Fighter Slayer preview

[Scribble]

Way back, possibly in the build up to 4e I remember Mike Mearls saying that 4e could form the basis of a classless D&D and I think we are seeing evidence of that now.
Sort of like lego as noted up thread.

I remember that, and the link to the article written by one of the math guys at WoTC... If I remember right he pretty much argued that even in a "classless" game there will always be combinations of powers that the power-gamers will find, and always play, so you'll essentially have classes anyway, but they won't necessarily follow any sort of "archetype." In addition you'll have a wider range of power diversion between players in the game.


I pretty much agree with this... When I run GURPS, the difference between my power gamers and my "players that pick powers based on character description," is amazing.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Also the Rogue comparison is bad, this is just ONE of his powers that just helps when he is not able to get CA (which should be rare).

One of the examples given for when it would be good was a rogue at range with a shortbow.

Mind you, I don't think it took the slayer for anyone to realize that was going to be an express elevator to sucksville.

 

[Stalker0]

I fear melee training will be a casualty of essentials, murdered off because it's 'too good' for the new fighter, but leaving paladins, assassins, avengers, non-Str secondary monks, and any number of other melee classes without functional basic attacks to use. At least sword mages have their own feat.

Actually the way they may get around it is with class specific melee trainings just like the swordmages. So the charisma paladin can still take it but the new slayer could not for example.

 

[jimmifett]

I really like the slayer build. Thematicly, it makes me think of a classic samurai, can use bows and swords effectively, just throw in a mount.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I love that you can either go with heavy armor and use Dex merely as a little extra damage, or you can max out on Dex and go light armor, without the "hunter" overtones of the Ranger.

With two weapons, you build a Tempest fighter, Two-Weapon Ranger or Whirling Barbarian. With a two-handed weapon you build a Barbarian (if light armored) or a Greatweapon Fighter (if heavy armored). With a bow you go full-on archer. Very versatile!

Guess I don't really get what the 'hunter overtones' of ranger are... Granted it makes more sense if you want a heavy armored bow user to use the Slayer, but it doesn't really put anything entirely new into play as far as character types you can build, that we can see so far anyway. An archer slayer will be VERY similar to an archer ranger or mixed STR/DEX ranger. The main difference would be instead of having the option to go two weapon in melee you'll be going with a big two-hander. No doubt there will be some specific combinations that will work better with slayer but they will be things like "guy that uses a bow or charges with a two-hander", which you can kind of do now but sub-optimally.

The new martial designs are nice and like any new builds they're going to allow for some new permutations. On the whole I think the new concept is elegant, but I don't think it's going to really add a lot of totally new possibilities, just means there are a few new ways to do pretty much what you could all ready.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I remember that, and the link to the article written by one of the math guys at WoTC... If I remember right he pretty much argued that even in a "classless" game there will always be combinations of powers that the power-gamers will find, and always play, so you'll essentially have classes anyway, but they won't necessarily follow any sort of "archetype." In addition you'll have a wider range of power diversion between players in the game.

I pretty much agree with this... When I run GURPS, the difference between my power gamers and my "players that pick powers based on character description," is amazing.

And from someone who can powergame without trying (I normally assume the mechanically encouraged options are done that way for a reason), 4e's class balance works - I'm going to run rings round most point buy systems compared to many players (especially if there are synergies rather than flatness as in Gumshoe). 3e has the worst of all worlds - classes broken out of the box (Druid) and others weak out of the box (Monk). But in 4e I shouldn't be eclipsing people or making them feel useless unless we're on the same approach.

 

[doctorhook]

If this Slayer can function as a Ranged striker, what's the essential Ranger going to be like?

Balanced, and without the win-button that is Twin Strike, I hope.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

hey they are sub-classes not build so no problem in 1st edition AD&D both the ranger and the paladin were sub-classes of the fighter....

I think of sub-classes as classes that can pick utilities, feats, paragon-paths, epic destinies that require you to have the mother class

btw this is very interesting from a design point of view

e.g.: you could have
Pyromancer (arcane striker) wizard sub-class

and so on...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Lets make a bet:

new ranger won´t have twin strike but its second weapon will be the kicker for the striker damage (like many suggested, and similar to how it is doen with the whirling barbarian), and the ranged ranger will get something totally different...

 

[Scribble]

And from someone who can powergame without trying (I normally assume the mechanically encouraged options are done that way for a reason), 4e's class balance works - I'm going to run rings round most point buy systems compared to many players (especially if there are synergies rather than flatness as in Gumshoe). 3e has the worst of all worlds - classes broken out of the box (Druid) and others weak out of the box (Monk). But in 4e I shouldn't be eclipsing people or making them feel useless unless we're on the same approach.

Yeah I think 4e found a really good "middle ground" for how to have classes yet still have the ability to customize.

It works well at keeping the power gamers and gamers who just want to model a concept at around the same level. (Power gamers can still feel like they're getting a boost without being able to throw things way out of whack.)