Is Brute Strike extra-sad?

[Verision]

Brute Strike is down right emo. So is Metor Strike; he got nerfed so bad that even the cleric laughs at him.

 

[renau1g]

What my group is finding having played 4e for a couple of months now is that most of the powers are very similar to each other with perhaps one or two small differences. Sure the flavor text is nice but mechanically a wizard firing a magic missile, a ranger firing a bow, and a warlock using an eldritch blast all "feel" very similar. Sure the damage is slightly different, and there are a few slight other differences, but all in all they all "feel" similar.

Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing - They are mechanically balanced so that one character is not way more powerful than the next. That's good. It was something a cople of my players pointed out that playing a wizard and firing magic missiles does not feel special, or very wizardy, compared to a ranger firing off arrows.

My response was that instead of focusing on the mechanics, they should focus on the flavor. Describe the actions with flovor words rather than using numbers and mechanics, and the feeling should be different. That goes for any of the classes, be it fighter and paladin, ranger and rogue or wizard and warlock.

My thoughts are that it's always been like this. The sword hits the enemy with his enchanted blade, or the wizard hits with a magic attack, they're all the same just different. Maybe that's just me, but I never found them to be that different, except the unbalanced part.

 

[rushlight]

What my group is finding having played 4e for a couple of months now is that most of the powers are very similar to each other with perhaps one or two small differences. Sure the flavor text is nice but mechanically a wizard firing a magic missile, a ranger firing a bow, and a warlock using an eldritch blast all "feel" very similar. Sure the damage is slightly different, and there are a few slight other differences, but all in all they all "feel" similar.

I'd ask why they see some big difference between the wizard rolling to hit with his Acid Arrow then rolling damage vs the ranger rolling to hit with his regular arrow then rolling damage back in 3e. Since the first edition of Chainmail, the only thing that really seperated attacks was flavor text. Every attack is: 1) Roll to hit, 2) Roll damage. Sometimes you got to skip step 1. There is *FAR* more variance in the way characters perform now than in older editions. There's choices, and options. Sure, as a fighter in previous editions you had a wide array of options, including: swing weapon, and... NOT swing weapon. With one or two small differences, we now have a wide variety of effects. Sure, the classics are still there (i.e., To Swing, or Not To Swing), but now you can simultaniously apply a penalty, force a move, heal a buddy, improve your position, or many other things.

Besides, you could always be accomdating, and revert to an older edition "feel" by just replacing everyone's powers with a roll to hit and some damage!

 

[Runestar]

Wasn't that the case with the set of illusion spells? Apart from the flavour (which I admit the designers clearly put a lot of effort into trying to distinguish them from existing spells), they basically seemed like minor variations of existing wizard spells. Switch the defense it targets, adjust the damage type and voila...a new spell?

 

[Stalker0]

I'd ask why they see some big difference between the wizard rolling to hit with his Acid Arrow then rolling damage vs the ranger rolling to hit with his regular arrow then rolling damage back in 3e.

Acid Arrow did more damage...but you had far fewer of them then you had arrows.

I can agree that some at-will abilities can look similar across classes...mainly because the limited use "variable" has been taken out of the equation. Still, I think as you include the encounter and daily powers you start to see each class coming into its own.

 

[Stalker0]

To really look at brute strike, consider a THW, as that is where the extra W really comes into play. An extra 2d6 damage is pretty nice.

Villian's Menace is by far a better power on solo creatures, but how often will a fighter be fighting big creature's is always a campaign question. If the fighter is fighting lesser creatures, the extra damage from brute strike may be better.

I think VM is a more fun power all around, but I could see some brute strike use from a dedicated two hander.

 

[habaal]

When I'm building a character such as a fighter, first I'd think if a power works well with his role, and than I'll consider strongly against dull powers that lack that extra kick, like Brute Strike. Sure, it's balanced, But Man is it boring compared to the alternatives, all of which help make the fighter a real Defender, not just an ape with a bad attitude. For apes we sure will get Barbarians.