Lack of Symmetry in Martial Power

[AnthonyRoberson]

I don't know if anyone else has posted about this but I noticed that there is a remarkable lack of symmetry in the powers in Martial Power. Unlike the Player's Handbook, which has nearly the same number of powers at each level for each class, Martial Power does not seem to follow any pattern. Some classes get new 2nd level At-Wills and others do not, etc. Has anyone else noticed this? I wonder if this departure from forced symmetry represents any shift in thinking among the design staff. Any ideas?

 

[Mengu]

I'm rather glad for this approach actually. Trying to artificially enforce symmetry can put the designers in a bind, and they may feel obligated to release something they are not entirely happy with. The seemingly haphazard approach to class builds and number of powers for each class makes it so they don't have to worry too much about cutting out a power they don't like, or adding an extra power they really do like.

There is always dragon magazine to make up for anything they feel they missed out on, or didn't have enough time to test before a book comes out.

 

[fba827]

In general, I do like symmetry in power choices. However, if that symmetry means that poorly-written/concieved choices end up being used for lack of better ideas to fill a void in some quota, then I am glad it's not there.

As long as we're not talking about some class having at least a couple choices at each level (which allows for variety, taste, and focus), then we're good.

 

[logopolis]

I'm rather glad for this approach actually. Trying to artificially enforce symmetry can put the designers in a bind, and they may feel obligated to release something they are not entirely happy with.

I like it, too. I found that with some of the powers in the PHB, there wasn't enough differentiation between classes. The powers in Martial Power help in making the martial classes more unique, and IMO more fun.

Hopefully the Arcane Power and Divine Power books next year will be equally successful for other classes, too.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not to mention, each role has differing amounts of space or holes for abilities that fulfill its flavor or role.

Rogues only got one at-will because they already have their at-will flavor well established, they have the punishing attack, the mobile attack, the precise attack, and the high damage attack. Not many holes in there for a striker, so that left the 'new rogue tactics' attack.

Leader, and Defender, on the other hand are much 'deeper' roles in terms of what you can slot in there. So of course Warlord (Probably one of the deepest wells to plunge into for design space, being a Leader with a new schtick) got a lot of powers compared to Rangers, who mostly got Beastmaster stuff.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not to mention, each role has differing amounts of space or holes for abilities that fulfill its flavor or role.

Rogues only got one at-will because they already have their at-will flavor well established, they have the punishing attack, the mobile attack, the precise attack, and the high damage attack. Not many holes in there for a striker, so that left the 'new rogue tactics' attack.

Leader, and Defender, on the other hand are much 'deeper' roles in terms of what you can slot in there. So of course Warlord (Probably one of the deepest wells to plunge into for design space, being a Leader with a new schtick) got a lot of powers compared to Rangers, who mostly got Beastmaster stuff.

One of the warlord powers is directly dependant on the relative statistical abilities of the DM and player, which makes it a pretty bad mechanic. Another is pretty widely recognised as awful. Of the fighter powers, one is a controller/leader/striker power (it moves foes, sets up allies for better attacks and increases battlefield maneuverability) and two are pure striker (ie - they exist solely to cause more damage).

In other words, while we might attribute the lack of new rogue and ranger at-will powers to savvy design, I really don't think the same can be said for the plethora of warlord and warrior at-will powers.

Additionally, your categories of "what rogue at wills do" are pretty broad, given what powers actually exist. The list is more like "the punishing attack that only works for brutal scoundrels in melee, the accurate attack that only works in melee, the mobile attack and the high damage attack that only works for artful dodgers". I'd say that leaves some pretty big niches that are unfilled.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't need there to be teh same number of at-wills, though I would have preferred a few more in general. At-wills are one of the principal ways to define your character, and more of them grants more variety.

 

[DracoSuave]

One of the warlord powers is directly dependant on the relative statistical abilities of the DM and player, which makes it a pretty bad mechanic. Another is pretty widely recognised as awful. Of the fighter powers, one is a controller/leader/striker power (it moves foes, sets up allies for better attacks and increases battlefield maneuverability) and two are pure striker (ie - they exist solely to cause more damage).

Opening Shove is not terrible by any means. So what if it doesn't deal damage off the hit? Shifting a large number of squares AND pushing the target is a powerful effect. Of course you won't be using it -every- round. That's why you have a second at-will.

One of those 'pure striker' powers exists as a way to encourage them to hit you. Which is a purely defender thing to do. And it certainly is 'Fighter'-y to have heavy hitting attacks.

In other words, while we might attribute the lack of new rogue and ranger at-will powers to savvy design, I really don't think the same can be said for the plethora of warlord and warrior at-will powers.

I'm just saying that Strikers don't need to go as nuts with their at-wills. Their role is mobile damage. At-wills for Strikers, to fit this role, can be about mobility, straight damage dealing, or discouraging the opponent from attacking you. Rogues have those holes filled-the only thing I would have liked to see is a ranger at-will that discouraged them from attacking you. But it's not like there's a 100 different ways to 'do moar damage.'

Compare that to Leaders and Defenders where their tools are a lot more varied do to the less focused ways they can do their job.

Additionally, your categories of "what rogue at wills do" are pretty broad, given what powers actually exist. The list is more like "the punishing attack that only works for brutal scoundrels in melee, the accurate attack that only works in melee, the mobile attack and the high damage attack that only works for artful dodgers". I'd say that leaves some pretty big niches that are unfilled.

I'm not saying there aren't openings, but all in all, there are more openings in a Defender and Leader's arsenal than there are for Strikers.

 

[Mr. Teapot]

Some classes get new 2nd level At-Wills and others do not, etc.

This is the case in the PHB, too: Rogues and Clerics have At-Will Utility powers, other classes don't (until Martial Power). The powers in Martial Power still follow the same pattern as the PHB: all level 2 powers are Utility, all level 3 are per encounter attacks, there are no level 4 powers, level five has daily attacks, then we're back to Utilitis at level 6, etc. Utilities have always had the option of being Daily, Encounter, or At-Will.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Opening Shove is not terrible by any means. So what if it doesn't deal damage off the hit? Shifting a large number of squares AND pushing the target is a powerful effect. Of course you won't be using it -every- round. That's why you have a second at-will.

Having read opening shove: yeah, it's a good power. So thats one good power for warlords, and one power that's a game dependant timmy card.

One of those 'pure striker' powers exists as a way to encourage them to hit you. Which is a purely defender thing to do. And it certainly is 'Fighter'-y to have heavy hitting attacks.

Ok, explain the human feat that adds +2 damage to a sneak attack in exchange for granting CA against you then?

I see (and have seen) the power as primarily being used by people who simply don't care that they're granting CA, and want to cause more damage. ie - the completely broken battle rager.

I don't see any fighter actually using it to encourage foes to come after him, and it's hardly something that needs a new power: I doubt that any DM would actually deny the request of a player who wished to voluntarily grant his foes combat advantage.

The power is a striker power through and through.

I'm just saying that Strikers don't need to go as nuts with their at-wills. Their role is mobile damage. At-wills for Strikers, to fit this role, can be about mobility, straight damage dealing, or discouraging the opponent from attacking you. Rogues have those holes filled-the only thing I would have liked to see is a ranger at-will that discouraged them from attacking you. But it's not like there's a 100 different ways to 'do moar damage.'

Funny. That's exactly what the fighter powers are doing.