack?

Yep.

Well you really told him how to more correctly have fun!

Actually, I told him how others have fun differently than he appears to. I at no point told him what he should do with his game.

What I'm saying is that putting these powers under the Fighter banner makes a false choice. Because of the lack of synergy with the Fighter's core abilities(marking and movement denial), any ranged attack is inherently a bad choice and a trap build. 4E does not offer bad choices and trap builds.

You're assuming these abilities will not be synergistic with the current fighter. If they aren't, you're right that they belong somewhere else. I've yet to see anything that says they would have to be, and have even proposed one power that would be very synergistic with the fighter's abilities.

If you want to use ranged attacks as a Fighter, there are a lot of ways to do this using the existing system:

You're right. Then again, there are a lot of ways to hit somebody with a melee weapon in the PHB. I guess we didn't need Martial Power after all. "We have choices" != "no more choices should be given."

1. Use heavy thrown weapons and basic ranged attacks. This works perfectly well for all Fighters, and Javelins are ranged 10 which likely is more than you'll ever need.

How does this let you do anything other than a basic attack, which would be the only reason for creating powers in the first place.

2. Boost Dex at every level and you are dangerous with basic ranged attacks with the bow.

Still basic attacks only.

3. In addition to #2, multiclass into Ranger and take Ranger powers. If you want to go further, Paragon Multiclass into Ranger.

You can't paragon into a ranger path, barring new ones in MP that don't require class abilities. Unless you meant to do full-on paragon multi-classing, which might be a decent choice, depending on MP's feats.

But even then, you're stuck having to pump dexterity despite a large number of good thrown weapons out there, in which case you're probably better off just being a rogue or ranger in the first place. The current system has no place for a Heavy Thrown specialist. An increased Fighter repertoire would be one way to rectify that (though definitely not the only one).

What I am saying is that there SHOULDN'T be ranged attacks in the Fighter class, because the what the Fighter is about is Combat Superiority and Combat Challenge, which require you to be adjacent.

What I'm saying is that I disagree. A fighter's primary class abilities require being adjacent. Alternative class abilities and/or synergistic power design can easily change that.

Now, then? Nobody convinced by the other side yet? Didn't think so.