Fighter Slayer preview

[igniz13]

I doubt the Warlord will become a Defender, but the Druid becoming a Leader makes a lot of sense.

The Slayer can only take Fighter powers, without the marking and punishment, the class isn't a defender and the powers are just weapon powers.

 

[Shin Okada]

It was a surprise, and a good one for me.

Yeah, as already mentioned by others, the mechanic and the concept of Barbarian class is very similar to the slayer fighter. A melee striker with good AC and defender HPs. So this is far from "broken" or "out of current game system".

And it is obvious that there is a room for armored-weapon-wielding-striker. A bunch of armor-clad warriors may have both defenders and strikers in their rank, for sure. And many of the warriors in fictions who wore armor could be classified as a striker rather than to be a defender (I think Gattsu from Berserk is a striker, maybe in heavy armor with full-blade).

Also, most fighter feats and martial-only feats are also useful for melee strikers. This new fighter is still a fighter, thus can lean them. That will double the use of many existing feats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And many of the warriors in fictions who wore armor could be classified as a striker rather than to be a defender

Oh, and don´t forget Marc!

 

[mach1.9pants]

I certainly don't have any problems with 'clearly defined roles' they only really work with a party of 4 (four roles). And I have 2 players. And the standard expected size is 5... go figure.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

It remains to be seen how balance holds up but I suspect that the next iteration of class build will see a blurring of roles.
I also think that this is a good thing. One of the things I have found over the years was that where you had access to few players it was very diffcult to run combat orientated D&D when you had very few players due to lack of coverage of roles.
If you want to grow D&D you really want two to three kids to be able to have fun with D&D from the get go with out the need to hook up to existing groups or the need to recruit additional players.
In the old days this was not so much a problem but now those kids have alternatives that they know work. So D&D has to pretty much work out of the box.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would have liked the slayer to be a wisdom build. (with strength or dex primary depending on ranged or melee choice) I really liked fighters to have the secondary wisdom. It was a really really nice feature.

But then, who cares if we have new options

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

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.

Maybe we'll see that with Gamma World.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I certainly don't have any problems with 'clearly defined roles' they only really work with a party of 4 (four roles). And I have 2 players. And the standard expected size is 5... go figure.

Roles work fine in parties of 4 OR MORE. There's no reason why a role can't be duplicated. Especially when you figure that all the existing classes can pretty easily emphasize a different role. In any case larger parties can never have too many strikers. For that matter having 2 defenders or 2 leaders is really not an issue either. It tends to be redundant to have 2 controllers but it still works.

As for the Slayer, it seems like it should work well. I really appreciate the basic attack centered design's ability to easily accommodate both ranged and melee variations within the same framework. The technique used with the archer warlord was frankly a giant kludge.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

I would have liked the slayer to be a wisdom build. (with strength or dex primary depending on ranged or melee choice) I really liked fighters to have the secondary wisdom. It was a really really nice feature.

I'm seeing potential for an essentialized Str/Wis polearm fighter build/subclass.

 

[Klaus]

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!