My Barbarian envies the Tempest Fighter

[DEFCON 1]

She, not he.

My apologies!

 

[Prestidigitalis]

My apologies!

That's okay. I'm sure that most of the people named "Prestidigitalis" you've met in the past have been men. I think that's probably more common. On my homeworld, Tralfamadore, it's only used by women. Oh, and by sentient canteloupe. Go figure.

 

[Turtlejay]

If I remember high school biology right, canteloupe are just swollen ovaries full of seeds, making them woman *parts*, so the name seems most definitely female.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

If I remember high school biology right, canteloupe are just swollen ovaries full of seeds, making them woman *parts*, so the name seems most definitely female.

Well there you go. I knew there was a reason for it. Our canteloupe are pretty secretive, so the only thing I *really* knew about them was their penchant for shoplifting Star Wars memorabilia. Quite the scandal.

 

[Destil]

Not only that, but I would argue the class has MORE appeal now (at least for me) that it's not just an "I do damage" look but actually as an at-will way to mark multiple foes.

Indeed. I misread this when I first got martial power and played a one shot with a dual axe dwarf, only to become disappointed when I re-read the power later (with a warlord I was marking 3 creatures a round). Now I'd be more than happy to take this again.

 

[Turtlejay]

Indeed. I misread this when I first got martial power and played a one shot with a dual axe dwarf, only to become disappointed when I re-read the power later (with a warlord I was marking 3 creatures a round). Now I'd be more than happy to take this again.

In fact, because of this until the freaking errata came out I thought that how you played it was the correct way. I agree with Herschel, it is a better fighter power this way.

Barbarians have pretty great damage potential. More than that though, they look like a lot of fun to play. Every barbarian I have seen in game has made me jealous that I was not also a barbarian. Cool powers, cool flavor. . .

Isn't that why we play the game?

Jay

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Unfortunately the multi-attack powers also have a tendancy to do something other than "attack for X[W]". Look at just about any level. There are SOME stand-out single-attack status inflicters, but there are plenty of multi attack ones, and vice versa: plenty of single hit pure damage attacks that are severely outclassed by multi-attacks at the same level.

And your point about not dual-wielding as a ranger is a little silly: what you're saying is "if you can't or won't use the powers in question, their power is irrelevant". No stunning revelation there.

 

[DracoSuave]

And your point about not dual-wielding as a ranger is a little silly: what you're saying is "if you can't or won't use the powers in question, their power is irrelevant". No stunning revelation there.

I'm saying such a choice is a valid and meaningful one. It isn't like multi-hit powers are auto-picks for every ranger, far from it. Nor is it the issue that all rangers are disadvantage for having builds that don't maximise those powers.

So it's really: "The power of multihit attacks are not so overpowering that other powers and builds that use them cannot meaningfully contribute to a battle."

That's a big difference that what you claiming I'm saying a tautology.

 

[NotAYakk]

One way of dealing with multi-attack dominance is to consider all damage from a sequence of hits from one attack to be the same hit.

Then apply stacking rules.

So if you attack for 2[W]+Strength with a pair of +3 weapons, and iron armbands of power that grant a +2 item bonus to damage, and both hit, you do:
4[W]+Strength*2+3 (enhancement)+2 (item bonus)
total damage to the target.

Then do a pass to make sure that most damage is typed (or say that untyped bonuses that apply to an attack have a unique type of itself -- ie, it doesn't stack with itself).

I believe that even with this, multi-attack powers on one target have competitive damage output. And attacking multiple targets is very tempting, because you get to apply those damage bonuses more than once.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I believe that even with this, multi-attack powers on one target have competitive damage output. And attacking multiple targets is very tempting, because you get to apply those damage bonuses more than once.

They definately do have competitive damage output. The designers seem to have assumed that a single hit at X*Y[w] is identical to X hits at Y[w], pretty much across the board, so anything which simply brings them closer to that in terms of performance isn't going to leave them stuck in the dirt or anything.

Dracosuave: Your three examples are all "what if the ranger prioritises something over effective offensive powers?". If there was a class that did infinite damage would a players desires to play something with different flavour somehow make it ok to have in the game? No. For the record, I don't think the ranger is so extreme, but it's certainly at the level where it's hard to justify taking anything other than those multi-hit powers.