D&D 4E Martial classes

[HammerMan]

in another thread someone said the best part of 4e (or at least one of them) is that with 4 martial 2 divine 2 arcane classes in the PHB it set the stage for Martial Heroes to take the for front...

Now through out the edition we got avenger, invoker, swordmage, bard and as such the arcane and divine got up to 4, and even primal, and psionic (and shadow) power sources. so Martial didn't stay the biggest amount of classes, and they never got a true controller (a role i feel needed more thought anyway). However I did always through out the edition feel Martial heroes (Beuwolf to batman) got the best coverage and had the most representation in 4e over any other edition of D&D.

How do you feel?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Only martial power got a second source book during the pre-Essentials run...

Martial wins.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sadly, I think a martial controller (a Gladiator with a net or an Indiana Jones type with a whip - lots of dragging monsters around, knocking them prone, disarming, and locking them down) would have been awesome.

But they didn't want to be too obvious about "ticking all the boxes" in spite of doing exactly that everywhere else (and with less inspiration in many cases).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Its was so nice being able to play the character type I want with the level of mechanical interest I enjoy. I hate that martials have historically and ongoingly been shackled and brainboxed to the 'simple' classes where you're a damage dump or a tank and that's that. And the Battlemaster seems to be there just to mock the very idea like tinker gnomes to technology in Fantasy.

 

[Lord Shark]

One of the things I liked most about 4E is that, through feats and powers, they made weapon choice actually matter. Instead of just "this one does d4 piercing, this one does d8 bashing," different weapon types had different applications -- spears and polearms were better for tripping and pushing, axes got to reroll damage, swords were better for opportunity attacks, hammers could daze or stun, etc. As you built up your character, you were essentially building an unique fighting style, instead of just spamming one trick every round.

I played a tempest fighter with two scourges who scooted around the battlefield tripping and pulling enemies all over the place, a greataxe fighter who would plant himself in place and shrug off hits, and a brawler fighter whose specialty was latching onto an opponent with one hand and beating their face in with the other.

(This, incidentally, is why I'm always amazed when people say 4E classes were "samey." Those characters were all built on the same class, and they all felt very different to me in play. And that's not even getting into non-fighter weapon wielders, like wardens, warlords, and monks...)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One of the things I liked most about 4E is that, through feats and powers, they made weapon choice actually matter. Instead of just "this one does d4 piercing, this one does d8 bashing," different weapon types had different applications -- spears and polearms were better for tripping and pushing, axes got better crits, swords were better for opportunity attacks, hammers could daze or stun, etc. As you built up your character, you were essentially building an unique fighting style, instead of just spamming one trick every round.

I played a tempest fighter with two scourges who scooted around the battlefield tripping and pulling enemies all over the place, a greataxe fighter who would plant himself in place and shrug off hits, and a brawler fighter whose specialty was latching onto an opponent with one hand and beating their face in with the other.

(This, incidentally, is why I'm always amazed when people say 4E classes were "samey." Those characters were all built on the same class, and they all felt very different to me in play. And that's not even getting into non-fighter weapon wielders, like wardens, warlords, and monks...)

That's because what they meant by "samey" is that the martials and casters both had the same economy. They only "valid" part of that criticism, in my mind, is that nearly every class had a power that did the same thing (say a close blast that did x damage and push) while the only thing different was the fluff. I mean, I get it, but it didn't bother me much.

Cool characters, BTW.

 

[Garthanos]

in another thread someone said the best part of 4e (or at least one of them) is that with 4 martial 2 divine 2 arcane classes in the PHB it set the stage for Martial Heroes to take the for front...

Now through out the edition we got avenger, invoker, swordmage, bard and as such the arcane and divine got up to 4, and even primal, and psionic (and shadow) power sources. so Martial didn't stay the biggest amount of classes, and they never got a true controller (a role i feel needed more thought anyway). However I did always through out the edition feel Martial heroes (Beuwolf to batman) got the best coverage and had the most representation in 4e over any other edition of D&D.

How do you feel?

We did get a Martial Power 2 but no arcane power 2 nor a divine power 2.

The monk could have made a great martial controller and really is only a minor distance from it in my opinion and they could have made it multi-class well with a mystic to handle things like the fire benders and dragon ball z ranged chi blast elements and the like.

There is an on-going argument that the defender is really just a style of short ranged controller

 

[HammerMan]

One of the things I liked most about 4E is that, through feats and powers, they made weapon choice actually matter. Instead of just "this one does d4 piercing, this one does d8 bashing," different weapon types had different applications -- spears and polearms were better for tripping and pushing, axes got better crits, swords were better for opportunity attacks, hammers could daze or stun, etc. As you built up your character, you were essentially building an unique fighting style, instead of just spamming one trick every round.

I agree and even though I know the Damage on a miss stuff got a bad wrap here, I loved the one that let my dwarf fighter deal his con mod damage when he missed with an attack

 

[Vaalingrade]

I agree and even though I know the Damage on a miss stuff got a bad wrap here, I loved the one that let my dwarf fighter deal his con mod damage when he missed with an attack

Ugh. There were so many great mechanics and concepts that got slandered due to dumb semantics. Like how very few thing were straight immune to effect because there were fluff alternative, like 'tripping' an ooze by scrambling it.

 

[Garthanos]

4e actually kept up the One Man Army role for the fighter. In 1e the fighter at 20th level could manage 20 attacks against a bunch of mooks in a round... it was a nod to the "one man army" which was mentioned in flavor text of Chainmail for the high "level" superhero. In 4e that element was dependent on selection of powers but there are ones that really do let one become a minion mower.

edit: for example "Rain of Steel", level 5 right in the player's handbook definitely captures some of that feel.