Recent content by Nail

Nor am I. My daughter and another friend have played paladins....and it's still not clear to me that they fill their role (defender/leader) well enough. Tertiary defender? :)

THPs are a good deal for the BRV fighter, I agree. My point isn't that: instead, it's "why bother with chain?" If you want the BRV fighter in chain, there'd better be a cookie. :) True! Maybe I need to with hold judgement until we get our 6 person party back (next week, I hope?)...

Very true. In the games I play in (or DM), what you've said above is what happens. It's simply not worth it for a marked monster to ignore the fighter, BRV or no.

Right. That's the question I had immediately after reading the errata. Now that I've seen it (only once!:)) in play, it's become the central question for my human BRV fighter. (Dwarven BRV Fighters have more incentive to stay with hammer and chain, IMO. I'm ignoring the dwarven case.)...

"Core" no longer exists as a useful designator. Perhaps it means "no pre-view material and no Dragon/Dungeon", but that's about it. Maybe no Campaign settings? WotC has specifically avoided the "core" concept, as it tends to limit which products are "evergreen". CB does allow you to chose...

FWIW, I played my BRV (Chain+hammer) Fighter last night in 2 combats...and got the damage bonus from THPs about three times. (Our warlord deserves the credit for making 2 out of three of those happen, IIRC, from Commander's Strike.) Enemies would burn through my THPs before my turn came around...

As much as I'd love to follow the literal RAW here, it's pretty clear you have to have the THPs before you roll the attack. keterys has the right of it. Given how fights usually go down, the BRV fighter will lose his THPs 4 times out of 5 before his turn comes 'round again, and thus not have...

Also consider that this is an encounter power, useful outside of combat. IOW, you might use it on many, many, many skill checks outside of combat.

Yup. OMG, the player that activated the trap by charging in actually has an advantage....... :p

Power cards are not "skills", nor do they include them. Powers are particular to a class; skills are not. Skills are listed (and calculated) on the PC sheet. If you use the standard PC sheet, the skills are on the first sheet, bottom left corner.

It's hardly RAW, but I often swap-in a forced move power for brutes, soldiers, etc. It's just a little bit more fun to be thrown around than it is to be dazed, stunned, immobilized, etc. So, for example, a breath weapon on a soldier might do damage + push a target 3 squares, rather than do...

...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).

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...

Right. In otherwords, the feat only adds the +2 to the invigorating power (say - Crushing Surge), but not to the battle rager feature ("add yer Con mod. in THPs if ya hit wit' an invigorating power"). So your option number four only gives you 10 THPs, not 12.

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...