Unhappy with my fighter build. Please tell me where I am wrong.

[Fifth Element]

Personally, for what you describe I'd get the 18 in strength and 16 in Con. The extra 2 HP aren't as good as the +1 to hit and damage (or more).

An extra 2 points in Con doesn't just give you 2 more hp (33 vs. 31), it also gives you an extra healing surge per day (13 vs. 12), and your healing surge value is one point higher as well (8 vs. 7). That works out to a maximum of 137 hp per day, compared to 115. Hit points cannot be looked at in isolation from healing surges.

Switching to an axe or hammer does seem like a very good idea, though.

 

[Herschel]

An extra 2 points in Con doesn't just give you 2 more hp (33 vs. 31), it also gives you an extra healing surge per day (13 vs. 12), and your healing surge value is one point higher as well (8 vs. 7). That works out to a maximum of 137 hp per day, compared to 115. Hit points cannot be looked at in isolation from healing surges.

Switching to an axe or hammer does seem like a very good idea, though.

Granted, and it plays more at higher levels, but the better accuracy and somewhat defenses (by being more able to not be flanked and take out flanking minions while still hitting bigger threats) seems to be a better fit. At least from my interpretation of what he says he wants.

 

[Fifth Element]

Granted, and it plays more at higher levels, but the better accuracy and somewhat defenses (by being more able to not be flanked and take out flanking minions while still hitting bigger threats) seems to be a better fit. At least from my interpretation of what he says he wants.

Fair enough, but one of the stated goals was to be able to withstand being surrounded by enemies, and thus the high Con. Just wanted to point out that the 2 points of Con gives more than just 2 hp.

 

[Blackbrrd]

He needs to be a credible threat as well.

 

[Dr_Sage]

So I'm playing a fighter (human) for the first time and it's my 2nd attempt at a 4e character. I've convinced myself that for what I'm trying to do my build is all wrong and I'm a little frustrated with the rules.

I had decided that I wanted to build a guy who would jump in the middle of combat and not be too concerned if he gets surrounded. I gave him an 18 CON to provide hp and just a 16 STR. I made him the traditional longsword & shield fighter.

So after playing him a while, I realize that with Brash Strike, he could be doing 4 more points of damage per hit not to mention that an axe does 1d10 vs the 1d8 a longsword does. Of course, brash strike grants combat advantage to my opponents, but I'm getting flanked all the time anyway, so that's not much disadvantage to me IMO.

Now it seems to me that, for what I'm wanting to do, it's foolish to take longsword instead of battle axe. I'm expecting the rules to provide multiple viable options, but longsword seems like a poor choice despite the fact that it's the fantasy staple.

Can someone tell me if there's a reason I'm missing to stick with the longsword?

You may stick with longsword, but you should use the 1 hand style , with some dexterity and or wisdom.

But if you really wanna be reckless like you said, and with high constinution the most efficient way is going full battlerager (even with a sword).

Something like 18 str and 16 like many people said.

Would be helpfull if you share with us exactly why you are unhappy with the 4ed rules.

 

[ShaneJackson]

Would be helpfull if you share with us exactly why you are unhappy with the 4ed rules.

I'm not unhappy with the rules per se, it's just in this one particular case (a fighter with a really high CON) it seems that to not take an axe and use Brash Strike seems foolish, or, rather, to use a longsword instead of the axe seems foolish. In a game with so many viable choices it just causes a disconnect with me. I was hoping that someone with a better grasp of all the powers and weapons and their interactions could point out to me why longsword could still be viable. To put it another way, it would be clear that a fighter like this using a dagger as a primary weapon would be a bad choice. I just didn't realize that there would be so much difference in using a longsword vs. a battle axe.

As I understand it, granting the combat advantage with Brash Strike is going to cause me to take 10% more damage because I'll be hit 10% more often (not subtracting for the fact that my opponent would sometimes naturally have combat advantage over me). In exchange I'll be doing a little more than 4 extra hit points damage to my foe, although I'll be hitting 5% less often due to the difference in Proficiency bonuses for axe vs. longsword. So, I'll definitely be taking more damage, but my instinct tells me that, with the extra damage, I'll probably take out my foe a round earlier that with the longsword.

As for changing stats, I don't think retraining allows that. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, tho.

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

[ShaneJackson]

The extra proficiency bonus that helps you hit your foes and apply more special effects based on hits with encounter or daily powers especially.

That is a good point that I hadn't thought of and it bears more consideration.

 

[Flipguarder]

I'm not unhappy with the rules per se, it's just in this one particular case (a fighter with a really high CON) it seems that to not take an axe and use Brash Strike seems foolish, or, rather, to use a longsword instead of the axe seems foolish. In a game with so many viable choices it just causes a disconnect with me. I was hoping that someone with a better grasp of all the powers and weapons and their interactions could point out to me why longsword could still be viable. To put it another way, it would be clear that a fighter like this using a dagger as a primary weapon would be a bad choice. I just didn't realize that there would be so much difference in using a longsword vs. a battle axe.

As I understand it, granting the combat advantage with Brash Strike is going to cause me to take 10% more damage because I'll be hit 10% more often (not subtracting for the fact that my opponent would sometimes naturally have combat advantage over me). In exchange I'll be doing a little more than 4 extra hit points damage to my foe, although I'll be hitting 5% less often due to the difference in Proficiency bonuses for axe vs. longsword. So, I'll definitely be taking more damage, but my instinct tells me that, with the extra damage, I'll probably take out my foe a round earlier that with the longsword.

As for changing stats, I don't think retraining allows that. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, tho.

Thanks everyone for your input.

What you have to understand is that most of us in this forum are either min/maxers (people who work hard to make sure their character is as powerful as possible ) or DMs who work with them.

Having a high con fighter who uses a longsword is viable. But it is not maximized. Basically you con is less important because you are not using an axe, mace or hammer, and your dex is more important due to your using a sword. It's not apples to oranges, its not rotten apples to good appples. Its more like a little bit underripe apples to apples, there is a clear winner, but wth its all edible and fairly good.

 

[Klaus]

I think it's a feature of the system that not all weapons are equal. A longsword requires more precision, hence the additional effects based on Dexterity, whereas an axe requires brute force, with additional effects based on Constitution. You're building a "brickhouse" character (Str 16/Con 18) and that's just how he is.

If you want a longsword build, you could choose:
- Single-Handed Weapon Talent + Shield Fighter (Str/Dex/Wis as main stats)
- Two Longsword Ranger (Str/Wis/Dex as main stats)
- Eladrin + Longsword Finesse Rogue (Dex as main stat)

 

[UltimaGabe]

I'm not unhappy with the rules per se, it's just in this one particular case (a fighter with a really high CON) it seems that to not take an axe and use Brash Strike seems foolish, or, rather, to use a longsword instead of the axe seems foolish. In a game with so many viable choices it just causes a disconnect with me. I was hoping that someone with a better grasp of all the powers and weapons and their interactions could point out to me why longsword could still be viable. To put it another way, it would be clear that a fighter like this using a dagger as a primary weapon would be a bad choice. I just didn't realize that there would be so much difference in using a longsword vs. a battle axe.

That's kinda funny, because I feel the exact opposite. It all depends on your playstyle (or, rather, what kind of a fighter you're making), but to me, it seems foolish to take an axe instead of a longsword. The longsword has a higher permanent attack bonus (which is one of the hardest things to come by in 4e), at the cost of 1 point of average damage. True, the feats later on have to be considered as well, but is 1 point of damage worth a +1 to all attack rolls?

Also, a fighter is not a striker. In my opinion (and, once again, you may play a completely different fighter than me) it's foolish to gear a fighter towards dealing damage, since you'll never be as good as a striker. As a fighter, you should (again, in my opinion) be focusing on controlling the battlefield- your powers should focus on moving enemies or yourself (like Tide of Iron or Footwork Lure). Yet again, you may have a different playstyle than me, but do you see now how just because you may not like a certain choice doesn't mean that it's foolish?