|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:32AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
I like it. Less powerful than twin strike. Slightly better than basic attack, but at the cost of a shield. Seems pretty balanced to me.
Some of you seem very comfortable in the little box wotc has created for character concepts to exist within. Not everyone is. It really bugs me (and some of my players) that its basically impossible to make an effective 2wf defender. I would probably even go so far as to let the secondary target be other than the primary. That would allow fighters to mark two targets, helping compensate for the lack of a shield a bit. And keep in mind, with a 50% hit chance, they're only going to get to make two attacks roughly 50% of the time. That really doesnt seem terribly OP to me.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:40AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2003
|
Some of you seem very comfortable in the little box wotc has created for character concepts to exist within.
the box doesn't restrict concepts very much at all. It restricts power gaming.
an effective 2wf defender.
is that really a concept they don't allow?
fighter/ranger with the twf feats gets the same AC as a light shield, the same damage as a versatile weapon and can make dual attacks.
ranger/fighter with the same feats is very similar, less marking, but dual attacks at will.
What's missing?
Both builds are effect offtanks. The character concept works in 4E.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:44AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2008
|
They can make one dual attack per encounter at first level. That's hardly at all a two-weapon wielding defender.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:47AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
There already is a game mechanic for fighters and rogues to use two weapon fighting. Why would we need a new mechanic?
Simple. The current version is weak, mechanically, and not terribly fun.
yes, in the case of an optimized build (and thing should always be balanced to optimal conditions) it does break things.
Numbers please. Repeating 'omg it's broken!' without any actual data is rather pointless. I'm not a math guy, but If its broken anywhere, it seems obvious it's at the very high end when crits become more powerful. At the low end, half the time you use this power (and the first attack hits) you do less damage than if you had made a single attack. Of the other half, there's only about a 50% chance that you do more. (thinking of 18ish strength and d8ish damage)
Not to mention that every class at-will has some cool secondary effect thta is usually rather benificial. To use double attack, you're sacrificing that cool secondary effect to 'maybe' do a bit more damage.
Sorry, just really not seeing the OPness.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:48AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2003
|
They can make one dual attack per encounter at first level. That's hardly at all a two-weapon wielding defender.
The ranger/fighter variant can dual attack at will. And has higher HP.
They just have to invest more in armor feats.
Yes the feat investment is more costly. But that's the price of balance.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:55AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2003
|
Simple. The current version is weak, mechanically, and not terribly fun.
It's not weak. It's just finally balanced so 1h fighting and 2h fighting and twf fighting are equal options.
Sorry, just really not seeing the OPness.
It's not that I see OPness in the current version, it's that every time you add complexity to the system you risk the system breaking.
So instead of weakening the balance of the system it's better to adapt to the system.
4E TWFing is weaker that 3E TWFing which was weaker than 2E TWFing
It's not gone as a character option, it's not gone as a viable option. But it is gone as something every melee character does to optimize.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 8:58AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
fighter/ranger with the twf feats gets the same AC as a light shield, the same damage as a versatile weapon and can make dual attacks.
ranger/fighter with the same feats is very similar, less marking, but dual attacks at will.
What's missing?
Freedom to not multiclass into ranger if I want to play a 2wf fighter. A fun 2wf mechanic? Balance?
The fighter sacrifices 1ac and 1reflex, and TWO feats. What's he gain? 1 damage. That hardly seems balanced to me. But, more importantly to me, it's not fun. Player to dm, "What do you mean I'm fighting with two weapons but I dont actually get to attack with the second weapon. Bleh, just give me a shield."
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 9:01AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2003
|
"What do you mean I'm fighting with two weapons but I dont actually get to attack with the second weapon. Bleh, just give me a shield."
That's the point.
1h + shield should be the default option for a soldier.
TWF shouldn't be the default fighter build.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 9:02AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Feb 14, 2008
|
The ranger/fighter variant can dual attack at will. And has higher HP. They just have to invest more in armor feats. Yes the feat investment is more costly. But that's the price of balance.
Again...
CLASS FEATURES
Do I really have to point this out to you each and every time you post? Or are you just that ignorant to not understand why someone would want to be a FIGHTER and have the FIGHTER CLASS FEATURES while still being able to WIELD AND ATTACK WITH TWO WEAPONS?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jul 06, 2008 - 9:03AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Aug 12, 2006
|
It's not weak. It's just finally balanced so 1h fighting and 2h fighting and twf fighting are equal options.
This is patently false. For a fighter, 1 damage does not even come close to equalling 2 ac, 2 reflex. For all but the ranger, 2wf in 4e is pure fluff. There is no gameplay difference between a 2wf rogue or one that uses a single weapon.
It's not that I see OPness in the current version, it's that every time you add complexity to the system you risk the system breaking.
Ah, now I see. Basically youre in the house rule forum, but you dont beleive in house rules. Gotcha.
|
|
|
