Lack of Symmetry in Martial Power

[half-dragon dragon]

The only place I would have liked to see more symmetry is the new build/class features given to each of the classes. At the very least I would have really liked to see a single weapon (one- or two-handed) style for the ranger.

 

[DracoSuave]

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.

Well, yes it does do more damage, and is more accurate. However, I would like to point out, that taking -2 to your defenses for a turn at the same time as you grant the entire party a +2 to -their- defenses is an incentive to attack you. It's like doubling the effectiveness of marking in terms of pulling attention on to you.

-That- is how it makes them more likely to attack you.

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.

Well that's easily done, just drop prone. But giving someone an at-will that does decent damage, is accurate, AND encourages attacks against you, at the risk of CA-triggered monster powers hurting you hard? That's a fighter power, through and through.

The power is a striker power through and through.

Strikers want to -avoid- being hit.

Here's the party dynamic:

Defenders take more hits.
Strikers avoid more hits.

That's how the roles are designed. Striker is not just 'deal damage.' It's 'deal damage where the enemy does not want it dealt, while avoiding the brunt of their assault.'

Defenders on the other hand aren't just 'mark enemies.' It's 'Deal with hard targets so that the other characters can do their jobs with less harassment.' Fighters do this through damage dealing, damage mitigation, and risk mitigation for the rest of the party. Brash qualifies as damage dealing + risk mitigation for the rest of the party. It's the fighter analogue to enfeebling strike.

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

No fighter power makes the fighter more likely to be targetted than other party members. If you see one that either increases the party member's AC beyond marking, or decreases the fighter's AC, then I'll recognize it.

 

[jasin]

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).

What powers are these?

 

[eamon]

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?

The symmetry never existed. Certain builds had more useful powers to choose from than others, simply since many at-wills make no sense for certain builds.

For instance, a two-handed fighter really had only two options; sure strike is worthless, and tide of iron unavailable. A ranger wouldn't bother taking careful attack, and nimble strike is no good for melee. Many builds had only two at wills that were reasonable, and thus had no choice. Warlocks had prescribed at-wills. Wizards had many. Some cleric build had 4 choices, others two (and similar for paladins). Rogues+warlords generally had 3 choices.

This symmetry never existed.

 

[eamon]

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.

This, I agree with completely. I think a fighter is at a reasonable number now, and a wizard already was. Rogues are fine too. A ranger is still pretty restricted, not so much because 6 at-will's are too few, but because one just plain isn't any good, and there's very little overlap in the rest; your basic build choice (ranged/two-weapon/beast) almost entirely determines your choices. The warlord's new choices aren't worthwhile.

Ranger and warlord are still fine classes, but their at-will selection is boring - there's little choice. On the other hand, the ranger at least has truly dramatically different paths.

 

[Keenath]

The PHB had a mandate to fill out power lists for all classes at all levels. Any book that introduces a class HAS to do that, just so the class is actually playable. An expansion book doesn't have that requirement, so it's more free to focus on interesting concepts and drop them in at levels appropriate to their power.

I don't think a lack of symmetry is a problem at all; quite the contrary. It means nothing's being shoehorned into a slot it's poorly suited for, and there's no (or little) motivation to release second-rate material just to fill out the levels.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I don't think there was 'forced' symmetry in the PHB at all. Most classes had the same amount of powers at each level to choose from. I think that many of the extra powers that will be in the 'whatever' power splatbooks have been around for a while. It would have been space that forced 'symmetry' not a design goal. IMO the designers went through their lists of powers and choose about the same number for each class at each level so it would fit in the book.