Fighter Slayer preview

[Imaro]

The PHB also portrays Warlords as entirely front-line combatants - a later build gave them the option to fight from range. Just as I don't think that 'melee' was the one defining element of a Warlord, I don't think that 'Defender' is the one defining element of a Fighter.

The Fighter in the PHB is a defender, yes. But most of what the PHB portrays the fighter as remains true - a skilled warrior, who bashes and slices his foes into submission.

Look, if the Slayer was presented as an arcane caster who cuts enemies down with illusion spells, then... yeah, I would absolutely agree that wasn't a fighter. But are you really saying that 'Guy who is really good at killing things with weapons' doesn't match your mental image of a fighter?

Or that, because the PHB Fighter was a Defender, that WotC has said that is the one defining feature of the class, and any violation of that means a complete breakdown of the class system?

Cause I just don't see it.

First off... 'Guy who is really good at killing things with weapons' ... could be a Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, etc (also, what about the Brawler Build???). So that's kind of broad to be an archtype... so I guess my answer is yes though it doesn't match my mental image of what a 4e fighter is.

Wait a minute... so now we have a "PHB Fighter" vs... exactly what? There is a 4e Fighter. The class and all of it's builds have, up to this point, been defined as defenders.

My last point is please stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the Slayer preview was the breakdown of the 4e class system (HYPERBOLE MUCH!!!)... and I had actually stated I liked the new direction... of course your zealotry and feverish desire to quell my questioning of whether the classes were now becoming obsolete probably made you overlook that part. To clarify when I say the class system is becoming obsolete, I mean that the major defining feature of a class as it is presented in the PHB, mainly role, is now mutable... that is all.

 

[MrMyth]

/Facepalm
Read the middle paragraph of my post

Reading Comprehension FAIL!

Hah, wow, yeah, no idea how I blanked on that. I think seeing the word Weapon just came up too much for my brain to take it all in. Weapon Talent, Weapon Master, Weapon Focus, Weapon Expertise, Dynamic Weapons, rar!

 

[MrMyth]

My last point is please stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the Slayer preview was the breakdown of the 4e class system (HYPERBOLE MUCH!!!)... and I had actually stated I liked the new direction... of course your zealotry and feverish desire to quell my questioning of whether the classes were now becoming obsolete probably made you overlook that part. To clarify when I say the class system is becoming obsolete, I mean that the major defining feature of a class as it is presented in the PHB, mainly role, is now mutable... that is all.

Ok, note that several lines in my post were in the form of questions. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm trying to actually figure out what you are saying here. Saying, "this transition makes your class pretty much obsolete" sounds like a pretty loaded statement...

...but now that you've clarified it as "that the major defining feature of a class as it is presented in the PHB, mainly role, is now mutable" - that I pretty much agree with. It just felt like a very different statement than you originally were coming from.

My point, largely, was that while I think role was certainly a large part of how the classes were presented, I don't think it was the only part, or even the most important part. Despite the flexibility of how one could flavor them, they still retained most of the classic concepts of each class. The mage is the student of magic, the fighter is the heavily armored guy skilled with weapons, the rogue is the lightly armored guy who uses tricks to get ahead, etc. I think those core concepts hold true even when we've seen existing variants crop up in supplements, and will remain so even with these greater variants seen in Essentials.

Now, it does sound like part of your disagreement is that you just didn't see the PHB as presenting the Fighter as anything outside of 'Martial Defender' - and maybe that is a failure on WotC's part, if they weren't able to portray more flavor than that. But in the end, for myself, I just don't see 'Martial Defender' as encapsulating the whole of the Fighter - anymore than 'Arcane Striker' can fully capture the Sorcerer and the Warlock, two classes with significant differences that nonetheless occupy the same power source and role.

 

[Scribble]

Now, it does sound like part of your disagreement is that you just didn't see the PHB as presenting the Fighter as anything outside of 'Martial Defender' - and maybe that is a failure on WotC's part, if they weren't able to portray more flavor than that. But in the end, for myself, I just don't see 'Martial Defender' as encapsulating the whole of the Fighter - anymore than 'Arcane Striker' can fully capture the Sorcerer and the Warlock, two classes with significant differences that nonetheless occupy the same power source and role.

Well- I could see an argument for it. I mean really, as it stands so far class/role was kind of redundant. You could say martial - defender, and pretty much be ok (rules wise.)

The idea of the "class" IMO was always more of a flavor thing.

Which is why I think the new "sub classes" kind of expand on that.

So we have the Fighter >> "Fighter" which is take the fighter archetype and run it through the defender role.

And we have Fighter >>> "Slayer" take the fighter archetype and run it through the Striker role.

It's just a little confusing because it also uses non "traditionaL build style and the "Fighter" >> "Fighter" would be kind of like calling the make and model of a car the same thing. "The all new 2011 Honda, Honda!"

 

[tyrlaan]

I would argue not that "class" has been made obsolete, but rather what it signifies has altered.

 

[Remathilis]

Tosses another log on the fire... Whoosh!

Beautiful! Now we don't need 27 classes to fill unique niches on some imaginary powersource/role grid. Classes can do more than one thing now; a fighter can strike (for massive damage) or defend (to tank for allies). Heck, it even allows two fighters on the team to be non-redundant!

I'm going to owe Mearls a brewery by the time Essentials is done!

Now, I hope that means a few other classes get "alternate" roles. Druid Controller/Leader? Warlock Striker/Controller? Paladin Defender/Leader? Not ALL classes need alternate playstyles, but the idea of a few like fighter having multiple ways of being played opens up new options and possibilities to avoid staleness.

 

[JohnSnow]

Now, I hope that means a few other classes get "alternate" roles. Druid Controller/Leader? Warlock Striker/Controller? Paladin Defender/Leader? Not ALL classes need alternate playstyles, but the idea of a few like fighter having multiple ways of being played opens up new options and possibilities to avoid staleness.

I'm going to crosspost a list I put up on rpg.net: secondary roles for every class. Note that this is nothing but wild and totally unfounded speculation. I don't even really think they'll do anything LIKE this, but it's fun for whacky speculation. And if I get any right, I can call myself prophetic...

Cleric: Warpriest (leader) & Adept (controller)
Fighter: Knight (defender) & Slayer (striker)
Rogue: Thief (striker) & Swashbuckler (controller)
Wizard: Mage (controller) & Pyromancer (striker)

Druid: Stalker (controller) & Keeper (leader)
Paladin: Guardian (Defender) & Justiciar (striker)
Ranger: Scout (striker) & Guide (leader)
Warlock: Hellbound (striker) & Fey (controller)

Where appropriate, I ripped names from level titles in the 1e PHB. Obviously, the fighter is actually true. The others are...silly. I deliberately made rogue the martial controller to let the rangers play "Aragorn."

You'll notice this list is replete with strikers, because, IMO, striker is the most fungible of the roles. Having the wizard and warlock double in each other's secondary seems a bit silly, and frankly, I'd love to see a "wizard leader" instead, but I just don't see that happening.

This is intended to cause controversy. Let the hell break loose.

(And Mearls, if you're watching and I'm right, I didn't sneak a peak at your notes. Honest.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Tosses another log on the fire... Whoosh!

Beautiful! Now we don't need 27 classes to fill unique niches on some imaginary powersource/role grid. Classes can do more than one thing now; a fighter can strike (for massive damage) or defend (to tank for allies). Heck, it even allows two fighters on the team to be non-redundant!

I'm going to owe Mearls a brewery by the time Essentials is done!

Now, I hope that means a few other classes get "alternate" roles. Druid Controller/Leader? Warlock Striker/Controller? Paladin Defender/Leader? Not ALL classes need alternate playstyles, but the idea of a few like fighter having multiple ways of being played opens up new options and possibilities to avoid staleness.

There never was a 'grid' to be filled, not in the minds of the 4e devs. That's all on certain people's expectations on the boards. Clearly each class was made to approximately fill given role, or more like to emphasize a certain role. In some cases they HEAVILY emphasized one role, sometimes they didn't. Warlocks, druids, paladins, etc have always been pretty clearly capable of filling more than one role from the start. Beyond that the devs specifically stated (and their actions back that up) that they had no interest in producing a set of classes that had a one-to-one correspondence to role/power source.

At most it was a design concept and an aid to building a party to even have roles. In other words the flexibility was always there. Obviously you can't put out builds and classes to take advantage of every possibility right off. So yeah, we have more options now, but they were always implicit and in fact you could do pretty much the same stuff before that you can do now.

Actually if anything bothers me about Essentials it is more that we're going back over old territory when there's so much else that could be done.

 

[jimmifett]

For the comparisons to barbarian vs slayer, while i don't have my books in front of me, doesn't barbarian have some elemental keywords behind it's attacks, where as slayer is weapon based?

 

[Mapache]

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.

If you want a quick fix, have Melee Training only work when it's not your turn. That lets you use it for OAs and with your Leader buddy's attack-granting power, but not for your Standard action (which is only something MBA-based Essentials classes would want to do under normal circumstances).