My Barbarian envies the Tempest Fighter

[Prestidigitalis]

The Barbarian in my head, that is. You see, I'm trying to build a Half-Orc Rageblood Barbarian, and every time I look at the nice damage totals I can achieve, a little tiny corner in the back of my brain (I think it's called the Tempestual Lobe) cries out "Hah! That's nothing compared to what an Iron Armbanded, Bloodclaw Urgroshed, Dwarven Weapon Trained, Dual Striking Tempest Fighter can do."

I know that the Barb can use a Bloodclaw too, and gains a bit back with Rampage and Swift Charge. It also looks like Rages are just a *bit* more powerful on average than fighter stances. But still. The Tempy has a big head start.

Mostly, I want to play the Barb because it looks fun -- charging all over, roaring and snorting, dripping blood. I don't care if the Barb is a *little* behind, but I'd like to think there is something I'm missing; is there?

 

[Mort_Q]

Is that with the new Dual Strike? Cause the errata version doesn't allow you to attack the same target.

 

[Obryn]

Well, keep the recent updates to Dual Strike in mind if you're looking into this. Tempest Fighters' at-will ability to deal massive damage to a single target was substantially nerfed in July. Thank goodness!

-O

 

[Saeviomagy]

Yeah, for a start the new dual strike requires you to split it between two targets.

That said, it's still an issue with the ranger.

In fact every single multiple-attack granting power in the entire game seems to have been balanced around the idea that static bonuses will be insignificant compared to weapon damage, which is basically never ever true.

If you really want to fix things (and thus make roughly 50% of the ranger powers actually viable: currently there are levels where your choice is one attack for 3[w] OR 3 attacks for 1[w] each, which is no choice at all), then you need to limit characters to only getting their damage bonuses on one hit per target per round.

 

[DracoSuave]

Those 'inviable' ranger powers have a tendancy to do other things besides 'attack for 1[W]' however. And also, if you're not two-weapon fighting (Like, say, you don't want to have to redraw your bow every time you need to melee something, or you're a beast master, or you multiclassed into ranger to get the sweet utility dodging feats) then those powers have a lot more upside.

Moar Damage isn't always the key to building a good striker.

 

[Legildur]

More Damage isn't always the key to building a good striker.

Amen to that. I've built my halfling artful dodger Rogue with that in mind and he is a lot of fun and very effective.

 

[Dr_Sage]

Amen to that. I've built my halfling artful dodger Rogue with that in mind and he is a lot of fun and very effective.

I agree.

No offense, but some people are a bit obsessed with the striker/defender/controler/leader roles.

barbarian can do many things a fighter can't (not effectively at least). And in terms of damage i think you should play a barbarian if you enjoy yourself doing massive damage in 1 hit. Its different tham hiting 3 times to do more damage.

Regards!

 

[Destil]

In fact every single multiple-attack granting power in the entire game seems to have been balanced around the idea that static bonuses will be insignificant compared to weapon damage, which is basically never ever true.

If you really want to fix things (and thus make roughly 50% of the ranger powers actually viable: currently there are levels where your choice is one attack for 3[w] OR 3 attacks for 1[w] each, which is no choice at all), then you need to limit characters to only getting their damage bonuses on one hit per target per round.

Banning the armbands of iron power and their ranged equivalent tend to help a lot, too...

 

[On Puget Sound]

Massive single damage is also better against Resist All or Resist Weapon Damage, since the resistance comes off of each attack separately. Don't know that there are a lot of critters out there with those resistances, but anyway....

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I have yet to see a resist all or resist weapon - I don't think 4e has those.

Definitely a good point in 3 or 3.5, though.