Fighter Slayer preview

[Tony Vargas]

I'm surprised no one else has said this already: the Essential Fighter is an old school fighter. Originally, fighters just whacked things, and this is what the Slayer does. ...

All the "essential" builds have been more old school to my eye - I think their primary function is to draw in old school players who haven't taken to 4e so far. Kind of a 4e reaction to the demand for retro clones.

Cheers,
Dan

Yes, it's been said. Yes, it's quite plausible.

Essentials was originally supposed to be to draw in new players - Encounters was to have drawn in lapsed players. I guess Encounters didn't succeed to the degree hoped for, so they've re-purposed Essentials to target both new and lapsed players. It could work, I suppose, only time will tell, but it seems to me that those are very different potential customers with very different needs in a 'point of entry' product. At best, Essentials might draw both in, but each with a somewhat mixed impression of the game. At worst, it will draw in neither.

 

[Klaus]

What about Grazing Shot (adds "Miss: Dex damage" to your ranged basic attacks)? That ought to work well for a Slayer and a Thief.

 

[Marshall]

Such as?

Role defines class being the primary one. Archer Fighters dont exist because the Fighter is a Defender and class mechanics dont function at range. If you want the "bow fighter" archetype you play a DEX ranger.
If you want to be a high-damage sword fighter you play a Ranger or Rogue or Barbarian.

Such as?

Aside from the Melee training issue, Humans fall apart without classes having at-will attacks, race rebuilds, the whole swath of Basic-Attack feats and items.....

Such as?

It's really easy to say the sky is falling. It's a lot harder to show somebody where it landed.

Put a Knight and a S&B Fighter next to each other, the only similarities you find are in terms that have been redefined and a power list that gets gutted for one half or the other.

 

[Fifth Element]

Why use pyromancer when evoker is still available?

One might expect that an evoker would have evocations, and unfortunately that term is already spoken for in 4E. Would that it weren't, but that's where we are.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mearls says role is assigned after the class concept is fully thought out rather than something the concept is built around in essentials.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.

 

[JohnSnow]

One might expect that an evoker would have evocations, and unfortunately that term is already spoken for in 4E. Would that it weren't, but that's where we are.

Except that, as of the mage, we already have two meanings of "evocation." So it's already confusing!

That and the fact that there's already an "Invoker" that's a divine controller class. I surmised WotC wouldn't want to be that confusing. But based on the 2 meanings of "evocation," perhaps it was hasty of me.

I guess I just felt like typing "pyromancer."

 

[fuzzlewump]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.

Fair enough. I think the seeker concept is awesome and the mechanics are meh. I'm still enjoying my seeker thrower paragon though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fair enough. I think the seeker concept is awesome and the mechanics are meh. I'm still enjoying my seeker thrower paragon though.

Different values for awesome, I guess. "I shoot magic nature arrows" doesn't seem like a very awesome concept to me (at least when compared with most other classes; seems more like a mechanical trick). That doesn't mean it's not fully enjoyable if you can infuse it with something beyond the "I shoot magic nature arrows" aspect of it, or if you really love shooting magic nature arrows, though.

That and the fact that there's already an "Invoker" that's a divine controller class. I surmised WotC wouldn't want to be that confusing. But based on the 2 meanings of "evocation," perhaps it was hasty of me.

You mean WotC, the company responsible for gaming words like shardmind, battlemind, warforged, warden, warlord, wilden, and fell taint, are having difficulty with naming conventions?

I'm shocked! Just...shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

shocked!

 

[Saeviomagy]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.

The battlemind and seeker were supposed to be tragic and heart stirring, but ended up comical? I guess you have a wider variety of things that you judge funny.

Mind you, I would have thought if the concepts had started with role and weapon, they might have gone for something a bit more flavourful, like using implements... I think it was more role and power source and not much else.

 

[mach1.9pants]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.

Yeah just finished my first read of PHB3, they are 'Meh to Max (TM)' (Min?). Weird they are in the same book as the Monk and Hybrid which are so good.