PHB 2 power creep

[keterys]

Honestly, remove double weapons and change dual strike so it _only_ works as an attack each on two targets (making it less of a way to deal striker damage and more a way to mark two enemies) and you've solved the Tempest, far as I'm concerned. That's not far to go.

The battlerager just isn't workable with the minion system, nevermind the low damage potential of a startling number of creatures. I'd be a lot happier if you took out invigorating stacking and made it so you only gained temp hp when taking actual damage... that'd make it a lot more viable. That and I'd probably junk Brash Strike

 

[Bayuer]

Battlerager is very overpowered. My player is playing one in my new campaign. He take dwarf, fight with battleaxe and shield (S16,Con18,Wis14) and use Brash Strike with makes +7 to hit and deals 1k10+7 dmg (+9 if he got temp HP). AC 18. He take feat from MP called Dwarf Stoneblood, so every time he is hit with melee or close attack he gains +6 temp HP. It is like DR6/- almost all the time. Yes, he grants Combat Adventage with Brash Strike but he got 6 temp. and after hit he will have this again.

The first hit... dwarf takes DMG --> +6 temp HP. And now he lost almost non HP for entire fight. Of course you can throw at him area and ranged attacks and it will hurt him, but when he fights one on one he's hardly to be damaged.

I don't know what is on other levels, but I think with scalling CON he still will be very strong. Compared to +1 to hit fighter... Nah. No way. BR is much better!

 

[Regicide]

Honestly, remove double weapons and change dual strike so it _only_ works as an attack each on two targets (making it less of a way to deal striker damage and more a way to mark two enemies) and you've solved the Tempest, far as I'm concerned. That's not far to go.

The battlerager just isn't workable with the minion system, nevermind the low damage potential of a startling number of creatures. I'd be a lot happier if you took out invigorating stacking and made it so you only gained temp hp when taking actual damage... that'd make it a lot more viable. That and I'd probably junk Brash Strike

The fact that BRs pretty much ignore half the damage tossed at them is pretty ridiculous and there is no way that WotC didn't see it when they put it in. But it's like trying to hold back a flood. Nerf these for being OP and a year from now you'll have 50 things nerfed and more house rules than core rules. I think you just need to accept the underlying theme of "let the players win." These things only really become a problem when all your players start taking tempests and battleragers. If there are enough OP choices to keep people playing a variety of things, then whatever. Toss harder monsters at them, play modules that are 2 levels "too high" for them etc.

I remember the days of Sword and Fist.

Things are -not- as bad as they were in the early days of 3.0. S&F had more errata for it than any splat out yet.

If you ignore the fact that the first 2 pages of S&F errata is just a standards thing and tagging powers with what type they are and generally doesn't impact play, the amount of errata for it is pretty close to that of AV. Plus for 4E they aren't putting editing mistakes in updates so much/at all like they sometimes did in 3/3.5.

That also begs the question, doesn't AV actually need more errata? It's more a factor of them bothering to do the errata than how much it's needed. Look at Book of Nine Swords, I don't even think they did any errata for it, and it could do with a few pages minimum. You think battlerager is OP, whooo boy, let me tell you some of the crap BoNS partys can pull...

 

[cdrcjsn]

So, arguing that one fighter build is stickier or tougher than another does zip in refuting the assertion that fighter is stickier/tougher than: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden. Now, I haven't seen the Warden in play yet, but I'll vouch that the Fighter is stickier/tougher than the Paladins and Swordmages that I've seen.

That was my initial argument, but we got sidetracked regarding the merits of Battlerage vigor vs PHB1 options.

I've seen a Warden in play in both heroic and paragon levels. They're fine and have a lot more controller options, but the Fighter is still stickier as a defender.

 

[cdrcjsn]

The fact that BRs pretty much ignore half the damage tossed at them is pretty ridiculous

That's the thing. BRV doesn't ignore half the damage thrown at them.

If you build them like a regular fighter, then it's around 3-4 temps per melee/close attack. That doesn't include ranged, area or ongoing damage which are a significant source of damage as you go up in levels.

That for a 5% chance to hit less with your encounter powers and dailies as well as an average reduction in damage of close to 10% (assuming you're hitting about half the time).

It's a trade-off that a lot of people are willing to make.

Then again, a lot of people still underestimate the benefits of a bonus to hit. For me though, there are a lot of ways to gain hit points in this game. Not as many ways to gain a bonus to hit, and I absolutely hate missing with my dailies.

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but how is one basic fighter build any less a basic fighter build than another? Simply because they appear in different official sourcebooks? 1-handed, 2-handed, BRV, Tempest -- they're all basic fighters.

I understood the statement "Basic fighter is still the stickiest/toughest defender there is" to be referring to the Fighter class, which now has four builds, in comparison to the other defender classes. Not being the one who made the statement, I can't be 100% sure that's what was meant, but that's how I took it.

We are discussing PHB II vs. PHB I. If what you say is true, he would have pointed it out himself. He has now indicated (in a later post now that you have pointed it out) that was his intent all along, but never said so during the actual discussion.

No, he was originally claiming that PHB II Fighters were not better than PHB I Fighters as a refutation to the statement that PHB II introduced a lot of power creep. Otherwise, combining all sets of Fighter builds does nothing to refute what he was trying to refute.

 

[Regicide]

That's the thing. BRV doesn't ignore half the damage thrown at them.

If you build them like a regular fighter, then it's around 3-4 temps per melee/close attack. That doesn't include ranged, area or ongoing damage which are a significant source of damage as you go up in levels.

3-4 at first without using any invigorating attacks or feats. Often they end up ignoring more than half the damage thrown at them.

That for a 5% chance to hit less with your encounter powers and dailies as well as an average reduction in damage of close to 10% (assuming you're hitting about half the time).

You're not factoring in their bonus damage, which with mighty feat is +4 per hit by epic, or a possible 8 extra damage per round on dual strike. The +1 to hit is still better, but they're not there to be the top damage dealers, defenders are there to mitigate incoming damage and let the rest of the party go about dealing it.

 

[jasin]

Then again, a lot of people still underestimate the benefits of a bonus to hit. For me though, there are a lot of ways to gain hit points in this game.

After every melee hit?

Not as many ways to gain a bonus to hit, and I absolutely hate missing with my dailies.

+1 to hit is worth about a feat, less at higher tiers.

 

[keterys]

Only true if you could get Expertise multiple times in some stacking manner. Once you assume everyone has it, it's worth a bit more

 

[Dan'L]

We are discussing PHB II vs. PHB I. If what you say is true, he would have pointed it out himself. He has now indicated (in a later post now that you have pointed it out) that was his intent all along, but never said so during the actual discussion.

Point of fact, he did. It was in the very words he used. Just because you did not read them clearly, doesn't mean he needed to to state it separately. And just because he followed your redirection of the converstaion to discuss the separate issue of power creep within the Fighter class doesn't mean his original statement is any less correct.

No, he was originally claiming that PHB II Fighters were not better than PHB I Fighters as a refutation to the statement that PHB II introduced a lot of power creep. Otherwise, combining all sets of Fighter builds does nothing to refute what he was trying to refute.

Okay, now you're getting off again.

1) There are no PHB II Fighters. No one here, therefore, can have been making any claims about them. There are two fighter class builds in the MP book, but discussing these builds does nothing to address issues of power creep from PHB II, only perhaps power creep from MP.

2) If you read his statement, he very clearly is comparing Defender classes, not class builds of the Fighter class. He was claiming that Fighters were stickier/tougher than other Defender classes, as I pointed out and he confirmed. You misunderstood him; nothing wrong with that.

3) Therefore, if you take the Fighter class as it existed before PHB II's release, examine it as fulfilling the Defender's role vis-a-vis stickyness & toughness, you will find that the PHB II did nothing to upset the Fighter class' ability to be the stickiest/toughest defender. So, in this one respect at least, PHB II did not increase the stakes.

...

Now, the separate discussion about Fighter builds from MP v. PHB I is bound to be an internet grumbling from here until 5th Edition. Power creep? Only time & playing will truly tell.

-Dan'L