Class Acts: Greatweapon Fighter

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, overpowered. No question. Don´t forget the last Fighter class act also had a lot of errors in it. Hope this won´t get into the CB like this.

 

[Jack99]

I suspect that the 19th level fighter in my campaign will be quite interested in the dailies. They seem quite strong.

And yeah, the at-will is totally broken.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I did like some of the powers that let you hit one guy, knock him back, then charge him for a finishing blow.

Not such a fan of losing attack bonus though.

I also loved the look of those. The whole article tempted me into playing a Great Weapon fighter, but those have a real kick to them that I really like.

I'm also in favour of some similar articles for the Warord and Warlock - the 'lock, in particular, feels a little underesourced in terms of advice of playing one, both mechanically and with role-play elements.

The article on the Winter Fey was a good start - but a series of articles like these for the fighter would really help the class, I think.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, I can't see how that power is balanced. I look for an errata in the final published copy.

Seriously, my not particularly optimized great weapon fighter would expect to get +5 AC from that power. And all he pays is a power slot and a minor action he hasn't used in his entire career. That's way better than what you could get with a shield, which is probably the easiest proof that its too good.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the overal verdict, but one thing: We played 21st level game yesterday, and what was notable: Lots of conditions that take away actions. Daze, Stun. Or just be immobilized somewhere where you can't attack anyone. In this context, a minor action might certainly be a valuable commodity.

Aside from the many attacks that are not directed AC or Fort.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Warding Steel should be an Encounter Power, it's way too powerful as an at-will.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is way more potent than the total defense action coupled with a shield. And it is much better than similar encounter powers which grant a bonus to defense...
So even as a standard action it would be overpowered.

As an encounter this is a really good power. Maybe let it last until the end of your next turn or as an immediate interrupt.

 

[Klaus]

Mechanics aside, even the plain text isn't up to the usual standards. For one, I don't much care for the inclusion of "feats" and "builds" into the parlance of the game world. When presenting the two captains responsible for the "greatweapon build", the options for accuracy feats, etc, are presented within each, as if they were particular to each one's approach, but the topics and suggestions are at times antagonistic to the captain's strategy.

And the following sentence is just poorly written:

"Instead of building up your defenses to compensate for your low defenses, focus on hit points".

Really, this article and the Fighter Essentials it was expanded from were big messes (the Essentials article had feats with different names from the table and the text, etc).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

its a shame that such powers make it into the character builder...

i will go back to my 3.5 rules: dragon articles are not core and need extra permission.

 

[Jack99]

its a shame that such powers make it into the character builder...

i will go back to my 3.5 rules: dragon articles are not core and need extra permission.

Well, they can technically still be errata'ed - but yeah, it's very likely that they will get into the CB.

 

[Shroomy]

Well, they can technically still be errata'ed - but yeah, it's very likely that they will get into the CB.

They've errata'd less problematic things in the past. Its unfortunate that this was the last article of the month as there was no way to get the errata into the compiled issue, but they do have a month to adjust the power in the CB.