Evolution of the Fighter

[Runestar]

I think any core spellcaster is more complex than the fighter. Assuming by complex you mean something like "the number of options available at any one time". That fighter may have a bunch of feats, but for the most part the feats either apply or they don't. The wizard can have dozens of spells to choose from at any one time. And a cleric preparing spells at the beginning of a day, not limited like the wizard in the number of spells available? That's complex.

Complex to build actually, not complex to play. It can be tricky trying to build an effective 3e fighter because you are essentially given the choice of many feats (which you have to select from a list of many hundreds), and little/no direction on how you ought to proceed. So the onus is on you to sift out the good feats from the crappy ones and find out how they synergize with one another.

In a way, it could be even more unforgiving to play than the wizard, because the wizard can still change his daily repertoire of spells known until he finds a combination that works, unlike the fighter, who choices are effectively locked in (for better or worse).

But once you have it all figured out, it should be relatively straightforward to play, since it is basically a 1-trick pony (albeit a very good one) in combat.

 

[Allister]

Complex to build actually, not complex to play. It can be tricky trying to build an effective 3e fighter because you are essentially given the choice of many feats (which you have to select from a list of many hundreds), and little/no direction on how you ought to proceed. So the onus is on you to sift out the good feats from the crappy ones and find out how they synergize with one another.

In a way, it could be even more unforgiving to play than the wizard, because the wizard can still change his daily repertoire of spells known until he finds a combination that works, unlike the fighter, who choices are effectively locked in (for better or worse).

But once you have it all figured out, it should be relatively straightforward to play, since it is basically a 1-trick pony (albeit a very good one) in combat.

Exactly.

Unlike with wizard where you can screw up one day but be fine the next, a fighter has such no luxury. Get it wrong with the fighter and you'r epermanently screwed....

 

[RFisher]

Before 3e, my favorite class was Fighter. (Something I didn’t really realize until I looked back through my old character sheets.) In 3e, I actually preferred the Aristocrat class. Trading feats for a decent selection of skills. (Plus better starting money didn’t hurt.)

The two big downsides being: (1) It’s an NPC class, so I have to clear it with the DM. (2) It can feel a bit less effective than the other classes as you go up in levels, which makes it tempting to multiclass a little.

 

[Serendipity]

the D&D Alumni section has always praised the current edition. Check out the alumni section on Players Handbooks and Rogues for some "Ain't 3.5 better than that old D&D? Look at those ACs!" type of spin.

They're selling the latest edition, not convincing us their old stuff is just as good, if not better. Let Enworld handle that!

Having not spent terribly much time on WotCs website except for very specific purposes prior to late last year (that whole edition change thing....) I'm reading these and .... wow.
Especially the PH II article. The spin hits me doubly as I didn't much care for the PH II.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

The 4e Fighter has a few builds.

However, on the whole, the "fighter" of old is now the entire martial power source. They are all fighters, in their own way.

Power Attack line fighter -> Fighter
Dodge Feat line -> Rogue (Ranger as well with hit-run and shifting)
Two Weapon/Ranged -> Ranger, although there is a two weapon fighter into Martial Power
Toughness -> Battlerager from Martial Power
Combat Expertise -> The powers like tripping are given to numerous group. The warlord allows for a "smart" fighter build that benefits from the int. This is really the only one that doesn't have a direct analogue
Weapon Master -> Normal fighter build, this has included paragon paths, in addtion to powers and feats, tied to specific weapon types.

I think you proved my point. The fighter has devolved from 3E to 4E. It has been shoehorned into the defender/tank role and as such has lost some of the possible graceful and interesting builds that were once available.

In creating combat roles for the game, the classes (especially the fighter), have lost things that I enjoyed and valued greatly - flexibility and the ability to create different/non-standard builds.

 

[Fifth Element]

As I usual play a cleric or druid, yea spell selection can get complex. But the combat attack and damage roll matrix of the ranger/barbarian in our group is insane as it needs to take into account: rage, power attack (varying amounts), 2 handed weapon, 2 weapon, sword and board, common buffs. It hurts just to look at.

That is a good point. Of course, the buffs come from the spellcasters so maybe we can shift some of the blame to them?

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

That is a good point. Of course, the buffs come from the spellcasters so maybe we can shift some of the blame to them?

The counter to this is the insane number of debuffs that now get applied to targets in 4E; Combat Challenge, Divine Challenge, Hunters Quarry, Warlock's Curse, Ongoing damage (fire, cold, psychic, etc), slowed, prone, immobilized, weakened, bonus to be healed, AC modifiers, etc.

I made a batch of colored wooden disk (5 colors) to keep track of these effects. What our group has discovered is that 5 is not nearly enough to keep track of the numerous effects that get slung about the battlefield. The complexity of 3E and 4E, at least concerning buff/debuff numbers, is similar.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The counter to this is the insane number of debuffs that now get applied to targets in 4E; Combat Challenge, Divine Challenge, Hunters Quarry, Warlock's Curse, Ongoing damage (fire, cold, psychic, etc), slowed, prone, immobilized, weakened, bonus to be healed, AC modifiers, etc.

I made a batch of colored wooden disk (5 colors) to keep track of these effects. What our group has discovered is that 5 is not nearly enough to keep track of the numerous effects that get slung about the battlefield. The complexity of 3E and 4E, at least concerning buff/debuff numbers, is similar.

One big difference I noticed - the 4E buffs and debuffs are "in your face". They are not "hidden" away and suddenly begin to matter because someone dispels the Magic Circle vs Evil and the Mage Armor spell and you know how to think about your (incorporeal) touch armor against the next attack. They are straightforward - it's not that an effect reduces your relevant ability score and you know have to see how this affects your attacks.

You still take notes, but where you had matrixes, you know just have a single line...

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

One big difference I noticed - the 4E buffs and debuffs are "in your face". They are not "hidden" away and suddenly begin to matter because someone dispels the Magic Circle vs Evil and the Mage Armor spell and you know how to think about your (incorporeal) touch armor against the next attack. They are straightforward - it's not that an effect reduces your relevant ability score and you know have to see how this affects your attacks.

You still take notes, but where you had matrixes, you know just have a single line...

I tend to agree with this, save for Auras. Unless you are on your game, they are often forgotten

 

[pawsplay]

A pretty sloppy article. To hear Wizards talk, the 3e fighter's dozens of possible feats was boring while the warlock was a genius of innovation... both are, in 4e terms, classes with a healthy choice of at-will powers.