New Class Features in the DDI: Martial Powers Spoilers

[Mengu]

They are all speculation, guesses, and gut feelings. No hard evidence really.

I'm not sure if I understand where your predictions come from...Why would Battlerager Vigor be two abilities that replace three? I could see it replacing weapon talent and Combat Superiority, but also taking out combat challenge seems a bit much.

I felt it would be easier to say Battleragers don't get fighter features, instead they get these two Battlerager features. It might be confusing to use some fighter features but not all of them.

I think the Beast interaction will function like figurines of wondrous power and bags of tricks. Minor action to issue commands, but the creature cannot exceed the maximum number of actions it would normally have. I think that having it work in that fashion for magical items in AV would make it cumbersome to have a different mechanic for rangers.

From a design standpoint, I think it's more important to get the class balance right, than to make it similar mechanics to a bag of tricks. Most any attacks from the beast companion should be tied to powers, just like any other class (or any other ranger build).

How is Ruthless Ruffian not a good looking option? It might be a build, or it could be a weapon talent alternative. Who knows? Either way, it opens up new weapons available to the rogue and for multiclass characters this could be useful. I mean, why does it not look like a good option from the looks of it?

Brutal scoundrels get their strength bonus to damage for every sneak attack. Ruthless Ruffians get it only when they use a power that has the rattling keyword. It just seems Brutal scoundrel damage will come into play more often. But we can't know for sure until we know more about rattling.

 

[That One Guy]

Thank you for explaining.

I felt it would be easier to say Battleragers don't get fighter features, instead they get these two Battlerager features. It might be confusing to use some fighter features but not all of them.

It might make it more complicated. I would prefer the option of customization, but I'll be pretty happy with however it turns out.

From a design standpoint, I think it's more important to get the class balance right, than to make it similar mechanics to a bag of tricks. Most any attacks from the beast companion should be tied to powers, just like any other class (or any other ranger build).

I agree that they will have powers for taking advantage of their companion. But, I think it will function more like the figurines because unless those powers are really good... one may prefer to create a ranger who just uses a figurine to back them up. A similar problem would be, "What if a ranger uses a companion and figurine?"

Brutal scoundrels get their strength bonus to damage for every sneak attack. Ruthless Ruffians get it only when they use a power that has the rattling keyword. It just seems Brutal scoundrel damage will come into play more often. But we can't know for sure until we know more about rattling.

That's true. I would imagine an @will w/ the rattling keyword, but if there is not... then yeah, brutal scoundrel might end being better. I'm pretty eager to find out.

 

[Mengu]

It might make it more complicated. I would prefer the option of customization, but I'll be pretty happy with however it turns out.

Looking at the latest preview, I think they may indeed be giving it as an option of custimization. However, this is not a very good approach because it would prompt people to pick the more powerful options in the long run. For instance, if people could pick, how many fighters would actually pick Combat Superiority, which comes into play much less than once per day of adventuring, over Battlerager Vigor, which comes into play every time the fighter is hit in melee or with a close attack?

On another note, it looks like they edited out the DDI content for the new builds.

 

[Stalker0]

For instance, if people could pick, how many fighters would actually pick Combat Superiority, which comes into play much less than once per day of adventuring, over Battlerager Vigor, which comes into play every time the fighter is hit in melee or with a close attack?

I have to agree here...I think I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Staffan]

Looking at the latest preview, I think they may indeed be giving it as an option of custimization. However, this is not a very good approach because it would prompt people to pick the more powerful options in the long run. For instance, if people could pick, how many fighters would actually pick Combat Superiority, which comes into play much less than once per day of adventuring, over Battlerager Vigor, which comes into play every time the fighter is hit in melee or with a close attack?

I'm pretty sure it's not "choose two of these abilities: One-hander attack bonus, Two-hander attack bonus, Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority, Tempest fighter, or Battlerage Vigor". It's more likely to be "choose one from menu A, and one from menu B." So Battlerage Vigor would perhaps replace the attack bonus fighters normally get.

Or it's written in a way similar to the substitution levels seen in various 3.5e books, where an alternate ability states which normal ability it replaces.

 

[Mengu]

I'm pretty sure it's not "choose two of these abilities: One-hander attack bonus, Two-hander attack bonus, Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority, Tempest fighter, or Battlerage Vigor". It's more likely to be "choose one from menu A, and one from menu B." So Battlerage Vigor would perhaps replace the attack bonus fighters normally get.

I'm hoping for either that, or more of a straightjacket. If you pay close attention to the wording it says two new alternate class features. Currently there are 3 fighter class features, Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority, and Fighter Weapon Talent. I just don't want to see any of these features become obsolete.

 

[PHGraves]

I just have a serious issue with stuff being added to the Compendium before its actual release. Some of this has been appearing/disappearing since July.

I thought that the Compendium was supposed to be an online repository for current rules, not a testbed for soon-to-be rules.

 

[James McMurray]

I think they've got two compendiums: one for release and one for playtesters. And every now and then someone accidentally enters playtest data into the release version.

Either that or they're taking advantage of free stealth advertising.