Tempest Fighter makes me happy.

[erf_beto]

Plus, I'm guessing that the tempest fighter probably doesn't get the +1 to either one-handed or two-handed weapons that "normal" fighters get.

This is what I meant, wich PHB fighter class feature(s) you have to give up in order to take Tempest Fighter? It doesn't say anything in the preview but I suppose you trade Fighter Weapon Talent and something else for this build, probably armor/shield/weapon proficiences (so it won't be just a matter of gear selection), since Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority are must-haves.

 

[inati]

At the moment, anyone who takes a 2H weapon fighter over a 1H weapon fighter as the sole defender in the group, is doing the group a disservice. The tiny amount of extra damage he dishes out is off-set by the resources he's going to eat up being kept up because of his lower AC and Reflex defences.

Whereas this 2W fighter variant is quite well balanced. You get a good benefit for what you're losing. I wouldn't begrudge a player who chose this as the party's sole defender. I would, however, be miffed if they chose a 2H fighter.

So, it seems you are saying that if someone who wants to play, for example, a Greataxe Fighter and they were in the same group as you, you would just be "miffed" at them the whole time for not being optimized for the way you envision groups?

I believe that if someone with whom I am playing with wants to play a Great Weapon Fighter, they are more than welcome to! If someone wants to play a non-optimized character for their own reasons, be they roleplay or otherwise, I would encourage it, not consider it "a disservice" to the group. This is a game that we gather to play and enjoy ourselves, with the freedom to be as creative as possible. We are given the tools to create entire worlds, for heaven's sake! It should not be a game where we have to worry that we must conform to the beat of someone else's drum at the table. Especially for such mundane reasons like another person's notion of "optimization," or worse, having someone "miffed" at us.

Naturally, there is a limit to how far 'nonoptimization' should go, but it is easy enough to distinguish between a$$hattery and a genuine reason.

Now, imagine that you have a son who wants to play a halfling fighter who runs around with just a dagger and no shield. He wants to because he has watched a lot of the Lord of the Rings (probably because of you) and loves the hero Frodo. Your son thinks Frodo is a fighter, not a rogue, no matter what you say to him. Would you explain to him, "No Son, halfling fighters suck. Their small size means they won't be able to move around anything bigger than a medium sized creature. Plus, you are running around with just a dagger? That is such a waste of your build! You must play with a shield. I mean, everyone knows, a shield and weapon fighter is the only real fighter in this game. Anything else is just a disservice to the group. You don't want to be a disservice to the group, do you, Son?"

Most people would not say this to their own son. I know I wouldn't. To do so would just, for all intents and purposes, effectively crush his imagination; we have now imposed artificial walls in his mind. Instead of teaching our son to be creative, we have taught him that there are limitations to that creativity. I feel that we should let him live out his fantasy in the way that he sees it, and thereby stretch the limits of that imagination and creativity.

So with this in mind, why would you ever say this to someone else who is using their free time to come and play D&D with you? If it is wrong to impose artificial walls upon the minds our progeny, surely other people should be afforded the same right.

Short version: Greatweapon Fighter is a build in the PHB too.

---

As for this fighter build, I think it's great. A viable build for Fighters who have always wanted to dual wield and wear light armor; which it seems there is considerable interest already. Fantastic!

And now, maybe those damn light blade/high dex fighter powers will actually see the light of day. (Armor-Piercing Thrust or Rain of Blows for example.)

 

[Kzach]

So, it seems you are saying that if someone who wants to play, for example, a Greataxe Fighter and they were in the same group as you, you would just be "miffed" at them the whole time for not being optimized for the way you envision groups?

I don't see what the problem is.

I consider everyone at the table when making up my character. I don't selfishly make whatever character I want just to suit my own needs and wants.

The fact is, if you are the sole defender in your group, then you have a responsibility as a person outside of the game, to fulfil that role for everyone else at the table. Not doing so affects everyone at the table in a negative fashion, because your character is taking up more resources of the group to do the job he's supposed to do.

Currently, 2HF lose too much and gain too little. That +2 to AC and Reflexes is pretty huge, and I'd expect players with a fighter who are the sole defenders, to also take plate mail as their first feat.

If 2HF did slightly more damage, then things wouldn't be so askew. The balance would be restored by opponents being dropped significantly quicker. And therefore, the fighter player would be fulfilling their role, albeit in a slightly varied manner. They would be a benefit rather than a drain on the group.

It's all very well and good to allow roleplaying to be a primary concern, but that doesn't change how the system works. If your DM doesn't adjust the game for the make-up of the group, then the group is detrimentally affected if the primary roles aren't being fulfilled in an optimised manner.

An unoptimised group will find it difficult to finish modules and get through encounters, slowing the game down and possibly even resulting in dead characters. Whether you like that or not, doesn't change it from being true.

Now that all assumes that the DM doesn't alter the game to cater to the player's group make-up, which most decent DM's will do. However I'm talking about the stock, standard, unaltered system without compensation for suboptimal build choices and group configurations.

 

[Benly]

An unoptimised group will find it difficult to finish modules and get through encounters, slowing the game down and possibly even resulting in dead characters. Whether you like that or not, doesn't change it from being true.

This depends on the assumption that modules are designed to fully-optimized characters. I don't know whether this is true or not, but if Wizards is doing its job decently there should be enough "wiggle room" that the difference between 2HW and S&B fighters isn't a dealbreaker, and the difference between scale and plate almost certainly isn't. Your progress may be somewhat slower or more difficult, but a distinction should be drawn between "doing his job poorly" and "doing his job less well".

 

[deleteme123456]

Why not weapon focus:Light Blade? Not a huge damage bump, but just curious. Also, why not assume more dex focus with the fighter? The ranger will have toughness, but the fighter has a few more surges - and thus longevity in combat.

I guess I'm just trying to understand what your point of view is. Are you arguing for why the two target marking would be over powered? Are you just running numbers for people who want to know? ...I'm confused.

Partly for my own sake, partly for those who want to know, and partly just to see how it does stack up. You're right that at level 1 WF:Light Blade is better by 1 damage if both hit, and then you can pick up TWF later for the extra damage.

So that's 13.5 for the fighter if both hits land, which starts to really close in on the ranger's damage, but I don't think it will stay that way. At level 2, the TWF can pick up TWF for another +1 damage and the ranger can do weapon focus: heavy blades for another +2 damage. At level 4 the ranger can get lethal quarry for another +1 damage. And the ranger's damage goes up significantly at paragon and epic when he gets the extra damage dice for quarry attacks, while the fighter gets no additional boost.

It reminds me a bit of Paladin's divine challenge: 7 radiant damage is a lot at level 1 (if you assume an average monster has about 28-35 HP, this is about 15-20% , but 11 damage isn't much at level 11 (about 10%), and it just gets worse from there).

Since I am fairly generous with allowing new materials into my campaign, I have to review everything for potential power creep. Fortunately you can't retrain class features so I don't have to worry about this for now.

 

[Cadfan]

1. Power creep is inevitable to a certain extent- there are a ton of feats for a ranger to boost damage, but almost none for a two handed weapon fighter. Chances are that the martial power book will add some. This will make them more powerful, eg, power creep. This is going to be true for lots of classes.

2. That sort of power creep isn't necessarily bad.

3. Its also the reason that we can't effectively evaluate the difference between the TWF and the 2HF while including feats. By definition, by the time the TWF is out, the Martial Power book will be out, and the feat situation will drastically change.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

The Tempest fighter build seems especially good for halfling fighters, and other high-Dex fighters. Halflings can't use most non-off-hand weapons anyway, due to their size, so this gives them a big boost in effectiveness. Their high Dex also enables them to get an AC comparable to heavy armor when wearing hide. A halfling can easily start with an 18 Dex, which gives the same AC as scale armor when wearing hide.

 

[That One Guy]

Partly for my own sake, partly for those who want to know, and partly just to see how it does stack up...

Ah, cool! Thanks!

It's all very well and good to allow roleplaying to be a primary concern, but that doesn't change how the system works. If your DM doesn't adjust the game for the make-up of the group, then the group is detrimentally affected if the primary roles aren't being fulfilled in an optimised manner...
Now that all assumes that the DM doesn't alter the game to cater to the player's group make-up, which most decent DM's will do. However I'm talking about the stock, standard, unaltered system without compensation for suboptimal build choices and group configurations.

Fair enough. Not that I was really disagreeing, but I'll throw in that I think your argument is valid.

(I also think that polearms and their gamble are under-rated...)

 

[Kzach]

The Tempest fighter build seems especially good for halfling fighters, and other high-Dex fighters. Halflings can't use most non-off-hand weapons anyway, due to their size, so this gives them a big boost in effectiveness. Their high Dex also enables them to get an AC comparable to heavy armor when wearing hide. A halfling can easily start with an 18 Dex, which gives the same AC as scale armor when wearing hide.

I'd still want to give them an 18 strength though. I find the extra +1 for hitting and damage is just too much to give up, even if it means better worse stats all around.

Having said that, if you were to go a 16 strength, 18 dex model, you could do some really nasty damage when paired up with a rogue. Both of you are going to concentrate a bit more on movement so both of you will be able to work together for prime positioning. Give the fighter the rogue multiclass feat just for that extra bit of damage at the right moment.

Hmm... fighter/rogue tag team halfling warbands. Lethal!

 

[Keenath]

Just a couple random comments.

1) I would expect the 2-weapon fighter to be better at damage than the greatweapon fighter, because he's wearing lighter armor to accomplish that feat. You're trading defense for attack, so I'm not sure I see the problem with that.

2) The 2-weapon guy is going to be dealing a LOT less damage on his AOOs. Maybe not a big deal to you, but just to point out.

3) I hadn't thought about it, but I guess offhand is offhand even for small characters, so yeah -- this is an awesome build for halfling fighters.