Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6248054" data-attributes="member: 87792">You might not have seen people use basic attacks that weren't granted - but I've used them.  I've even made the odd grab or bull rush.  In fact I've once seen a 4e fighter who didn't make ranged basic attacks ever - and I've made melee basic attacks with a variety of classes (my Warlord had them as part of their SOP for when they didn't have the necessary backup to Brash Assault).Your claim about some powers wanting specialised weapons is irrelevant given that for any given character the only powers that matter are the powers actually on the character sheet.Half of this is special pleading.  A 4e fighter can use a longbow - and some of the ones I see carry them (most carry javelins - some carry longbows as well for serious distance).  And they use them when they are the best tool they have available.  You can also carry a golf-bag of weapons in 4e just as easily as Next.  You also have the Pogo-stick test.  Any option that is strictly worse than another option (like bouncing around the dungeon on a pogo stick).  The fear of sucking from two weapons is actually there for two reasons:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Specialisation.  If you have put a feat or a combat style or even a magic item into any attack style that makes it superior</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Changing weapons when you are already in melee is counterproductive.</li> </ol>And there's a bug in the effective math.  It's set up such that by default two shortswords are better than a greatsword as they do the same DPR but less overkill, meaning that they are better against chaff (e.g. 2hp kobolds where all the extra damage from the greatsword is wasted) and no worse against big stuff where the full DPR is relevant.In short your entire list of the above amounts to "I have a list of inferior options to my SOP that I can use when they happen to be relevant".  1: If you didn't want 4e maneuvers that encouraged you to specialise you didn't have to take them.2: The maneuvers all work the same way.  Walk up to the enemy.  Attack with a basic attack.  Add a rider that forces an additional roll.  You're about as interesting as the 4e Knight.         So.  Charge isn't actually a distinct option in Next the way it is in 4e.  It's just a Melee Basic Attack, exactly the same as all your other melee basic attacks.  Even the 4e Knight gets multiple stances to use for the charge.  Not helping your case here.And if you have better two weapon fighting you've just annihilated your "I can use any weapon" argument.   Sure you can.  You can also use a rock as a weapon.  The two weapons are better.  And your reaction ability is much more obvious and so much less interesting than the 4e Fighter with their Mark/Combat Challenge. You have that backwards.  The 4e fighter has all its trap options clearly marked as such.  You've listed numerous trap options as viable options.But fundamentally the reason that the 4e fighter is much more interesting than the Next one is the same reason the 4e Fighter is much more interesting than the 4e Knight (the Next fighter is more fiddly than but has about the same number of options as the Knight).  4e Powers are a design language into which you can insert just about any ability that moves or hurts people.  The Next Fighter options are riders which only alter the way the attacks work at a defined point and always do it the same way.  Further the requirement that 4e Fighters have different encounter powers means that you don't just find one "best" attack style and spam that.Or you must be using special pleading here - everything you can do out of the box in one system you can do in the other.  But you run into the GURPS "Bag of Sand" principle; if sand in the eyes worked every time  I refer you to your previous paragraph.  Your arguments here apply to Next every bit as much as they do 4e. Hint: Next has weapon type specific feats and class abilities.  4e has defences that are bounded - they might scale by level but so do PCs and enemies; the cause of the treadmill complaint.  Bounded stats aren't relevant unless you think you can get both strength and dexterity to 20.  Every single argument you make here applies to Next as much as it does 4e.And to add the icing on the cake is that in 4e a Javelin uses Strength to hit.  In Next it uses Dexterity.  This means that if you have a fighter with Str 18 and Dex 10 (viable in both systems), the 4e fighter can hit people with the javelin pretty effectively.  The Next fighter is inept with all ranged weapons.  Which is why almost all 4e fighters in my experience carried javelins, throwing axes, or throwing hammers.  Sure they'd rather be in the enemy's face like a good fighter, but they weren't bad with heavy thrown weapons.  A Str 18, Dex 10 fighter in Next can barely hit the broad side of a barn door with any weapon.  Although having double checked the rules, a Next fighter can use a Dart with their strength modifier to hit because it's a Finesse weapon, so this almost evens out (Next fighters should all carry darts unless their dexterity is equal to their strength, whereas 4e fighters had a choice of large throwing weapon - although it's good to see the dart fighter return if we want the feel of D&D)And that isn't even getting into subtle traps such as that melee rogues so far as I can tell should always use two weapons - they get to roll twice to trigger their sneak attack, and two shortswords hits as hard as a greatsword but they can't finesse the greatsword.</blockquote>

Verification