# Broken things errata'ed, July 2009



## Jack99 (Jul 2, 2009)

Rain of Blows, Righteous Rage of Tempus, Battlerager Vigor, Dual Strike, Guileful Switch, Dwarf Stoneblood and Improved Vigor all get a nerf. 

Linky


----------



## fba827 (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm glad to see some of those items on there!  For others, they just haven't come up in my games yet.


----------



## keterys (Jul 2, 2009)

I am officially shocked at how close some of those are to what I'd considered. RRoT is nowhere close, but BRV, Dual Strike, Guileful Switch, etc dead on.

Verra interesting.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2009)

Mind giving some capsule summaries for those trapped behind a filter?

-O


----------



## fba827 (Jul 2, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Mind giving some capsule summaries for those trapped behind a filter?
> 
> -O




Righteous Rage of Tempus ued to turn an attack in to a crit, now it adds crit bonus damage, or maximizes the crit bonus damage if the attack was in fact a crit.

Rain of Blows no longer deals ability score bonus damage (just W damage), and the wording is cleaned up to remove some of the previous ambiguity, and it does in fact add a third attack for it's "special" if you meet the required ability score and weapon type.

I don't have Martial Power handy to compare the other 5 changes to the originals.  But, battlerage vigor seems to not stack anymore (or am i just remembering something wrong?) and 2 of the changes seem to relate to feats that granted temp hit points as well. 


Disclaimer: I really am just giving a very boiled-down version of the changes.  Please read the actual thing when you get a chance rather than basing things on the few words I wrote here


----------



## OchreJelly (Jul 2, 2009)

RoB still reads as 2 attacks, but the weapon line now says if you are using the requisite weapon type and have dex 15 make a third attack.  So it's clearly 3 attacks now.

GS is a free action with the requirement that you use it at the beginning of your turn before anything else.  You and the ally switch initiative order and your turn ends.


----------



## Grydan (Jul 2, 2009)

Battlerager Vigor now triggers on YOU hitting with melee and close, rather than being hit. Invigorating powers no longer stack for you, instead they give THP if you miss.


----------



## FrozenChrono (Jul 2, 2009)

These fixes look perfect. Good job WotC!

I can't see anything wrong with them and they fix everything about fighters that I can think of that I've been looking to fix. 

Rain of Blows
Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[W] damage.
Weapon: If you’re wielding a flail, a light blade, or a spear
and have Dexterity 15 or higher, make the attack a third
time against either the target or a different creature.

Dual Strike
Primary Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon)
Hit: 1[W] damage.
       Effect: on a hit Make a secondary attack.
       Secondary Target: One creature other than the primary
       target
       Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC (off-hand weapon)
       Hit: 1[W] damage.

Other changes, Rage of Tempest you must use before an attack and adds your crit dice as extra damage on a hit, maximizes it on a crit. 

Dwarven stoneblood gives you a +2, +4, +6 to invigorating temp hp now.

Also nice is battlerage temp hp now do not stack. You simply add them to what a power normally gives you when you use the power. Also invigorating powers now grant temp hp to battlerage fighters on a miss. 

looking over it again dual strike was nerfed really hard, but I suppose the ability to mark two enemies at will is pretty nice. I'm still okay with it.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2009)

Crazy stuff!  These look like good fixes, but _wow._  Some major changes here!

I think it's clear WotC is paying attention to the forae.

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 2, 2009)

What is the functional change of Dual Strike? That you have to attack two different foes? 
Seems a good, "defender-like" change. YOu get two marks for the price of one attack.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2009)

Yep, previously it was like a one-target Twin Strike.  It put Tempest fighters up there with Strikers as far as single-target damage output goes.

Amazingly enough, this may make Dual Weapons more balanced, as well.

-O


----------



## Elric (Jul 2, 2009)

This will have a huge impact on some existing BRV builds. If your build doesn't use Invigorating powers, you just got a lot weaker than if you're already using Invigorating powers.

For example, consider a Tide of Iron based Iron Vanguard Dwarf BRV fighter with Improved Vigor and Dwarven Stoneblood who doesn't currently have any Invigorating powers. He just had two feats rendered useless for him and for his class feature to be especially useful it now requires the invigorating powers that he hasn't taken. 

Plus, under the retraining rules, he can't even switch back to Weapon Talent (obviously, GMs can and should be very generous about this, but I wonder what LFR players will do).


----------



## Obryn (Jul 2, 2009)

Well, I honestly appreciate anything which scales back the BRV Fighter who's built as a normal Weapon + Shield fighter.

If I had any in my game, I would be _extremely_ forgiving and allow a total rebuild of these characters.  I hadn't given much thought to LFR games, but then again, I also don't care. 

-O


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 2, 2009)

Looks like RRoT now doesn't actually do anything unless you have a magic weapon or a high crit weapon. I think I'd add a caveat that if you don't get to roll any extra damage on a crit, you can roll 1d6. Other than that, good changes.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jul 2, 2009)

I wonder if _Guileful Switch_ is any use at all now, I can't think of any.

Should have been a daily IMO.

Mind you I am happy to see all of the class features & powers I consider problematic addressed so I will live with  this one (or rather without it due to retraining ).


----------



## Lancelot (Jul 2, 2009)

Great stuff, WotC. 

I'm ambivalent on the changes to rain of blows and dual strike (they were never problems in my game), but the fixes to battlerage vigor, guileful switch and righteous rage are exactly what was needed.

BRV and GS have caused significant issues in my games (...BRV to the point where I ended up banning it; the only 4e ban in my game to date, and I hated doing it). RRoT hasn't come up yet, but it was clearly overpowered compared to other channel divinity feats.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 2, 2009)

Pickles JG said:


> I wonder if _Guileful Switch_ is any use at all now, I can't think of any.




Initiative order goes warlord, monster, rogue.

Rogue and warlord are flanking monster, but monster will be able to shift/teleport away on its turn.

Warlord uses _guileful switch_, rogue gets opportunity to sneak attack monster before it gets away.

Apply the same principle to any scenario where you act before the monster and you want your ally to do something to it before its turn comes around.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jul 2, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> Looks like RRoT now doesn't actually do anything unless you have a magic weapon or a high crit weapon. I think I'd add a caveat that if you don't get to roll any extra damage on a crit, you can roll 1d6. Other than that, good changes.




Anyone who takes this without a high crit magic weapon is too dumb to save.


----------



## Pickles JG (Jul 2, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> Initiative order goes warlord, monster, rogue.
> 
> Rogue and warlord are flanking monster, but monster will be able to shift/teleport away on its turn.
> 
> ...




I thought of this just after - it lets you get two goes with a high damage striker/controller &c when the situtation is set up for your team. I suspect this is too altruistic for me, not to say its situtational but would fit someone who I play with who has been known to delay for rounds after round....


----------



## Dannager (Jul 2, 2009)

Elric said:


> Plus, under the retraining rules, he can't even switch back to Weapon Talent (obviously, GMs can and should be very generous about this, but I wonder what LFR players will do).



LFR players can retrain a class feature (along with up to 2 powers and 2 feats) at any one point during their character's career.  So they should be just fine.


----------



## Dr_Sage (Jul 2, 2009)

*Thanks for the heads up!*



Grydan said:


> Battlerager Vigor now triggers on YOU hitting with melee and close, rather than being hit. Invigorating powers no longer stack for you, instead they give THP if you miss.




Thanks.

So if I underestand correctly what now prevents HP stacking using.. say... sweeping blow and hitting  oponents is the very basic rule that temporary HP does not stack right?

So now the invigorating powers just double the HP granted? (you receive con HP for the invigorating + con HP for being Battle Rager if I got that right). 

On the bright side my dwarf will get some Temp HP for hitting with his shield bash. 

Curious nerf, I can't wait until I get home to read the full text + errata.


----------



## Elric (Jul 2, 2009)

Dannager said:


> LFR players can retrain a class feature (along with up to 2 powers and 2 feats) at any one point during their character's career.  So they should be just fine.




Just saw this elsewhere.  It looks like it has to be a time when they could already retrain, which might limit them to when gaining a level, and since you can only do it once in your career, this could be a problem if you switched into BRV in the first place and now want to switch out.  In general, characters should be fine, though.  

If you're limited to retraining on a level up, BRV characters with Improved Vigor + Dwarven Stoneblood will have a wasted feat for a level (even if they have invigorating powers).  Without the immediate retrain option, a Tempest Fighter with Cleave and Dual Strike would pretty much be wasting an at-will for a level as well.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jul 2, 2009)

Im still upset as all get out that they didn't clarify the damage for rain of blows.

All the ranger powers that do multiple attacks say "1 [W] per attack". Is it that freaking hard to add those two words at the end?

A really uptight and literal DM could read that and say "it does two or three attacks, but only does 1[W] total"


----------



## Dr_Sage (Jul 2, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Well, I honestly appreciate anything which scales back the BRV Fighter who's built as a normal Weapon + Shield fighter.
> 
> If I had any in my game, I would be _extremely_ forgiving and allow a total rebuild of these characters. I hadn't given much thought to LFR games, but then again, I also don't care.
> 
> -O





LOL

My char was developed pre-Martial Power and I kept his personality,  manneirisms and gear unchanged.

Here we go again!


----------



## Dannager (Jul 2, 2009)

Elric said:


> Just saw this elsewhere.  It looks like it has to be a time when they could already retrain, which might limit them to when gaining a level, and since you can only do it once in your career, this could be a problem if you switched into BRV in the first place and now want to switch out.  In general, characters should be fine, though.



You know, not that I'm necessarily advocating this, but the LFR campaign doesn't track character data anyway.  As long as the people you play with don't object, I don't think you're going to be penalized in any way for just rebuilding your character a bit when errata hits.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 2, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Im still upset as all get out that they didn't clarify the damage for rain of blows.
> 
> All the ranger powers that do multiple attacks say "1 [W] per attack". Is it that freaking hard to add those two words at the end?
> 
> A really uptight and literal DM could read that and say "it does two or three attacks, but only does 1[W] total"



I'd call it extra utility for some players: they can use it as a litmus test to identify DMs they should avoid. 

I really like the way that WotC has included a bit of boxed text to explain the reason for the change in the text of the individual book updates (even though most of the explanations given are rather obvious) and has collected all the changes in a single document.


----------



## Elric (Jul 2, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I really like the way that WotC has included a bit of boxed text to explain the reason for the change in the text of the individual book updates (even though most of the explanations given are rather obvious) and has collected all the changes in a single document.




They got the explanation wrong on Dual Strike, though.



> Dual Strike [Revision]
> Martial Power, page 7
> Replace the powerʼs Target, Attack, and Hit lines with the following:
> Primary Target: One creature
> ...




The person who did the update seemingly doesn't remember what the pre-update version was. Dual Strike was 2 attacks on one target without Str modifier and that was the problem! It didn't need clarification on the targeting.

There's a similar problem with Rain of Blows:


> *Explanation: *This revision updates damage to bring this power in line with other fighter powers and it
> improves formatting to clarify that the power allows three attacks at most.




Rain of Blows didn't need clarification to clarify that it gives a max of 3 attacks, it needed revision because it used to give a max of 4 attacks.  See here or the "Reading a power" rules on page 219 of PH-II.


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 2, 2009)

> Rain of Blows didn't need clarification to only give a max of 3 attacks, it needed revision because it gave a max of 4 attacks.  See here or the "Reading a power" rules on page 219 of PH-II.




Erm--plainly they're clarifying that the intent was to give 3 attacks, not 4, regardless of what the pre-errata version appeared to say. What's the problem?


----------



## Elric (Jul 2, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> Erm--plainly they're clarifying that the intent was to give 3 attacks, not 4, regardless of what the pre-errata version appeared to say. What's the problem?




It depends how you read it.  I read it as "we are clarifying that the power allows 3 attacks, and it really did allow 3 attacks from the get-go, that was just hard to interpret."  That's wrong.  Clarification would be if you write something that's hard to underestand and then you go back and revise it so it's easier to understand.

What they're doing here clarifies how the power works in general, but it's not clarifying that the power is 3 attacks.  The power was up to 4 attacks.  It didn't "appear to say that", it did say that.   Changing it to 3 attacks is revision.  The pre-errata version said up to 4 attacks.

If you read it as "we've made the wording on this new, changed version of Rain of Blows very clear so everyone will know the new version only grants 3 attacks", then it's fine.  I don't think that's a tenable reading, though.  The errata claims that they're only updating damage.  If that were true, then the original Rain of Blows would have been 2 attacks, or 3 attacks with the conditions met, without having to hit on a primary attack.  That's simply not a credible reading of the initial power, my link to a designer saying it was intended as 2-4 attacks aside.

Edit: It's not a big deal, but the explanation given minimizes how overpowered pre-errata Rain of Blows was.  That's why I'm pointing this out.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 2, 2009)

I really pity the guys who built their characters around battleraging now.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 2, 2009)

So I wonder if GS is now "THE BEST UTILITY IN THE GAME" like it's been crowed to be.



Ryujin said:


> I really pity the guys who built their characters around battleraging now.



Hey, they got to steamroll through stuff before. Now they have to suffer. It's an even thing.


----------



## Baumi (Jul 2, 2009)

Why? You can gain your con as temp HP nearly each round ... instead of gaining a +1 to hit, thats a IMHO still a great bargain. Gaining it multible times per round (pre-errata) was way too much! 

One positive thing is that you have more controll over it now, since the mellee monsters could have ignored you while the ranged ones attacked (which gave you no temp hp) and therefore never gained the temp hp's, now its your choice! 

I love the Dual Attack change, finally the Dual Wielding Fighter makes sense to me, since its a great DEFENDER feature because can mark two enemies at once. It also distinguish the dual-wieldig Fighter and Ranger a bit more.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 2, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Hey, they got to steamroll through stuff before. Now they have to suffer. It's an even thing.



heh, now the style of the BRV characters changes dramatically they could all out defense before and still have benefit... now they have to hit back instead of gritting there teeth and smiling.


----------



## Nail (Jul 2, 2009)

Ryujin said:


> I really pity the guys who built their characters around battleraging now.



We'll see.


----------



## mlund (Jul 2, 2009)

These are all wonderful changes. I especially like the fact that Dual Strike is now basically just a vehicle with which to mark two opponents at the same time, for greater stickiness as a Fighter. That's awesome.

I wish they'd give us a fix for the off-hand vs. primary-hand foolishness of some of the double-weapons, though. The Double-Sword is really the offender of record.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Caliban (Jul 3, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> Erm--plainly they're clarifying that the intent was to give 3 attacks, not 4, regardless of what the pre-errata version appeared to say. What's the problem?




Pre-errata the intent WAS for 4 attacks, as has been stated by one of the developers here on this forum, and by Cust Serv several times. 

That being said, I'm happy with the change, although I wonder if many fighters will keep the power now.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

Baumi said:


> One positive thing is that you have more controll over it now, since the mellee monsters could have ignored you while the ranged ones attacked (which gave you no temp hp) and therefore never gained the temp hp's, now its your choice!




The differentiating of ranged attackers was arbitrary and caused too much artificial tactics.... but now *BRV, is no longer you surging with energy due to the thrill of danger or your body pumping up in response to risk! *


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> The differentiating of ranged attackers was arbitrary and caused too much artificial tactics.... but now *BRV, is no longer you surging with energy due to the thrill of danger or your body pumping up in response to risk! *




Instead it's surging with energy due to the rage of battle or your body pumping up in response to the thrill of combat?


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

FWIW, the problem now with BRV is...you'll not often get to use the +1(or +2) damage to your attacks.

Before, you could rely on getting THP from getting hit before your turn.  Your AC was low (chain), and you are the defender, so you are *bound* to get hit during that first round of combat, often before you get to go.  After you were hit, you got THPs, and thus when you attacked, got a +1(or +2, with hammers) damage.  That was the whole point of going with chain and not tanking up to plate.

Now, you first need to hit to get the THPs.....and by the time your turn comes around again, it's likely (see above) that you'll have been hit, and your THPs are gone.  Thus no +1(or +2) damage.

Add to that the fact that you must *hit* to get THPs, thus using a low proficiency weapon (re: hammer) is stupid.

So before, hammer and chain was the way to go.  Now?  Plate and longsword.  Forget the damage bonus: you'll rarely get it.

(sigh)


----------



## Rechan (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> Add to that the fact that you must *hit* to get THPs, thus using a low proficiency weapon (re: hammer) is stupid.



Except that you now get them on a MISS with invigoration powers. Further encouraging a DRV fighter to invest in those if he wants to get the most mileage out of his build.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> FWIW, the problem now with BRV is...you'll not often get to use the +1(or +2) damage to your attacks.




I don't think it's that big of an issue,  fighters have access to two utilities that give them temp hps as a minor action (Untoppable lvl 2, Daring Shout lvl 6 - and also marks all adjacent enemies).  There is probably more at higher levels, I haven't checked. 


Also, there are several other classes that can grant you temp hit points through various means.


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Except that you now get them on a MISS with invigoration powers. Further encouraging a DRV fighter to invest in those if he wants to get the most mileage out of his build.



Okay, let's run with that.

My BRV fighter opens up combat with his invigorating powers.  That way he'll get the THPs even if he misses!  Given a 18 Con, that's 8 THP on a hit, 4 THPs on a miss (neglecting feats).

What are the chances that by next round, while he's in the thick of it and has a low AC, that he will still have any THPs?  If he's got no THPs, he's not getting that bonus to damage....and thus shouldn't really be in chain (weilding a hammer).

The lure to stay in chain is *only* the extra damage.  That's it.  ...and now that lure is mostly gone, methinks.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jul 3, 2009)

Yeah what the change did was make a lot of powers valuable. BRV builds will really need to retool completely, since invigorating powers are by far the biggest thing. Invigorating exploit just became a choice feat for epic.


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

Caliban said:


> I don't think it's that big of an issue,  fighters have access to two utilities that give them temp hps as a minor action (Untoppable lvl 2, Daring Shout lvl 6 - and also marks all adjacent enemies).  There is probably more at higher levels, I haven't checked.
> 
> Also, there are several other classes that can grant you temp hit points through various means.



Maybe.

But are you going to be doling out the THPs to the BRV fighter every round, right before his turn?


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> FWIW, the problem now with BRV is...you'll not often get to use the +1(or +2) damage to your attacks.




You get it if your enemies aren't concentrating fire sufficiently on you, or if you use invigorating attacks and hit. Ie, it's actually functioning in a defender worthy way (encouraging they fight you) rather than the way it used to discourage enemies from fighting you.



> Now, you first need to hit to get the THPs.....and by the time your turn comes around again, it's likely (see above) that you'll have been hit, and your THPs are gone.  Thus no +1(or +2) damage.



An invigorating power delivers almost double temp hp on a hit, and normal on a miss, and you have a decent AC - it's not that difficult to get the bonus. And if you don't get the bonus, then your enemies are wasting their damage against temp hp instead of your allies. Win/win.



> Add to that the fact that you must *hit* to get THPs, thus using a low proficiency weapon (re: hammer) is stupid.



+1 hit vs. +1+#W damage effectively. It's not stupid, it's just an actual choice. If you use brash strike, more like +1 hit vs. +6 damage.



> So before, hammer and chain was the way to go.  Now?  Plate and longsword.  Forget the damage bonus: you'll rarely get it.



You're exaggerating greatly, if your premise involves a +1 difference of hit making all your attacks miss.

At any rate - now there's a real choice between the various talents, which can't help but be a good thing. There will be growing pains for those who have to adjust their characters, but it's healthier for the game overall.


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> What are the chances that by next round, while he's in the thick of it and has a low AC, that he will still have any THPs?  If he's got no THPs, he's not getting that bonus to damage....and thus shouldn't really be in chain (weilding a hammer).




'Low AC' is defined as 1 worse than usual, too, eh? Chain to Scale isn't a big difference, and plate has its own downsides.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 3, 2009)

keterys said:


> it's actually functioning in a defender worthy way (encouraging they fight you) rather than the way it used to discourage enemies from fighting you.




That's what I'm seeing too - it returns the BRV fighter to being a defender, rather than an island.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

keterys said:


> Instead it's surging with energy due to the rage of battle or your body pumping up in response to the thrill of combat?




*Always had that flavor..*..  thats what crushing surge and company always gave me... *YAWN*...no new flavor here boys in fact *yank!!! stumble stumble.*


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> Maybe.
> 
> But are you going to be doling out the THPs to the BRV fighter every round, right before his turn?




Probably not, but that's not a terrible thing. Do you want to know why?

Because fighters are defenders, not strikers.

Even without using hammers and chainmail, a BRV fighter compares very favourably (if not being outright more effective than) a weapon talent fighter.

All in all, I like the changes. I think they move in the right direction, and help with things.

I think we'll find that rain of blows is _still_ one of the more potent powers in the fighter arsenal, primarily because when you use it, you get triple static bonuses, of which strength may only be a small portion.

I personally think that BRV fighters are still slightly better than all the other defenders. At least they're not totally invincible and top-notch strikers at the same time, and they don't force the DM to use whacky tactics every round like ignoring the BRV fighter with melee and only attacking him from range, or varying the order in which foes attack him.

The dual strike change is brilliant. Whomever decided on that one needs to be congratulated, because they totally nailed it. It's gone from being a power who's sole purpose was to take over the striker role, and is now a very effective defender-style power.

RROT is still among the more powerful of the divine channeling feats, but it's not crazy insane like it used to be.


----------



## ZzarkLinux (Jul 3, 2009)

These updates are necessary IMO

WoTC was too quick to add multi-attack / multi-stack / multi-action powers.
I believe these imbalances happened because the combat system has too few variables to "enhance". All powers can't simply "add +1 damage" or "+2 saving throws", so designers added this splat which made fighters top-tier strikers AND top-tier defenders.

Overall, great errata.


----------



## Psikus (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> Add to that the fact that you must *hit* to get THPs, thus using a low proficiency weapon (re: hammer) is stupid.




Well, you will have a ton of Con, and barely any Dex. At paragon tier, that means you can get Hammer Rhythm but probably won't qualify for Heavy Blade feats. That's a pretty good incentive. At epic, a longsword might force you to sacrifice the weapon mastery feats, which will hardly be optimal.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 3, 2009)

You hit before you do damage. If you get temp hit points when you hit, you'll have temp hit points when you do damage. So, you'll almost always gain the damage bonus if you're in light armor or chainmail for attacks that require an attack roll.


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> You hit before you do damage. If you get temp hit points when you hit, you'll have temp hit points when you do damage. So, you'll almost always gain the damage bonus if you're in light armor or chainmail for attacks that require an attack roll.



Errr.....what?  Are you being serious?  You are saying:
#1)Hit enemy
#2) You gain THP before you roll for damage,
#3) Now roll for damage, and since you have THP (see step #2) you gain the +1(+2) bonus to damage.

Is that what you are claiming?


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> Errr.....what?  Are you being serious?  You are saying:
> #1)Hit enemy
> #2) You gain THP before you roll for damage,
> #3) Now roll for damage, and since you have THP (see step #2) you gain the +1(+2) bonus to damage.
> ...




Yes.


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

keterys said:


> 'Low AC' is defined as 1 worse than usual, too, eh? Chain to Scale isn't a big difference, and plate has its own downsides.



As a BRV fighter, you have two "end member" choices:

#1) Chain and "hammer": low(er) AC, low(er) attack, +2 damage only some of the time, if at all

#2) Scale (or plate!) and "heavy blade": high(er) AC, high(er) attack, no damage bonus

Seems to me option #2 has better survivability, better attacks, more THP ('cuz he hits more often), more condition effects land (Blinding Smash, anyone?), and more damage (again with th' hitting thing).

But hey: I'd love to be convinced otherwise, 'cus right now my human fighter is built with option #1 (pre-errata, obviously).  Go for it!


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> You hit before you do damage. If you get temp hit points when you hit, you'll have temp hit points when you do damage. So, you'll almost always gain the damage bonus if you're in light armor or chainmail for attacks that require an attack roll.






Nail said:


> Errr.....what?  Are you being serious?  You are saying:
> #1)Hit enemy
> #2) You gain THP before you roll for damage,
> #3) Now roll for damage, and since you have THP (see step #2) you gain the +1(+2) bonus to damage.
> ...






MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> Yes.



Okey-dokey......

I doubt that's the way it works, but - hey - who am I to argue?


----------



## Ruler of Them All (Jul 3, 2009)

Just registered to write this...

PHB 269

MAKING AN ATTACK
All attacks follow the same basic process:
1. Choose the attack you’ll use. Each attack has an
attack type.
2. Choose targets for the attack (page 272). Each target
must be within range (page 273). Check whether
you can see and target your enemies (page 273).
3. Make an attack roll (page 273).
4. Compare your attack roll to the target’s defense
(page 274) to determine whether you hit or miss.
5. Deal damage and apply other effects (page 276).

So first you deal damage, then you apply effects... Like the +2 damage... So, forget about that sweet +2 damage... Its gone!


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 3, 2009)

While BRV got a general nerf, its not a complete one. They now get to enjoy their temp HP against ranged attackers, auras, and other things of note.

For the hammer and chain guy, to me its still viable because hammers are great. They do more damage, they have more powers that apply your con, etc.

Is the drop to chain worth +2 extra damage a lot of the time? I don't know, depends on how much you want that extra damage.

Also one thing to note the way most multiattack hits work, wouldn't the +2 damage apply to all of the attacks after the first one? (unlike an area effect, multihit effects require multiple hit and damage rolls...they are seperate entities).


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail, there are two considerations:
1) Are you willing to give up +1 to hit for Con benefits from hammer, better access to feats, and overall more damage (1+# of W for the power)
2) Are you willing to give up 1 AC for +1 or +2 damage

Those are both very valid considerations.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 3, 2009)

Ruler of Them All said:


> Just registered to write this...
> 
> PHB 269
> 
> ...





Nothing in the pages you referenced supports your claim that damage is rolled before the temp hit points are gained.


----------



## Eldorian (Jul 3, 2009)

First, I'm terribly happy about this update.  Not just because I thought battlerager vigor was terribly overpowered, and that the one in my party was easily the highest single target damage dealer, in addition to being nearly invincible.

No, what really makes me happy is the precedent of updating the game with errata not for clarification, but for balance.  It shows that WotC is willing to errata for balance.

Also, 




Caliban said:


> Pre-errata the intent WAS for 4 attacks, as has been stated by one of the developers here on this forum, and by Cust Serv several times.
> 
> That being said, I'm happy with the change, although I wonder if many fighters will keep the power now.




Rain of Blows, as a power which gives you 3 attacks, is still the best single target damage power a fighter can get at level 3.  It's either 1 attack at 2[w] + 2 stat mods and other mods, or 3 attacks each at [W] + other mods, which once you get weapon focus and a +2 weapon is quite good.  I believe that fighters who use flails, light blades, or spears will still keep the power.



Nail said:


> FWIW, the problem now with BRV is...you'll not often get to use the +1(or +2) damage to your attacks.
> 
> Before, you could rely on getting THP from getting hit before your turn.  Your AC was low (chain), and you are the defender, so you are *bound* to get hit during that first round of combat, often before you get to go.  After you were hit, you got THPs, and thus when you attacked, got a +1(or +2, with hammers) damage.  That was the whole point of going with chain and not tanking up to plate.
> 
> ...





AWESOME!  Another added benefit that I had not realized!  Battlerager vigor, in addition to no longer making you invincible, also no longer makes you out damage other fighters most of the time!  Seriously guys, the fighter in my party had double crag hammers, hammer rhythm, and battlerager vigor.  It was crazy damage, more than any of the strikers could do single target  (we don't have a ranger).


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2009)

I don't think you'll have much luck proving that you gain temp hp before resolving the attack, including the hit and damage part.


----------



## Nail (Jul 3, 2009)

keterys said:


> I don't think you'll have much luck proving that you gain temp hp before resolving the attack, including the hit and damage part.



That's my thought too.

However: It is true that the order of "Making an Attack" has damage coming after hitting )), and that the BRV power now says "Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier, plus any temporary hit points normally granted by the power."

It's all in how you parse that.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> That's my thought too.
> 
> However: It is true that the order of "Making an Attack" has damage coming after hitting )), and that the BRV power now says "Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier, plus any temporary hit points normally granted by the power."
> 
> It's all in how you parse that.




Yep. Add to that that they didn't use the language that previously explicitly stated that temp HPs were gained after an attack (in this case which hit the battlerager) was resolved: 

"Each time an enemy hits you with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier (after the attack is resolved)." - Battlerager Vigor, pre-errata, PHBII, page 6


----------



## Eldorian (Jul 3, 2009)

The errata to dual strike inspired me to make a fighter I've been wanting to make for a while:  a tempest fighter with a scourge and a whip!  She punishes naughty monsters!  (level 12 cause that's what level my party is)

The new dual strike makes having a reach offhand weapon beneficial, which it wasn't before.  Though this character was made for concept, it's nice when it's effective too.

====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Clarissa, level 12
Half-Orc, Fighter, Shock Trooper
Fighter Talents: Tempest Technique
Birth - Among Another Race: Among Another Race (Drow)

FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 21, Con 13, Dex 21, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 11.

STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 16, Con 12, Dex 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10.


AC: 28 Fort: 27 Reflex: 25 Will: 20
HP: 104 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 26

TRAINED SKILLS
Intimidate +13, Athletics +15, Stealth +15

UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +10, Arcana +5, Bluff +6, Diplomacy +6, Dungeoneering +7, Endurance +8, Heal +7, History +5, Insight +7, Nature +7, Perception +7, Religion +5, Streetwise +6, Thievery +10

FEATS
Level 1: Whip Training
Level 2: Weapon Focus (Flail)
Level 4: Thirst for Battle
Level 6: Toughness
Level 8: Two-Weapon Fighting
Level 10: Whip Expert
Level 11: Danger Sense
Level 12: Agile Tempest

POWERS
Fighter at-will 1: Footwork Lure
Fighter at-will 1: Dual Strike
Fighter daily 1: Tempest Dance
Fighter daily 5: Rain of Steel
Fighter daily 9: Jackal Strike
Fighter encounter 1: Funneling Flurry
Fighter encounter 3: Rain of Blows
Fighter encounter 7: Not So Fast
Fighter utility 10: Strength From Pain
Fighter utility 2: Pass Forward
Fighter utility 6: Battle Awareness

ITEMS
Feral Earthhide Armor +3, Bloodthirsty Scourge +3, Farslayer Whip +3, Periapt of Recovery +3, Iron Armbands of Power (heroic tier)
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======


----------



## Obryn (Jul 3, 2009)

Honestly, a BRV Fighter should just get themselves Brash Strike and never worry about damage again. 

-O


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2009)

Nail said:


> That's my thought too.
> 
> However: It is true that the order of "Making an Attack" has damage coming after hitting )), and that the BRV power now says "Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier, plus any temporary hit points normally granted by the power."
> 
> It's all in how you parse that.




Perhaps - but I'm pretty sure you _also_ deal damage 'when you hit', so you can try and figure out some order of operations there potentially... but it's _very_ clear what the intent is, because it says you gain the bonus to damage when you have temp hp, which you _always_ have when you hit, ergo they either should have said 'you get +1/+2 to damage' without the caveat, or intended to require the temp hp first.

So, given lack of rules support to definitely have the damage bonus apply, and implied rules support that it doesn't...


----------



## FireLance (Jul 3, 2009)

With the new errata, I'm tempted to make the following feat available to Battlerager Vigor fighters to retain the flavor of the guy who gets stronger when hurt:
*Wounded Vigor*
Prerequisites: Fighter, Battlerager Vigor class feature
Benefit: At the start of your turn, if you have taken hit point damage from an enemy since the end of your last turn, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier.​This feat also makes it easier for a Battlerager Vigor fighter to gain the damage bonus when in light armor or chainmail.


----------



## Regicide (Jul 3, 2009)

So, now that fighter has been nerfed, do we wait 8 more months for wizard daily/utility  nerfs?


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

FireLance said:


> With the new errata, I'm tempted to make the following feat available to Battlerager Vigor fighters to retain the flavor of the guy who gets stronger when hurt:
> *Wounded Vigor*
> Prerequisites: Fighter, Battlerager Vigor class feature
> Benefit: At the start of your turn, if you have taken hit point damage from an enemy since the end of your last turn, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier.​This feat also makes it easier for a Battlerager Vigor fighter to gain the damage bonus when in light armor or chainmail.




Kewl I have snagged that!!


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

This is even more defendery. I might race restrict it *(How many Deva  BRV fighters do you know )


> *Empathic Vigor*
> Prerequisites: Fighter, Battlerager Vigor class feature (possibly Deva)
> Benefit: At the start of your turn, if an ally in 10 squares has taken hit point damage from an enemy since the end of your last turn, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier.




Not only are you more likely to get that damage boost ( from thp ) with this its even more likely when they turn to attack the folk you are defending.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jul 3, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Rain of Blows, Righteous Rage of Tempus, Battlerager Vigor, Dual Strike, Guileful Switch, Dwarf Stoneblood and Improved Vigor all get a nerf.
> 
> Linky





So, if Righteous rage of Tempus now does extra damage based on the dice you would roll if you had rolled a critical, hit, what if you don't get any? Takes the power from very potent to useless unless yuo have a magic weapon or another feat like devastating critical, even if you do get a critical hit and maximize the extra damage, unless you have some, you don't get anything for using the channel divinity.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 3, 2009)

Regicide said:


> So, now that fighter has been nerfed, do we wait 8 more months for wizard daily/utility  nerfs?




Okay, I will bite. Which one(s) do you think should get nerfed?


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

I want the Damage boost to increase (it would raise the incentive for them to concentrate on attacking the BRV fighter to keep your thp down, heh. 
Maybe 1/2 str mod don't know. ;-) That would put more reason for folk to stay Strength centered... but I'm not in to hammers and axes et al.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> *Empathic Vigor*
> Prerequisites: Fighter, Battlerager Vigor class feature
> Benefit: At the start of your turn, if an ally in 10 squares has taken hit point damage from an enemy since the end of your last turn, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier.




Come to think of it this fits the half elf.. sort of a grittier use for that spiritual connection that boosts peoples diplomacy. ;-)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 3, 2009)

shadowoflameth said:


> So, if Righteous rage of Tempus now does extra damage based on the dice you would roll if you had rolled a critical, hit, what if you don't get any? Takes the power from very potent to useless unless yuo have a magic weapon or another feat like devastating critical, even if you do get a critical hit and maximize the extra damage, unless you have some, you don't get anything for using the channel divinity.





you are correct...if attacking with a non magic non high crit weapon it does nothing...realistly that means level 1-3 at worst...becuse who has a 3rd level character without a magic item???

especialy since I belive +2 items can be in 2nd level tressure packets...


----------



## Runestar (Jul 3, 2009)

So do static sources of damage still apply to rain of blows (such as power attack/weapon focus/weapon enhancement), or is it a straight 3W?


----------



## Pickles JG (Jul 3, 2009)

shadowoflameth said:


> So, if Righteous rage of Tempus now does extra damage based on the dice you would roll if you had rolled a critical, hit, what if you don't get any? Takes the power from very potent to useless unless yuo have a magic weapon or another feat like devastating critical, even if you do get a critical hit and maximize the extra damage, unless you have some, you don't get anything for using the channel divinity.




If you already have RROT you are IME already using a vicuous Executioner's Axe or similar.

If you do not aready have the feat or the axe then you probably do not want to take it. Not every feat has to be useful for everyone...


----------



## Eldorian (Jul 3, 2009)

Runestar said:


> So do static sources of damage still apply to rain of blows (such as power attack/weapon focus/weapon enhancement), or is it a straight 3W?




Any power with the weapon or implement keywords applies enhancement and etc. to every damage roll.


----------



## Destil (Jul 3, 2009)

Runestar said:


> So do static sources of damage still apply to rain of blows (such as power attack/weapon focus/weapon enhancement), or is it a straight 3W?



It applies all bonuses that apply to weapon damage rolls except ability score. Item, feat, et cetera are still in.

Twin strike is now exactly what I wanted it to be: a tool to mark two opponents, rather than a damage boost. Perfect. Looks like I may actually play a tempest fighter at some point now.


----------



## Eldorian (Jul 3, 2009)

Destil said:


> Twin strike is now exactly what I wanted it to be: a tool to mark two opponents, rather than a damage boost. Perfect. Looks like I may actually play a tempest fighter at some point now.




Not only might I play a tempest fighter at some point, or a battlerager vigor fighter, I won't feel like I'm gimping myself by playing a different defender.  Both builds were so much better than other classes and other fighter builds I felt if I made a defender to add to my party I'd be a 5th wheel, trying to compete with the battlerager vigor fighter in terms of defending or damage dealing.  I felt like, since our battlerager vigor fighter was so invincible and did so much single target damage, that I didn't need to build a defender for the group.  The problem, however, is that the fighter is the guy who is most likely to miss a session, and we don't like to have to play his character when he's not there.  So I kinda wanted to play a defender for sessions he misses.


----------



## Thundershield (Jul 3, 2009)

Kordeth said:


> Looks like RRoT now doesn't actually do anything unless you have a magic weapon or a high crit weapon. I think I'd add a caveat that if you don't get to roll any extra damage on a crit, you can roll 1d6. Other than that, good changes.



Rather like this change. It ties well with Tempus' old love for axe weapons (greataxe, execution axe, and the Deadly Axe feat).

It's true that there's a downside if you don't have a magic weapon or a non-high crit weapon, but that's only for 1-2 levels of play at most, so you can either wait with picking up the feat or go for a high crit weapon from the get-go.

A minor sacrifice for a nice fix.

EDIT: Any particular reason Dual Strike is set up like that? Seems to be it would be simpler to set it up as follows:

*Target:* One or two creatures
*Attack:* Str vs. AC; one attack per target (main hand, then off-hand)
*Hit:* 1[W] damage.

Or is there any particular reason it's a secondary attack? To avoid ambiguity?

EDIT EDIT: I should point out that details aside (like the above wording of Dual Strike), I absolutely love the changes. Good to see stuff like this coming from the Wizards.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jul 3, 2009)

The new BRV fighter actually gives an incentive to the enemy to hit him so as to drain the hit points and decrease his damage. He now acts as a defender. If he goes with higher AC and looses the damage bonus, then he becomes less of a threat to the enemy and thus easier to ignore.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jul 3, 2009)

Pickles JG said:


> I wonder if _Guileful Switch_ is any use at all now, I can't think of any.
> 
> Should have been a daily IMO.
> 
> Mind you I am happy to see all of the class features & powers I consider problematic addressed so I will live with this one (or rather without it due to retraining ).





You couls still use guileful switch to give a particular ally the chance to act before another allies 'until the end of your next turn' effeect ended.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jul 3, 2009)

Elric said:


> It depends how you read it. I read it as "we are clarifying that the power allows 3 attacks, and it really did allow 3 attacks from the get-go, that was just hard to interpret." That's wrong. Clarification would be if you write something that's hard to underestand and then you go back and revise it so it's easier to understand.
> 
> What they're doing here clarifies how the power works in general, but it's not clarifying that the power is 3 attacks. The power was up to 4 attacks. It didn't "appear to say that", it did say that. Changing it to 3 attacks is revision. The pre-errata version said up to 4 attacks.
> 
> ...





One of the designers came on a prior thread and said very specifically that the intent was for a maximum of four attacks. One fellow even got upset and started arguing with him about what his intent was (believing it impossible for his own opinion to be shown incorrect). The July errata makes a specific change from the originally intended (4) attacks to (3). The even list a reason; that (3) attacks is more in line with a 3rd level encounter power.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The new BRV fighter actually gives an incentive to the enemy to hit him so as to drain the hit points and decrease his damage. He now acts as a defender. If he goes with higher AC and looses the damage bonus, then he becomes less of a threat to the enemy and thus easier to ignore.




Yup I am digging its new defendery finish.. decided to post a Painrage vigor feat (for non defender classes and my empathic vigor for the brv fighter.) ... http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...battlerager-vigor-expansions.html#post4851936


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

Chain armor for BRV does have a benefit other than the extra damage. A BRV Fighter will have crap for Reflex and Will. A shield gives +2 Reflex, and masterwork Chain armor can give up to +2 Will. Chain armor plus a Heavy Shield gives a BRV the best NADs they will every get.


----------



## chitzk0i (Jul 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Chain armor for BRV does have a benefit other than the extra damage. A BRV Fighter will have crap for Reflex and Will. A shield gives +2 Reflex, and masterwork Chain armor can give up to +2 Will. Chain armor plus a Heavy Shield gives a BRV the best NADs they will every get.




Yeah, but your AC is still pretty bad and the vast majority of melee attacks are versus AC.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

chitzk0i said:


> Yeah, but your AC is still pretty bad and the vast majority of melee attacks are versus AC.




I've found that NADs are very important on a Defender, since enemy abilities that immobilize, daze, stun, blind, or otherwise disable are most effective when they are used against the party's primary Defender. A wise DM knows this and acts accordingly.

With the extra durability on the old BRV, I'd personally take Chain+Shield every single time. Losing 1-2 AC was well worth it. With the new BRV, I'm less sure.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> and masterwork Chain armor can give up to +2 Will.




I have to undergo very wierd paradigm switches in my imagination cortex to absorb that effect....


----------



## Bayuer (Jul 3, 2009)

Do I read it right? Invigorating powers temp HP stack with vigor temp?


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 3, 2009)

over focusing on a single attribute or even the classic pair ought to have some repercussions... shrug.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> over focusing on a single attribute or even the classic pair ought to have some repercussions... shrug.




Having bad defenses is unacceptable, esepecially when you can mitigate it. Shields and masterwork armor are some of the basic tools in mitigating bad NADs.


----------



## AngryMojo (Jul 3, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Having bad defenses is unacceptable, esepecially when you can mitigate it. Shields and masterwork armor are some of the basic tools in mitigating bad NADs.



This is one of the big problems with BRV, even from the start.  Not to mention a fighter's reliance on Wisdom.

I like the change because it builds BRV fighters as more a "building momentum" class than "I don't get hurt" class.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 3, 2009)

chitzk0i said:


> Yeah, but your AC is still pretty bad and the vast majority of melee attacks are versus AC.




Your AC is one less than the guy in scale, and you have the big temp HP to offset the damage.


----------



## amysrevenge (Jul 3, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Your AC is one less than the guy in scale, and you have the big temp HP to offset the damage.




One less now, but if you pick masterwork armor for the Will bonus and the scale guy goes for AC bonus the difference will increase over time.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Your AC is one less than the guy in scale, and you have the big temp HP to offset the damage.




Exactly. A Battlerager needs the boost to Will and Reflex far more than the AC.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 3, 2009)

amysrevenge said:


> One less now, but if you pick masterwork armor for the Will bonus and the scale guy goes for AC bonus the difference will increase over time.




Scale is +1 AC better at +4 and +6 enchantment levels if you forgo the +2 Fortitude with Scale, which is a valid choice.

People tend to overestimate the need to buff AC. You don't want to be so tough that they ignore your mark and attack your friends. Having an AC 1-2 points higher than the rest of the party is plenty.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jul 3, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> The new BRV fighter actually gives an incentive to the enemy to hit him so as to drain the hit points and decrease his damage. He now acts as a defender.



Nicely put.


----------



## Ruler of Them All (Jul 3, 2009)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> Nothing in the pages you referenced supports your claim that damage is rolled before the temp hit points are gained.




Are you sure? Lets read...

All attacks follow the same basic process: (so any attack follow this sequence)

1. Choose the attack you’ll use. Each attack has an
attack type. (ok, you chose your at will with invigorating, you want those THP at all costs)

2. Choose targets for the attack (page 272). Each target
must be within range (page 273). Check whether
you can see and target your enemies (page 273). (ok, that bad kobold near you needs a beating, you target him and he is in range)

3. Make an attack roll (page 273). (ok, you get that lucky D20 of yours and roll a 19!)

4. Compare your attack roll to the target’s defense
(page 274) to determine whether you hit or miss. (Yes!!! Sucess, your attack roll alone is higher then your target defense, you HIT! CONGRATULATIONS!!!)

5. Deal damage and apply other effects (page 276). (Now you deal your damage, THEN you APPLY OTHER EFFECTS, like the +2 to damage rolls for having THP.)

Sorry there Battarager power dosent insert a step called 4.5 that gives you the ability to apply the effects on the order you want it to... But hey, on your action point you have the effect on you before the damage roll! Or maybe if a friendly warlord makes you attack again...


----------



## Vendark (Jul 3, 2009)

Ruler of Them All said:


> 5. Deal damage and apply other effects (page 276). (Now you deal your damage, THEN you APPLY OTHER EFFECTS, like the +2 to damage rolls for having THP.)




The +2 damage is not an effect, it's a conditional bonus.

Gaining THP from a hit is an effect, though, and therefore it happens last. So at the time you apply damage, you don't yet have any THPs.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 3, 2009)

Not to mention, if you DID get the temp hit points at some "hit" stage that occurs prior to the "damage" stage, at which point you'd get the bonus damage in the "damage" stage, then you'd always get the bonus damage.  The only time you wouldn't receive the bonus damage would be on hits that deal damage on a miss, but still use the regular damage expression to calculate the damage.  So, daily powers that do 1/2 on a miss.

I don't believe that WotC intended that you receive the bonus damage on all attacks except those that are misses and which deal 1/2 damage on a miss.  If they intended that, they would have said so.

I think that is a far more powerful argument than arguing for the constant application of the bonus damage due to slight wording differences between different powers and inferences drawn from said wording differences.  This inference is much, much stronger.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 4, 2009)

Ruler of Them All said:


> 5. Deal damage and apply other effects (page 276). (Now you deal your damage, THEN you APPLY OTHER EFFECTS, like the +2 to damage rolls for having THP.)
> 
> Sorry there Battarager power dosent insert a step called 4.5 that gives you the ability to apply the effects on the order you want it to... But hey, on your action point you have the effect on you before the damage roll! Or maybe if a friendly warlord makes you attack again...




To play Devil's Advocate:

They do _not_ have step 5: apply damage, step 6: apply other effects.

Applying damage and other effects is one single step. They couldn't really say "apply other effects and damage" now could they? So, both things occur at the 'same time'.

Now, as has been stated by Cadfan, if you modified the damage whenever you'd hit, you would always deal the extra damage (except for a non-invigorating daily that damages on a miss). So it seems unlikely they'd make something like "when you have thp do extra damage" if NOT dealing the extra damage would be the exception.

They might just clarify it as "if you had thp before you attacked" ... since the damage boost is now something that you get BECAUSE you still have thp (and thus when you hit, you are getting fewer thp than you normally would.)

In many ways it's a mitigation/reward type thing. Just like the combat challenge allows you to do extra damage (via more attacks) when your marked target goes after an ally ... you get extra damage if they don't go after you to get rid of your thp. It's a way to punish enemies for NOT attacking you (which is a good defender ability ... being a striker WHEN the enemy ignores you). It's basically the opposite of the Censure of Retribution that the Avenger has.

Admitedly, the extra damage may not be enough to convince enemies that letting you have it is a bad thing ... in which case, the AC drop is suboptimal. A hammer rhythm battlerager fighter would be interesting though ... dealing damage and getting thp even when they miss with their invigorating powers


----------



## Nail (Jul 5, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Admitedly, the extra damage may not be enough to convince enemies that letting you have it is a bad thing ... in which case, the AC drop is suboptimal.



Exactly.

Enemies aren't liable to gang up on you just to eliminate that extra +2 damage.  That's not even average striker damage.  Moreover, it's likely that just the one enemy you've marked (you are a fighter, after all) can take care of those THPs with a hit.  

....and if you are a hammer fighter, you are hitting a bit less often, and thus have fewer THPs to burn through.

Although I appreciate the effort of kertys and others, I really don't see a chain + hammer BRV fighter as a good choice anymore (in heroic tier, where I will do all of my adventuring), for the reasons I laid out in an earlier post.  Oh well.


----------



## MyISPHatesENWorld (Jul 5, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> To play Devil's Advocate:
> 
> They do _not_ have step 5: apply damage, step 6: apply other effects.
> 
> Applying damage and other effects is one single step. They couldn't really say "apply other effects and damage" now could they? So, both things occur at the 'same time'.




It's one step, but you read a power in order. And in this case, as this isn't an "Effect:" in the defined game term sense of reading a power which is listed in a sequence It could reasonably be stated that the components of the trigger 1) Hitting (before damage and most other effects) and possibly 2) Invigorating Keyword (before pretty much everything) are met before damage, conditions and most "Effects" are applied. 




WalterKovacs said:


> Now, as has been stated by Cadfan, if you modified the damage whenever you'd hit, you would always deal the extra damage (except for a non-invigorating daily that damages on a miss). So it seems unlikely they'd make something like "when you have thp do extra damage" if NOT dealing the extra damage would be the exception.



It seems just as unlikely they'd include a bonus that you wouldn't get enough to be worth giving up better armor. And seems unlikely, either way, is about as meaningful in a discussion as what the rule actually is as claiming to know the intent of something, when WotC employees who designed material can't always explain the intent of changes to their original design (Double Weapons) or their clear explanations of intent are contradicted officially (Rain of Blows).

The credibilty of statements (from non-WotC staff) that claim to know the intent or that some intent is implied and that intent they "know" or "is implied" changes what the rule actually says and means are as credible as statements that the intent - "known" or "implied" - meant Dwarven Weapon Proficiency didn't grant proficiency in superior hammers and axes or Swordmages couldn't reap the superior benefits of Warding and Versatile.

They didn't re-write the paragraph regarding the bonus damage, and the actual errata is:

"Whenever you hit an enemy with a melee or a close attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier, plus any temporary hit points normally granted by the power.
If you use an invigorating fighter attack power and miss every target with it, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution modifier."

In the previous version, they specifically felt the need to include language that allocated the temp hit points after the attack against the battlerager was resolved. No such language is present here. That may or may not mean something. It may mean they meant for the HPs to be granted immediately after the hit. It may mean there is something in the language of the ability that means something to the author or editor that makes it unnecessary or redundant. It may have been removed due to formatting restraints on reprints.



WalterKovacs said:


> They might just clarify it as "if you had thp before you attacked" ... since the damage boost is now something that you get BECAUSE you still have thp (and thus when you hit, you are getting fewer thp than you normally would.)




They might, but they didn't in the update. And there is no way of really knowing what the answer they give, if any, is going to be. It may specifically follow the RAW, it may create a new game term, it may claim that no errata or FAQ is needed because things happen in a certain way even though that way isn't clearly defined in the books. 

Certain phrases and words seem to have a specific meaning to people who work for WotC that isn't explicitly stated in the books.


----------



## keterys (Jul 5, 2009)

Nail said:


> Although I appreciate the effort of kertys and others, I really don't see a chain + hammer BRV fighter as a good choice anymore (in heroic tier, where I will do all of my adventuring), for the reasons I laid out in an earlier post.  Oh well.




Let's be clear here - the dwarf fighter is _probably_ using a hammer anyways. He spent his feat (dwarven weapon training) and he gets the equivalent of +3 damage. It's just what dwarven melee characters almost invariably do. Add in Brash Strike and some other powers that key off Con and there's all kinds of reasons for them to do that.

So, is it worth -1 AC to get +2 damage extra when he has temp hp? Maybe, that's up to the dwarf to figure out. It's a real choice.


----------



## Nail (Jul 5, 2009)

keterys said:


> So, is it worth -1 AC to get +2 damage extra when he has temp hp? Maybe, that's up to the dwarf to figure out. It's a real choice.



...if the fighter is a dwarf (and ignoring the -1 atk for chosing a low proficiency weapon will mean fewer THPs , conditions, OA stops, CC attack hits, etc).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jul 5, 2009)

Nail said:


> ...if the fighter is a dwarf (and ignoring the -1 atk for chosing a low proficiency weapon will mean fewer THPs , conditions, OA stops, CC attack hits, etc).




Unless your Dwarf Fighter began play with 18 Str, like mine. My RPGA Dwarf Fighter had 18Str, 15Con, 10Dex, 8Int, 15Wis, 10Cha at start. He wasn't a Battlerager though.


----------



## keterys (Jul 5, 2009)

Nail said:


> ...if the fighter is a dwarf (and ignoring the -1 atk for chosing a low proficiency weapon will mean fewer THPs , conditions, OA stops, CC attack hits, etc).




And they've already made that decision separately, if they wanted to use dwarven weapon training and deal a bunch more damage. They're all separate decisions with concrete choices.


----------



## Psikus (Jul 5, 2009)

Nail said:


> Although I appreciate the effort of kertys and others, I really don't see a chain + hammer BRV fighter as a good choice anymore (in heroic tier, where I will do all of my adventuring), for the reasons I laid out in an earlier post.  Oh well.




As one of the advocates of hammers as valid BRV weapons, I'd like to point out that hammer+scale (or, more often than not, hammer+plate) is far from worthless. If nothing else, Brash Strike should be a very compelling argument to use hammers/axes vs swords, once you are commited to Con.

I'm not a fan of the damage bonus in light armor, though. It does have its uses, particularly in multiattack or close burst scenarios, and it will be up for most OAs and Combat Challenges. I can see a non-shield battlerager going in chain at lower levels, until they can afford to get plate proficiency. At paragon and beyond, I think the bonus gets completely outclassed by the penalty.

BTW, I just realized how cute Commander's Strike has become with post-errata Battleragers - extra attack AND damage prevention!


----------



## Atreides (Jul 5, 2009)

The errata mostly looks pretty good, but I do have a few quibbles with it (shocking!).

The Tempest and Battlerager fixes look spot on.  The two feats for BRV were a double nerf  (the +1 now only triggers once versus twice in the old rules) so that was probably over the line - but the other changes look good. 


At this point I think a two weapon talent fighter is good if you want to be high damage - a sword and board Battlerager is better if you want to be 'the tank'.  

RRoT is probably still too powerfull.  At 4th Level with a +2 Vicious Executioner's Axe you are looking at +3d12 damage on a hit - effectively a feat that provides a +20 damage bonus once per encounter.  Slaying action on a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue provides +15/16 and is more restrictive in its use. 

At paragon and epic levels the gulf increases dramatically - +3 Axe at level paragon is now doing  +33 damage (the slaying action is at +20 or so). 

By epic the +5 Axe is now dealing +52 damage - pretty good for a once per encounter feat (slaying action is well behind at this point - +25/26).

The suggestion of 18-20 crit range was likely better then this version. 

The RoB change looks good - still a very nice power to have, but no longer a no brainer. 


The Guileful Switch was poorly done - at least from initial reading.  Keeping the power as is but changing it to a Daily would have been much more appropriate.  At this point, it is so situationally useful, that it is much less likely to see play at all.  A party tends to use the Delay funciton to muck with initiative order as needed - wasting a Level 6 power slot to do so is just not something that needs to be done every encounter. 


So Battlerager and Dual strike were very good - the feats were a bit of an over nerf.  

RRoT was undernerfed - it still needs errata. 

GS was over nerfed - it is now too situationaly useful to be a level 6 power - level 2 maybe - would prefer the old version as a Daily.


----------



## keterys (Jul 5, 2009)

I suspect the new GS is more targeted for warlords who group with rogues and wizards, who might really want to go first to gain sneak attack or group things in area effects, that kinda thing.

While I'll admit that I immediately started hunting for a new power for my warlord (kinda gladly, in a way, I just felt stupid if I didn't have it before)... I actually didn't find a level 6 power that seemed much of a better mechanical option than the new GS for my character. I'm probably getting a level 2 power instead.

Reminds me a little of when Veteran's Armor got nerfed and I looked at all the other level 2 options and... yeah, it was at least as good or better than the other options available to that character.


----------



## Atreides (Jul 5, 2009)

keterys said:


> I suspect the new GS is more targeted for warlords who group with rogues and wizards, who might really want to go first to gain sneak attack or group things in area effects, that kinda thing.
> 
> While I'll admit that I immediately started hunting for a new power for my warlord (kinda gladly, in a way, I just felt stupid if I didn't have it before)... I actually didn't find a level 6 power that seemed much of a better mechanical option than the new GS for my character. I'm probably getting a level 2 power instead.
> 
> Reminds me a little of when Veteran's Armor got nerfed and I looked at all the other level 2 options and... yeah, it was at least as good or better than the other options available to that character.




As for the other level 6 Utlities - it has entirely gone from the best of the bunch to the least useful of all of them.  

I would concur with you on the level 2 issue as well - there are a number of level 2's that are very good.  I would go Adaptive Strategem and then take Knight's Move at level 6.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 5, 2009)

keterys said:


> And they've already made that decision separately, if they wanted to use dwarven weapon training and deal a bunch more damage. They're all separate decisions with concrete choices.




it can take quite a solid investment in to CON just to have the plate option... ie.. who isnt going to be making the core decision? 

What support is there for a more Wisdom focused Fighter?


----------



## keterys (Jul 5, 2009)

Dwarves might add Wis to combat challenges (attack and damage) with a feat, and Pit Fighter is good, and I believe a couple other feats use Wis. And, with Marked Scourge, Wis is pretty decent for all fighters really.

And Combat Superiority, of course.

Sword-users also typically want a bit of Dex for things like heavy blade opportunity, though that's obviously not required.


----------



## JoeNotCharles (Jul 5, 2009)

Am I missing something, or is Dual Strike now the only at-will that doesn't go up to 2[W] at level 21?


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 5, 2009)

Other than the battlerager, the fighter is in a nearly unique position of being able to ignore (or spread around) his secondary stats if he so chooses.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jul 6, 2009)

JoeNotCharles said:


> Am I missing something, or is Dual Strike now the only at-will that doesn't go up to 2[W] at level 21?




You are missing something, it is there.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Other than the battlerager, the fighter is in a nearly unique position of being able to ignore (or spread around) his secondary stats if he so chooses.



 It has been argued that Wizards can do this, too, now that the Tome of Readiness is available.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Other than the battlerager, the fighter is in a nearly unique position of being able to ignore (or spread around) his secondary stats if he so chooses.




Basically that means there is a CON focused build but not a WIS focused one.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 6, 2009)

keterys said:


> Dwarves might add Wis to combat challenges (attack and damage) with a feat,




That might be interesting ..... but I am seriously not a Dwarf fan arent they all AXE/Hammer fighters and everyone a BRV candidate.



keterys said:


> and Pit Fighter is good, and I believe a couple other feats use Wis. And, with Marked Scourge,




Oh I see paragon path ---- hmmmm ok, with Marked Scourge coming in there it is.. a feat that really brings Wisdom home. Starting out the box it does seem to get much love (unless people are running away) but by Paragon it does seem real nice



keterys said:


> Wis is pretty decent for all fighters really.
> And Combat Superiority, of course.




If there were a reason for CON to be tertiary, the Tempest build recommends CON as a Tert... but does it actually make compelling use of Wisdom?

I found a feat which makes somewhat intriguing use of Wisdom, ie the Cruel Cut Style.  Blade opportunist .. enhancing the benefits of Combat Superiority emphasizing wisdom sort of by proxy.

A cruel cut blade opportunist sort of seems stylish... but I bet at that point you almost really wanted a rogue or ranger hybrid.

(I wonder about tempest style in general, if I want a two weapon fighter that seems what ranger is for, isn't it?)


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 6, 2009)

There's one feat for dwarves that add their Wis mod to the damage of all melee basic attacks, and Polearm Gamble is Wisdom-based as well, both in prerequisites, and in that it increases your options with opportunity attacks.


----------



## keterys (Jul 6, 2009)

Wis is the second most useful stat for all fighters except battleragers, most likely. Not sure what to say beyond that. They're not like the sorcerer who focuses on that second stat to add to damage.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 6, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Basically that means there is a CON focused build but not a WIS focused one.



Eh... the battlerager is a constitution focused build, obviously.  Without as much constitution as you can afford, you're screwed.  

To a lesser extent the tempest is dexterity focused, because a handful of two weapon attacks use dexterity for bonus damage, and you need those to make use of your entire _raison d'etre_.

But the weapon talent fighter builds aren't really attached to a stat.  In fact, Wisdom is the _only_ stat that always provides some benefit regardless of power choice.  A fighter specializing in, say, axes, only needs constitution for feat prerequisites and maybe, somewhere, a power that uses it slightly.  Once you've got enough to qualify for whatever feats you care about, there's really no meaningful downside to spreading your points around to qualify for other important feats.  Like a few points to qualify for scale armor specialization, for example.  Or one of the choicier wisdom based feats.

Actually, if you DO want to make a wisdom-build fighter, Polearm Gambit provides both the reason and the means.  Check out the optimization forums at the WotC site for some ideas.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 6, 2009)

MyISPHatesENWorld said:


> In the previous version, they specifically felt the need to include language that allocated the temp hit points after the attack against the battlerager was resolved. No such language is present here. That may or may not mean something. It may mean they meant for the HPs to be granted immediately after the hit. It may mean there is something in the language of the ability that means something to the author or editor that makes it unnecessary or redundant. It may have been removed due to formatting restraints on reprints.




Well, the reason for the original wording about the thp only coming into play after the attack was fully resolved is to make it clear that it does not mean you gain the thp before taking damage from the attack (and they can't just say after taking damage as there are some attacks that deal no damage, as well as fighter powers that can reduce damage to zero, not to mention resistances and the like that come from items, powers, race that could all make for being "hit for no damage".)

The question is ultimately "when do you get thp from an invigorating power", as basically battlerager gives thp in addition to any thp you would normally get, which would imply you get it at the same time that you woud normally get the thp. The problem of course being that the _exact_ timing has never come up before as it wasn't really that important to know ... as they could be effectively simultaneous without really triggering any special conditions previously.

----------

Other points:

Basically, the extra damage is split into two things:

(a) Is the change into chain armor worth the slight damage increase? Now, part of this question is going to be how _bad_ does the AC drop matter for your party. For some parties, it may make the fighter a better defender to drop his AC a bit more and make a more tempting target. A chain and heavy shield fighter has the same AC as a plate and two handed weapon fighter basically ... so the damage increase needs to be comparable to wielding a two handed weapon to be worth it (which would require the "gain thp before resolving damage thus getting +1/+2 nearly all the time to make it good).

(b) Is the choice of an axe or hammer a good choice? In this case, it's a valid choice even BEFORE you consider your armor. Yes, you lose out in accuracy. However, you get to use your constitution synergistically with the various fighter powers that work with axes and con. STR/CON also works better for qualifying for the axe/hammer feats. There is Brash Strike that makes up for the attack roll deficiency and gives you extra damage for having the high con. If, for whatever reason, you were fine going in chain, the extra damage from wielding an axe or hammer is just icing on the cake to the other benefits of wielding an axe or hammer.

The chain armor thing seems to be an artifact of what they had originally. The tempest fighter gives up some AC (maybe not, especially if he has a good dex with his hide ... it can be as good as scale easily) to get more damage. The _old_ battlerager not only didn't mind scale as much, they wanted to be easier to hit so they'd be more likely to have thp to use the damage boost. This version is making it easier to lose the thp in order to get a conditional bonus that requires he keeps the thp.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 6, 2009)

On the subject of the wisdom for fighters thing, a battlerager fighter would do well to invest at least a 14 into wisdom to start off, because qualifying for Uncanny Dodge at paragon tier improves brash strike. There are a number of powers (utility and attacks) that take your wisdom modifier into account as a fighter, and unlike dex or con, those powers are generally neutral in terms of weapon type. So while con = hammer and axe while dex = blade, spear and flail; wisdom is pretty much weapon netural (except for the polearm gamble feat ... which works nicely with Uncanny Dodge as well ...)


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 6, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> A fighter specializing in, say, axes, only needs constitution for feat prerequisites and maybe, somewhere, a power that uses it slightly..




An axe fighter who isnt also a con heavy BRV? are you sure about that... Con is one that I thought I seen enough feats or powers boosting axes based on it that well by the time you said I was building an axe fighter or hammer fighter ... the con/brv build became THE course of action.

I would say the BRV build isnt about weapon tying its about a form of defense. (so I dont really get why they put in axe hammer limit on the damage bonus)

A wisdom build fighter might also use it for defense ...Call the feature* Battlefocus* focuses on ;-) noticing attacks and attack plans based on your enemies body language. (because you have to be able to see the enemy well it could be limited to non ranged attacks - arggghh ). Wisdom as the bearer of discipline sounds like a power reuse specialty sneaking in too. Another shtick you might see from a wisdom build... ignoring of various impairing effects and similar distraction are put aside. It could be something like allowing one to ignore an effect till next round.


----------



## Victim (Jul 6, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> An axe fighter who isnt also a con heavy BRV? are you sure about that... Con is one that I thought I seen enough feats or powers boosting axes based on it that well by the time you said I was building an axe fighter or hammer fighter ... the con/brv build became THE course of action.
> 
> I would say the BRV build isnt about weapon tying its about a form of defense. (so I dont really get why they put in axe hammer limit on the damage bonus)




Axes feats need less CON than say Hammer ones - there's nothing like the CON mod miss damage on Hammer Rhythm.  They do tend to use CON as a secondary stat on powers.  

So, yeah, CON is somewhat important.  But they can easily go with a more even spread of spread of secondary stats (or put more weight on STR) and still have enough CON to get all the Axe stuff.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 6, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> An axe fighter who isnt also a con heavy BRV? are you sure about that... Con is one that I thought I seen enough feats or powers boosting axes based on it that well by the time you said I was building an axe fighter or hammer fighter ... the con/brv build became THE course of action.



I'm not knocking the battlerager vigor fighter with an ax.

But if you go with an executioner's axe and the greatweapon fighter talent, or if you go with an axe and a shield and the weapon talent, you really don't need a lot of constitution.

The highest con feat prereq is, I believe, axe mastery.  It requires 17 constitution.  Lets assume you want an 18 by the end of your career, and a 17 at the start of epic tier.  That just requires you to start with a 14 and bump it twice, or a 16 and never bump it, leaving you with 4 to 6 discretionary points to place wherever you like.

Now maybe you'll want to put those into constitution to get even more healing surges, or to mildly improve some of the powers that deal additional damage equal to your constitution modifier on a hit with an axe.  Or to take Invigorating powers.

But you might also want to put those points into wisdom to get some of the wisdom based feats, or to improve your opportunity attacks, or to boost your will defense (since con won't help your fort due to your higher strength overwhelming it).

Or really, you could put them mostly anywhere.  Even dexterity has its advantages, since it improves a languishing reflex defense, boosts initiative and improves several important physical skills.


----------



## Garthanos (Jul 7, 2009)

Victim said:


> Axes feats need less CON than say Hammer ones - there's nothing like the CON mod miss damage on Hammer Rhythm.  They do tend to use CON as a secondary stat on powers.




OK I guess I was thinking of the hammer feats not the axe ones, now that BRV will more rarely see his bonus for using an Axe or a Hammer it actually loosens up the connection, is it weird that I consider that a positive thing.

Thanks guys for the help absorbing impact of the errata


----------



## boolean (Jul 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 17 constitution.  Lets assume you want an 18 by the end of your career, and a 17 at the start of epic tier.  That just requires you to start with a 14 and bump it twice, or a 16 and never bump it, leaving you with 4 to 6 discretionary points to place wherever you like.




Your numbers are out a little. You only need a 15 at 1st to reach 17 at 21st without bumps. So, it's even easier to qualify than you think.


----------



## Cadfan (Jul 7, 2009)

boolean said:


> Your numbers are out a little. You only need a 15 at 1st to reach 17 at 21st without bumps. So, it's even easier to qualify than you think.



My bad.  I was rounding to even numbers on general principle, although I guess there's little reason to do so.  You could always even the numbers out at 24 or 28 if you cared to.


----------



## Goumindong (Jul 7, 2009)

keterys said:


> Dwarves might add Wis to combat challenges (attack and damage) with a feat, and Pit Fighter is good, and I believe a couple other feats use Wis. And, with Marked Scourge, Wis is pretty decent for all fighters really.
> 
> And Combat Superiority, of course.
> 
> Sword-users also typically want a bit of Dex for things like heavy blade opportunity, though that's obviously not required.




Agile Opportunist[in a game with allies who can push/pull/slide], Stonefoot Reprisal[in a game with enemies who like to push/slide], Combat Superiority, Dedicated Challenge[+Wis to att and dmg for CC], Cleric Multiclassing to Warpriest[Two Wisdom attacks, 1 melee vs Fort! AND a super-mark that grants OA's and so triggers two attacks on a defection], Pit Fighter, Marked Scourge, Uncanny Dodge[Seriously amazing feat as many fighters end up surrounded and flanked most of the time], and there are also some feats that give you bonuses to movement based saves that are based on wisdom.

You lose out on a couple of cool con based feats, but really Wisdom, aside from Hammer Rythm, Dwarven Durability, and BRV just isn't used as much as Wisdom is in granting cool and strong abilities.


----------

