Fighter Slayer preview

[Prestidigitalis]

But actually, since kobolds are small, they may not be the most optimal slayers anyway, and therefore can be relegated to "amusing but rare" category, not the annoying "rare in the world but for some reason really common as PCs" category.

3e/3.5e had a lot of egregious side-bar text in some of the specialty books. First they would tell you that (e.g.) Aasimar almost never became Rogues, and then point out that those Aasimar who DID become rogues had some level of diversity that was completely inexplicable given the base rarity of Aasimar and the fact that they almost never became Rogues.

It's kind of like "Left-handed, unicycle-riding trombone players with more than one wife and at least 19 children are very rare. Those who do exist are found primarily in Cleveland and other eastern cities, and only rarely south of the Mason-Dixon line." 10 units of Demographics 101, stat!

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

As much as I like that archetype, it hasn't been well-represented by the fighter since Unearthed Arcana - the /1e/ Unearted Arcana that introduced Weapon Specialization, that is. Ever since then, fighters have been about using a specific weapon. 4e fighters were slightly less so, being pigeonholed only into a specific style (two-hander, sword & board) or type of weapon ('heavy blades,' etc..), instead. You /could/ build a 3.x 'generalist' fighter, but it was not easy to build & play one effectively.

The increasing emphasis on /needing/ a level-apropriate magic weapon also hurt, since you were unlikely to have several.

Some very good points.
Fighter has become the "Master of A Weapon" instead of "Master of Weapons." While the 4E weapon groups are very much a step in the right direction, weapon category feats further compound the problem.

The Slayer's Weapon Talent is great for bringing back "Master of Weapons." There have been some other attempts as well, Weapon Master lets you get Weapon Focus and Expertise for all weapons you are proficient with. Dynamic Weapon lets you change your weapon to another weapon, providing a magic weapon at the right level for any weapon.

The real issue is that specialization rewards you for using a certain type of weapon. If you have 10 feats dedicated to the Ax, using a Hammer means your missing 10 feats. However if you didn't specialize, the differences between an Ax and a Hammer are minor at best.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, WotC came out and said that they would not publish new martial classes after Martial Power came out - so it was some time ago, I'm not surprised folks don't remember. I only remember because I was hoping for a Martial Controller.

IIRC, the language used was something along the lines of. 'We have all the martial archetypes covered with the existing classes,' 'We won't publish new classes for a power source after that source's 'power book' is released' and 'we aren't going to try to 'fill the grid' by making sure each source covers all the roles.' Of course, they went on to release the Seeker post-Primal-Power (PP /did/ hit before PH3, right? - I didn't buy either, so I'm not 100% certain) and to 'fill the grid' for every other power source in print (not counting Shadow, obviously, though I'm sure it'll get all 4 roles eventually, too).

 

[Klaus]

The Slayer rules another aspect:

Heavy Thrown Weapons.

Str-based ranged attacks, with some extra Dex on top of the damage lets you don heavy armor and still have great ranged and melee capability.

I'm getting flashes of Thor throwing Mjolnir or of the Diablo II Amazon with spears and javelins!

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Of course, they went on to release the Seeker post-Primal-Power (PP /did/ hit before PH3, right? - I didn't buy either, so I'm not 100% certain) ...

Primal Power's first printing was in October 2009, so you're correct on that.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yeah, WotC came out and said that they would not publish new martial classes after Martial Power came out - so it was some time ago, I'm not surprised folks don't remember. I only remember because I was hoping for a Martial Controller.

Link please?

'Cuz apparently, nobody told Mike Mearls, who, when asked whether Essentials meant the end of "power-using martial classes" said something to the effect of "I could see a future weapon master class that used a system similar to the one in the PHB."

I do recall them saying that they were never going to make a Martial Controller just to "fill in the grid." If they were to make one, it would have to "have a story reason for existing." But I don't recall a specific statement of "no new martial classes."

Although if they did, maybe that's why these are "subclasses" instead.

 

[MrMyth]

Some very good points.
Fighter has become the "Master of A Weapon" instead of "Master of Weapons." While the 4E weapon groups are very much a step in the right direction, weapon category feats further compound the problem.

The Slayer's Weapon Talent is great for bringing back "Master of Weapons." There have been some other attempts as well, Weapon Master lets you get Weapon Focus and Expertise to all weapons you are proficient with. Dynamic Weapon lets you change your weapon to another weapon, providing a magic weapon at the right level for any weapon.

The real issue is that specialization rewards you for using a certain type of weapon. If you have 10 feats dedicated to the Ax, using a Hammer means your missing 10 feats. However if you didn't specialize, the differences between an Ax and a Hammer are minor at best.

And there are admittedly ways around that - their is a "Weapon Mastery" feat that, if you have Weapon Focus and Expertise, lets you apply them to all weapons. (There was an entire article devoted to a fighter that switches weapons through a fight.)

The magic weapon issue remains a concern, though inherent bonuses or the ability to use a Ki Focus can get around that.

I'm hoping Dark Sun will help with this (and the suggestion it may use inherent bonuses will go a long way.) You break your obsidian sword on the enemy's face? Grab a fallen weapon off the ground and just keep beating him with it. Makes for a great image, rather than being so tied to one weapon that even the idea of using something else causes your fighter to break out in hives.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

And there are admittedly ways around that - their is a "Weapon Mastery" feat that, if you have Weapon Focus and Expertise, lets you apply them to all weapons. (There was an entire article devoted to a fighter that switches weapons through a fight.)

The magic weapon issue remains a concern, though inherent bonuses or the ability to use a Ki Focus can get around that.

I'm hoping Dark Sun will help with this (and the suggestion it may use inherent bonuses will go a long way.) You break your obsidian sword on the enemy's face? Grab a fallen weapon off the ground and just keep beating him with it. Makes for a great image, rather than being so tied to one weapon that even the idea of using something else causes your fighter to break out in hives.

/Facepalm
Read the middle paragraph of my post

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, WotC came out and said that they would not publish new martial classes after Martial Power came out - so it was some time ago, I'm not surprised folks don't remember. I only remember because I was hoping for a Martial Controller.

IIRC, the language used was something along the lines of. 'We have all the martial archetypes covered with the existing classes,' 'We won't publish new classes for a power source after that source's 'power book' is released' and 'we aren't going to try to 'fill the grid' by making sure each source covers all the roles.' Of course, they went on to release the Seeker post-Primal-Power (PP /did/ hit before PH3, right? - I didn't buy either, so I'm not 100% certain) and to 'fill the grid' for every other power source in print (not counting Shadow, obviously, though I'm sure it'll get all 4 roles eventually, too).

Runepriest would be an even better example. The problem with those kinds of statements by designers is they're really impossible promises to make. I mean who actually knows what will come down the pike a year later? All you can read them as are statements of what the devs NOW think when they make the statement.

Personally I have no problem with a Striker fighter. Honestly, the GW fighter was already pretty close. I don't really know what to make of the archer slayer. I don't really think it was a primary consideration, and I don't know that they really thought about it a whole lot. We also don't know enough yet about the slayer to say just how good an archer it will really make. Remember, archer rangers have some HUGE bennies. Just the Battlefield Archer PP alone puts them in a whole different category. Consider all the minor action attack powers, high mobility options, etc. and I doubt there's much danger the slayer will overshadow them. He might make a perfectly good alternative that just lets the enemy get in his face and doesn't care, but he's not going to be identical to the ranger.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Runepriest would be an even better example.

The problem with those kinds of statements by designers is they're really impossible promises to make. I mean who actually knows what will come down the pike a year later? All you can read them as are statements of what the devs NOW think when they make the statement.

Yeah, I came back to add the Runepriest to my post. I didn't buy PH3 because I loathe psionics in D&D, and I had forgotten where the Runepriest even apeared...

...and, yes, they do end up making impossible promises, and taking flack for breaking them, so I can't really /blame/ them for finagling around to nominally 'keep' them.

Personally I have no problem with a Striker fighter. Honestly, the GW fighter was already pretty close. I don't really know what to make of the archer slayer. I don't really think it was a primary consideration

I agree - the Greatweapon Fighter was a strong secondary striker, and edging it fully into the Striker role is not unreasonable. I just don't like the all-basic-attack aproach to the martial classes - dangerous 'backsliding' is what it looks like to me. I think getting something like effective archery back into the hands of the Fighter was a consideration - it's a complaint that's been voiced often enough, certainly.