Ditching [W] altogether

[keterys]

A 4e monk can do it as well as many other 4e classes can... both might want to consider picking up Polearm Gamble if that's the thing they want to be doing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A 4e monk can do it as well as many other 4e classes can... both might want to consider picking up Polearm Gamble if that's the thing they want to be doing.

How can they- their powers are "Melee: Touch?" IOW, "No Reach for you!" with their powers.

(PS: Polearm Gamble? Which book?)

 

[keterys]

Most people with a reach weapon aren't using their powers when it's not their turn, the primary times to stop an enemy from closing... at which point Polearm Gamble, the PHB1 feat that lets you opportunity attack enemies that move adjacent, is the way to go.

I know multiple reach weapon users who get less out of it than a monk with pointed step.

Course, a fighter with polearm gamble, polearm momentum, and heavy blade opportunity is a different thing altogether.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

See, that just illustrates that there is a fundamental disconnect between 4Ed's design decisions with the way I use polearms.

In other games- including previous editions of D&D- I'd use the polearm to strike my foe before he closed with me, sometimes even in the classic style of attacking from the second row. Many times, I'd also use it for AoOs, controlling a large area of space. Some games, I'd even get to use the weapons with my hero's powers.

Now, I'll grant you that in 3.X, you had to use a lot of feats to get full use of a polearm (again, a design decision I didn't really like, but was better than previous editions which didn't really give them their due), but regardless of your level of proficiency with it, if you had a power that worked with a weapon, it worked whether it was your turn or not.

But again, this is not the point of the thread. I really think in fairness to the OP that if you wish to continue this tangent about my dislikes, it should be done in another thread.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No problems, feel free to discuss it.

With polearm gamble you do strike your foe before he closes with you. Actually this is exactly the point of my thread:

A polearm does the same damage as an other weapon, but its reach will make your combat flavourful and versatile in some circumstances, which is a direct result of your weapon choice.

Only because monk attacks usually don´t have powers with range weapon, it doesn´t mean that there could be a class which usually has powers that target AC, uses the proficiency bonus, have range: weapon (melee or ranged) but do a fixed amount of damage. (Which were available in the playtest monk IIRC but are too confusing in the current framework of the game)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

With polearm gamble you do strike your foe before he closes with you.

To me it seems like:
1) you're burning a feat for what should be an inherent benefit of using a polearm weapon, getting an AoO at a bit of a remove from your personal space.

2) it still doesn't let you use it with your powers.

Only because monk attacks usually don´t have powers with range weapon, it doesn´t mean that there could be a class which usually has powers that target AC, uses the proficiency bonus, have range: weapon (melee or ranged) but do a fixed amount of damage. (Which were available in the playtest monk IIRC but are too confusing in the current framework of the game)

While better, I also don't care for the fixed damage thing either. Again, i understand the rationale- I just don't agree with it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1) don´t really disagree here...

2) you can´t use powers fo AoOs, irrelevant that it doesn´twork with your powers in this context

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

2) you can´t use powers fo AoOs, irrelevant that it doesn´twork with your powers in this context

No, not irrelevant.

Like I pointed out, in previous editions of the game (and in many other games), if you had a power that worked with your weapon, it worked regardless of whether it was a standard attack, an opportunity attack or what have you.

The on/off nature of the powers working with weapons simply leaves me cold.

 

[keterys]

If you dislike a basic design tenet of 4E (ie, that you have powers you can use that do different things, some of which have to happen on your turn) - though one addressed by the new martial Essentials builds at least - I don't think the fact that you also dislike one of the solutions offered by the monk is really that big a blip on the radar.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, that wasn't the point of my initial post. My only concern was that the 4Ed monk's design is different enough that some people might not be as enamored of it as the OP is, and so should probably do a quick poll of his game group before he does a huge amount of work on something that may not be well received.

I have NO idea as to the percentage of people playing the game might feel as I do, I'm just assuming that I'm not the only one. If one or more are in the OP's group, he may not like their reactions after he spends weeks or months getting his [W]-less classes all worked out.