Fighter Slayer preview

[Klaus]

Guess I don't really get what the 'hunter overtones' of ranger are... Granted it makes more sense if you want a heavy armored bow user to use the Slayer, but it doesn't really put anything entirely new into play as far as character types you can build, that we can see so far anyway. An archer slayer will be VERY similar to an archer ranger or mixed STR/DEX ranger. The main difference would be instead of having the option to go two weapon in melee you'll be going with a big two-hander. No doubt there will be some specific combinations that will work better with slayer but they will be things like "guy that uses a bow or charges with a two-hander", which you can kind of do now but sub-optimally.

The new martial designs are nice and like any new builds they're going to allow for some new permutations. On the whole I think the new concept is elegant, but I don't think it's going to really add a lot of totally new possibilities, just means there are a few new ways to do pretty much what you could all ready.

The archer ranger, as it is, has mandatory training in either Nature or Dungeoneering, has "Hunter's Strike", and lots of nature-oriented powers and utilities that seem out-of-place when you want to make, say, a former army archer in chainmail who used to stand on the battlements of a city, etc.

Weapon Talent giving +1 with all weapons means a Striker with Dex 16 can pick up a bow and stand toe-to-toe with an archer ranger or thief rogue that have Dex 18.

 

[MrMyth]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable that they've made a striker with defender hitpoints and surges. It just seems to me that if your choice is between a low-hitpoint, high damage striker and a high hitpoint high damage striker, the second one is the better choice every time...

It also puts the nail in the coffin of that rogue manuever that grants +cha to damage vs targets you don't have CA against: compared with getting double dex and +1 to hit ALL the time, it just pales in comparison.

Except the rogue would be getting +Cha on top of their existing striker damage bonus of 2d6 (or 2d8 with the feat).

Being a big tough striker is odd, but the barbarian already does it. I think what will compensate for this is that the character, tied to standard fighter utility powers, will have a bunch of durability stuff - but be lacking the mobility options that strikers find very useful.

I am kinda bugged that Weapon Talent here is just outright better than PHB Weapon Talent. Boo. I can see why they did it (easier for new players to use), but still, it bothers me.

This guy looks like he'll be strong, certainly. Will be interesting to see in action.

 

[Styracosaurus]

Up to now, the Essentials classes seemed just as complex as the original 4e PHB.

Slayer is very straightforward and seems very FUN.

 

[MrMyth]

Well, that's ... unexpected. My first reaction is that I don't like it. Creating class builds with different primary roles is at best confusing and in the worst case broken.

Since you mix and match powers for a class, it opens a big can of worms. You can now create Mary-Sue characters without a clearly defined role by picking powers intended for different roles.

Keep in mind that roles are driven far more by class features than by powers. The Slayer doesn't get anything to mark enemies, punish them for attacking his friends, or stopping them from moving away. He can pick up some powers that help with that, but won't ever really fill the defender role - certainly no more than an existing striker who multiclasses to fighter and picks up the same powers.

Similarly, someone could multiclass cleric and pick up various healing powers, but will never have the 'oomph' of 2-3 healing words per encounter.

Controllers, sure, are more driven by powers than other roles, and so you could add in a controller element more easily through the right powers.

But... none of this is new. From the PHB, you could already multiclass and try to fill multiple roles. You already had classes that had 'tendencies' towards a secondary role. You had paragon paths that expanded what you could do - Cleric's got one that gave them a marking mechanism.

And since then we've seen classes that blur the line even more (druids), we've seen the rules for hybrid character, and expanded multiclassing options to actually snag class powers.

They key is, they've done a pretty good job of avoiding having any choices that let you fill multiple roles, at full capability, at the same time. Secondary roles or multiclass characters tend to be good at one thing and pick up a second role - but never be as good at that second role as a character built for it. Hybrid characters are good at fully filling two seperate roles - but never really both at the same time.

Sure, there are some options that start to get past this, and really optimized characters might already be able to do too much... but in general, I think the role system remains perfectly intact, even when characters stretch what they can do, and I don't think this change with Essentials will break that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The archer ranger, as it is, has mandatory training in either Nature or Dungeoneering, has "Hunter's Strike", and lots of nature-oriented powers and utilities that seem out-of-place when you want to make, say, a former army archer in chainmail who used to stand on the battlements of a city, etc.

Weapon Talent giving +1 with all weapons means a Striker with Dex 16 can pick up a bow and stand toe-to-toe with an archer ranger or thief rogue that have Dex 18.

Weapon training with all two handed weapon (the old fighter one) also included the longbow. What is better now are those stances, that just increase damage by +2, -2 to hit and +4 damage, and the slayer feature that just adds dex to damage...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The archer ranger, as it is, has mandatory training in either Nature or Dungeoneering, has "Hunter's Strike", and lots of nature-oriented powers and utilities that seem out-of-place when you want to make, say, a former army archer in chainmail who used to stand on the battlements of a city, etc.

Weapon Talent giving +1 with all weapons means a Striker with Dex 16 can pick up a bow and stand toe-to-toe with an archer ranger or thief rogue that have Dex 18.

Meh, who cares what the name of a class feature is? You get to do more damage if you focus on one target. I don't really know what the 'lots of nature-oriented powers' are. The class seems to perfectly model a 'yoeman' type archer. I see exactly ONE 'nature themed' utility power in heroic tier in the PHB and that's Evade Ambush, which gives the flavor of a guy that is observant and knowledgeable at scouting, but doesn't really automatically shout 'nature guy'. In fact the automatic skill is basically the ONLY thing that really has that flavor. I mean if you're hung up about the names of powers I kind of think that wanting a WHOLE NEW CLASS so you have different power names is strange...

As for the standing toe-to-toe thing, huh? A PHB1 Archer Ranger is still unchallenged and always has been. A Slayer will probably make a decent archer, but it isn't ever going to match a ranger on pure archery, trust me.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Weapon training with all two handed weapon (the old fighter one) also included the longbow. What is better now are those stances, that just increase damage by +2, -2 to hit and +4 damage, and the slayer feature that just adds dex to damage...

As it stands now, Power Strike only works for Melee Basic Attacks. This might be a typo.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Huh. I somehow glossed that.

Well, good. As I said, I like the idea of a steel-wrapped striker.

I'm surprised that they made one class build a different role than the others. I'll need to decide for sure how I feel about that, but my first instinct is that while I wouldn't have suggested it, it doesn't bother me.

Very interesting...and it shows a willingness to expand beyond the horizons of the design space. There's no reason that a class has to be strictly in one role...could we see a Wizard build that is a striker too?

I'd love to see a Psion as a striker...the Monk being the only psionic striker bothers me.

 

[Imaro]

Ok, so I have to ask... if this is the design paradigm going forward, doesn't that mean classes (as defined in PHB 1) are now kind of pointless? Don't get me wrong I honestly think it's an improvement though... but yeah "Fighter" doesn't really mean anything now... it's all based on build.

 

[Scribble]

Ok, so I have to ask... if this is the design paradigm going forward, doesn't that mean classes (as defined in PHB 1) are now kind of pointless? Don't get me wrong I honestly think it's an improvement though... but yeah "Fighter" doesn't really mean anything now... it's all based on build.

I think we're just seeing a broadening of what the class bucket contains. Instead of just determining what role they will be, they will now primarily dictate what their "shtick" is... Fighters specialize in using weapons effectively to do whatever they do.

A Fighter that's a striker seems to be about using weapons to do massive damage, as opposed to a rogue striker that seems more about using stealth and trickery to deal that damage.


I'm also guessing all the "new" roles we see in classes will cover areas they "kind of" dipped into already...