The battlerager is good when he is getting hit by many mobs that don't hit hard. Against a solo that hits hard he is quite weaker. As with any advantage that varies according to circumstances perception of its strength is tied to how often said circumstances occur. 4E is all about tons of monsters in each fight so people feel battleragers are OP (and in those cases they really are).
Convince me to let my players use these items.
- Thread starter DM-Rocco
- Start date
Obryn
Hero
Also, I should note that Battleragers are generally weaker than sword + shield fighters when subject to ranged and area attacks. First, their battlerager vigor won't kick in, so they don't restore points. Second, their AC will be much lower than sword + board, and their Reflex will be short that Shield bonus as well.
Yeah, they slaughter minions, but then again, so do Swordmages and Wizards.
And yeah, they can destroy hordes of relatively weak melee folks.
Against a mixed group of foes where the archers are focusing on this obvious threat and the melee combatants are trying to stay as far away as possible, I'd put them as no better than an average sword + shield fighter.
(As a side note, I think they very much overshadow a typical Great Weapon fighter.)
-O
Yeah, they slaughter minions, but then again, so do Swordmages and Wizards.
And yeah, they can destroy hordes of relatively weak melee folks.
Against a mixed group of foes where the archers are focusing on this obvious threat and the melee combatants are trying to stay as far away as possible, I'd put them as no better than an average sword + shield fighter.
(As a side note, I think they very much overshadow a typical Great Weapon fighter.)
-O
Engilbrand
First Post
I will agree that they are slightly better than a Great Weapon Fighter, except that their armor will probably be a little worse. I definitely prefer it, but I like a lot of Striker in my Defender.
Similar Threads
