L4W Discussion Thread III

[Don Incognito]

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Puts them well out of reach for the PCs.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I just thought of a kind of synergy between the bard and avenger. Censure/bond of retribution+ misdirected mark on a non-oath target. Either the marked creature takes a penalty to his attacks, or follows the mark and screws his buddy Avengers can be remarkably durable for strikers, as well, especially with a couple of feats, so making them mark a monster isn't necessarily a bad idea.

 

[Atanatotatos]

Tactical warlords are awesome. Completely.

That said, I played around with a tiefling bard in the Character Builder using the preview info on the bard, and it looks really cool. And the idea of having 18s in Charisma and Int, leading from afar with shield and wand, hindering enemies as well as aiding allies, having superfantastic skills, and being able to effectively multiclass into warlock AND wizard is very appealing.

...and I'm drooling. I'll definitely play one. I will cast a suggestion on you all judges and make you approve third characters as soon as PHB2 stuff is approved
I also wanted your informed opinion (I'm pretty sure you thought about it too when you were building Thandorin) about which weapon to use. At first I went "Oh yeah, Eladrin soldier for that awesome Greatspear at first level!!"
But then I thought: yeah, but then, I won't flank. And I'm pretty much building Adarai to let others attack, with awesome bonuses. So giving up that combat advantage for reach and some damage doesn't feel right. So now I'm giving him a plain longsword and Toughness at first level instead.
What do you think?
(damn, I hope I get into a damn well efficient party or this character will be frustrating as hell! )

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Huh ... I didn't know that you couldn't flank with reach, but apparently you do have to be adjacent to count for flanking. Iiinteresting. Reach really isn't the advantage it was in 3.x.

I'm interested now what your weapon choice will be. Though the greatspear is a step up in damage from both the longsword and spear, which might be worth it. Depends what you want, though - if you want more defense, sword/spear and shield would be better.

 

[CaBaNa]

where does it say you MUST take advantage of reach? when it's convenient to flank, do it, when it's not, use reach...

 

[Atanatotatos]

I know, but what's the point? My powers of choice are: Wolf pack's tactics, Commander's strike, Warlord's favor, Lead the attack. All powers that rely almost exclusively on your allies. So you want them to hit as likely as possible. Which means I'll want to flank, or set up a flank, practically all the time. So if I'm not benefitting from reach, doesn't it serve me better to have a shield and five more hit points? I think I'll go sword and shield. (If I get in a group with a double-wielding ranger...I don't even want to imagine the average damage).
Btw, reach does get its advantages, but quite later on, when you have access to paragon paths that give you threatening reach in one way or another. And reach in general is good anyway. Bu a tactical warlord's job is to give bonus to the more damaging allies' attacks. And flaning is too easy and good to skip. IMHO.

 

[CaBaNa]

I know, but what's the point? My powers of choice are: Wolf pack's tactics, Commander's strike, Warlord's favor, Lead the attack. All powers that rely almost exclusively on your allies. So you want them to hit as likely as possible. Which means I'll want to flank, or set up a flank, practically all the time. So if I'm not benefitting from reach, doesn't it serve me better to have a shield and five more hit points? I think I'll go sword and shield. (If I get in a group with a double-wielding ranger...I don't even want to imagine the average damage).
Btw, reach does get its advantages, but quite later on, when you have access to paragon paths that give you threatening reach in one way or another. And reach in general is good anyway. Bu a tactical warlord's job is to give bonus to the more damaging allies' attacks. And flaning is too easy and good to skip. IMHO.

all well made points.

 

[SeaPainter]

I know that this is a little (alright, a lot) delayed, and kinda out of no where... but is anybody else disappointed by how lame WOTC made the Beastmaster Ranger?

I was really looking forward to making a character with a pet (and I'll probably try to make one anyway), but there doesn't seem to be much benefit in taking that option. Yeah, there are a couple treats later on, but it doesn't seem like enough to justify taking this path. Any thoughts?

 

[Atanatotatos]

Uhmmm... I wouldn't say it's a worthless option. It requires quite some thought to work, though. But that also makes it more interesting than the archer and the two-weapons rangers. I find them very boring, actually: position, outdamage everything in the game, reposition, repeat... meh.
You can do quite a few things with a beastmaster, but you need to think more tactically than you normally do with a striker.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I think the beastmaster ranger could be quite useful, in fact. When I saw them I had this incredible urge to build a White Lion (from Warhammer - elves who tame lions as battle companions and use big freakin axes ).