Fighter Slayer preview

[Zaphling]

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."

My thoughts are similar to yours as well. But I just made this false hope for myself: Since primal powers are called Evocations because they evoke the primal fury of nature.

Wotc said: The spells of the school of evocation are a mage’s most brutally effective weapons. An evocation spell channels magic to produce bolts of lightning, howling gales that can freeze enemies in their tracks, and explosive orbs of fiery energy. Evocation spells are never subtle, and they encompass some of the most potent combat powers in the game.

Since evokers also use lightning, ice, and fire which is pretty primal. Maybe evokers borrowed the primals powers through arcane. *Arcane, by itself, is a pretty broad power source. :-/

To think Divine also have holy lightning, holy ice, and holy fire.

 

[DracoSuave]

It helps if you know what the words mean.

Evocation and Invocation as words come from the words 'evoke' and 'invoke.'

Invokers are called that because they invoke. Invoke means to call upon a higher power for assistance. That's what invokers do, they call upon the higher power of their diety in order to accomplish their goals.

To evoke means to call up, or to summon, specifically in a spiritual sense. Thus, evocations summon things. They're appropriate for Primal characters because primal characters are spirit summoners, each and every one of them.

Evocation as a spell type is an old school reference, for when the school was called 'Invocation/Evocation' and pertained to magic that summoned bursts of energy from whereever such bursts of energy were stored.

And yes, it makes a terrible keyword for powers when 'evocation' is the name for Primal Powers.

 

[Obryn]

Ah-HA!

Well, Mearls just answered the big question about Melee Training. It only gives 1/2 the stat modifier to damage.

That makes sense.

-O

 

[Zaphling]

Ah-HA!

Well, Mearls just answered the big question about Melee Training. It only gives 1/2 the stat modifier to damage.

That makes sense.

-O

Where is this? i want to read it for myself

 

[doctorhook]

Where is this? i want to read it for myself

It's in a new (posted today) free article on the WotC website.

 

[Zaphling]

I've read it. Hmmm. I know they, Wotc, stated that Essentials will not be replacing the Old PHBs. But technically they've been updating a number of powers from phb. Even the races are now like PHB3's. Hmmm. I like it though. But I just think that 4eE will be replacing 4e.

Hmmm. Unless they won't be printing the rules on combat and the basics for skill challenges and all basic rules in PHB to the Essentials. If this is true, then Essentials won't be replacing old PHBs

 

[Tony Vargas]

Can you show me where a Fighter hitting or missing with a ranged attack still doesn't mark a target?

Fighters can mark with ranged attacks. The impediment to an 'archer' Fighter is that there is no RBA-stat-swapping option comparable to the MBA-stat-swapping of Melee Training. Thus, a Fighter is much better off using a Heavy Thrown weapon rather than a bow.

The Slayer, which is DEX secondary, gets around this problem. It can just go DEX primary and be an archer, it still gets those basic attack enhancers that aply to RBAs, and is effectively getting double it's DEX bonus for damage. For melee backup, it can go Melee Training, which, even with the mild nerf just announced, will still dish better damage than a regular Fighter's MBA.

A Knight and an SBF would play practically identically. You just buy a Knight off-the-rack and get an SBF tailor-made.

Not quite. The mechanical differences are great enough that you would definitely notice the difference in play. They do both model the same character concept, though, so are alternative mechanics for the same thing - a shield-using martial defender. If the Knight were merely 'off the rack' it would just be a fighter with it's powers granted in a defined sequence instead of picked. You'd be able to switch out for fighter powers once you got the hang of the system, like you can (presumably) do with the domain-selected powers of a warpriest.



Zaphling: The answer to all your questions about Knights and Fighters swapping out features and abilities is 'no.' Essentials Classes can swap powers with explicit levels with their 4e counterparts. So Mages can take wizard powers and vice-versa, and warpriests and clerics can freely swap powers. The Essentials Martial classes get basic-attack-enhancing abilities that may be at-will or encounter, but they are not labeled as at-will or encounter /attacks with an explicit level/ so cannot be swapped. They do, however, get utilities at the same levels as 4e Martial classes, so those presumably can be swapped.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

Fighters can mark with ranged attacks. The impediment to an 'archer' Fighter is that there is no RBA-stat-swapping option comparable to the MBA-stat-swapping of Melee Training. Thus, a Fighter is much better off using a Heavy Thrown weapon rather than a bow.

The Slayer, which is DEX secondary, gets around this problem. It can just go DEX primary and be an archer, it still gets those basic attack enhancers that aply to RBAs, and is effectively getting double it's DEX bonus for damage. For melee backup, it can go Melee Training, which, even with the mild nerf just announced, will still dish better damage than a regular Fighter's MBA.

but the Slayer don't have any Marking power or I missed something?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry, that didn't quite get accross what I was trying to say.

The complaint that often gets raised about Fighters that they "can't be archers," isn't raised because people want to play an archer-defender. It's raised because people are accustomed to 3.x fighters, which could be very good archers, indeed (rivaling and, in some ways, surpassing the 3.x Ranger). In 4e, the archer archetype was given over entirely to the Ranger (and now Seeker).

The Slayer, though a Striker, is /technically/ a Fighter. About all that means is that he can take Fighter utilities, but he's still a Fighter in some sense. Enough of a sense, hopefully, to satisfy those people who were whining that their Fighter "couldn't be an archer."

The Slayer would make a pretty decent archer, who, with the right feat, could also be a pretty decent melee type. It's defender-like toughness would be a bit superflous for a dedicated ranger, but that was the case in earlier eds, too, and this is one of those complaints about 4e that boils down to "it's not exactly like it was in the past."

 

[Garthanos]

and this is one of those complaints about 4e that boils down to "it's not exactly like it was in the past."

I call that one in this context "class name envy"... not getting that Martial is fighter.