Warding Steel : A must have power? a patch

[Garthanos]

Just read the Fighter Essentials Great Weapon (I know a little late)

I have training in Kendo (as well as karate and some less related things) and one of the things they emphasize is that your weapon is your defense... you keep it between you and the enemy and its reach and its threat provides a real defense.. and ofcourse the better you are at doing that the better your defense. In fact this is the normal useage.

Warding steel did sound over powered then I thought .... this would actually be realistic if this extra defense based on the weapon is really only useful against one opponent at a time... perhaps that would be an Avenger version of the power.

I have often thought that D&D really misrepresents how two handed weapons are used... treating them like in some silly and uninformed Conan movie where the warrior makes uber huge swings leaving themselves open and saying gut me please.... (a maneuver only rarely done and only as a cross between an intimidation attack and a please attack this spot cause I have a plan if you do)

From my experience (sca related) the primary context for shield users having true defensive advantage was ...
1) against multiple opponents ...
2) If they allow there shield to impair both there own attacks and defenses.
3) they could do better full defenses.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

actually this patch would be ok...
a + something bonus against a single opponent sounds like a fair trade.Maybe still a bit good if it comes without penalty... maybe -2 to attacks until start/end of your next turn...

 

[Garthanos]

actually this patch would be ok...
a + something bonus against a single opponent sounds like a fair trade.Maybe still a bit good if it comes without penalty... maybe -2 to attacks until start/end of your next turn...

It is supposed to be good (you dont get it till level 16) -- my realistic experience is you would have something like it at level 1 -- Minor actions start becoming incredibly useful as the levels pass... one of my wizards can do magic missiles (extra attacks) with them very nicely at level 1 (yes its started by a daily power).

 

[keterys]

It'd probably be fine if it were an encounter power... but sure, anything that reduces its effectiveness will make it better.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yes, the best weapon when you are in plate armor with gauntlets should be a longsword/bastard sword which you use 2-handed most of the time but allows you to use your other hand to grab.

But we speak of a game, where balance must be taken into account, and if you get +2 AC for a standard action (total defense) and now you get +4 or more to AC and Fort for a minor action, it looks wrong. (Even if reality suggests otherwise)

Btw, if you have a heavy shield, total defense should be much more than +2...

 

[Garthanos]

I target realistic limits ;-) if I can do it without getting complicated.

Realistically or more accurately a bonus to AC / reflex against an attack originating from an adjacent square.
Perhaps if your enemy can shift in to a different square they can get around it.

limiting how often it was usable wouldn't make it realistic ;-) its too basic to how you defend yourself with a two handed weapon... nerfing needs to be on degree of power maybe

I would like a list of things doable with minor actions at that level.

 

[Garthanos]

Btw, if you have a heavy shield, total defense should be much more than +2...

That is for certain... but maintaining that isn't easy... you sacrefice lots of visual capacity. ;-)

 

[Garthanos]

and if you get +2 AC for a standard action (total defense)

That is an unskilled action - somebody fairly wildly fairly instinctively "just trying to defend themselves" it doesnt seem reasonable to compare it to a 16th level power

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well... Except at 16th level your total defense is going up against the prowess of a 16th level worthy opponent (and if they're way below you in level then who cares, they can't probably hit you anyway).

Overall though I'm not sure its quite fair to argue that realistically using your weapon totally defensively is only good against one opponent. Its possible to parry attacks from multiple opponents and in general you do get either a lot more defensive or a lot more offensive when in that situation.

In any case the dynamics of offense and defense are not really well enough modeled in 4e at a detailed level that it seems much of a meaningful question really. If you think about it a man without a weapon on the field of battle essentially HAS no defense, or close to it. Likewise your weapon and your shield, if you you have one, are far more important defensively than armor in general. Full 15th century plate armor maybe to some extent did obsolete shields, but it was more of a case of tipping the balance in favor of heavier and longer weapons than that it made shields less useful per-se.

In terms of a +2 in return for a -2 I'm always leery of anything that purports to make those kinds of trades and have it be balanced. Its less of a problem with the plus being defensive vs offensive but in either case the penalty is usually only accepted when its moot anyway. At that point it becomes only a question of "is this occasional bonus worth a feat?

 

[Garthanos]

Well... Except at 16th level your total defense is going up against the prowess of a 16th level worthy opponent (and if they're way below you in level then who cares, they can't probably hit you anyway).

Overall though I'm not sure its quite fair to argue that realistically using your weapon totally defensively is only good against one opponent.

The realistic action I am comparing it to, doesnt deprive you of attacks.

This power isnt itself a boosted form of total defense in my mind as it is only spending a minor action... so making it more focused?

Its possible to parry attacks from multiple opponents and in general you do get either a lot more defensive or a lot more offensive when in that situation.

If the attacks are coming in from a lot of directions you are flailing about and not going to get the kind of defense I am talking about. (you might get a fear based defense from it) if it was just that multiple weapons would work fine or better.

The physical presence and size of the blade is significant... it is fending.

In any case the dynamics of offense and defense are not really well enough modeled in 4e at a detailed level that it seems much of a meaningful question really. If you think about it a man without a weapon on the field of battle essentially HAS no defense, or close to it. Likewise your weapon and your shield, if you you have one, are far more important defensively than armor in general. Full 15th century plate armor maybe to some extent did obsolete shields, but it was more of a case of tipping the balance in favor of heavier and longer weapons than that it made shields less useful per-se.

granted a person without weapon ought to be much more vulnerable than the hero's are in D&D ... but they are so rarely without weapon (... arcanists and others cant even be deprived of there analogous power without some sort of ritual magic or similar extreme mechanism.)
The D&D hero is however much more offensively inhibited than many of those in fiction ... so that might compensate... since people normally go massively defensive alternating with wildly offensive when desperate. ;p

In terms of a +2 in return for a -2 I'm always leery of anything that purports to make those kinds of trades and have it be balanced.

Its less of a problem with the plus being defensive vs offensive but in either case the penalty is usually only accepted when its moot anyway. At that point it becomes only a question of "is this occasional bonus worth a feat?

Right situational benefits are always that way... but assuming the player doesn't always know when they are free to be aggressive only or defensive? its what makes battle interesting there is an underlying intuition based guessing game (part of the reason wisdom is on the fighter list). Wobbly small shifts ok... overly controllable maintainable shifts not so ok.

In this case we are actually talking about a power and an at-will ...that feels a bit too strong for most peoples blood but does make a two weapon fighter more realistic feeling... adding on a penalty to your attack and making it against only one opponent might make it work better for me(because it models something I know from experience)... and might justify allowing it as a lower level power but.... my training is more duelist like and I might emphasize the difficulty of fighting multiple opponents more than the game assumes ;-), So I might be morphing it into something an Avenger might have... instead of an overly good two weapon fighter 16th level at will.

I want somebody to argue it isnt overly good... because at 16th level people can do this and this and this and that.. with minor actions...