Fighter Slayer preview

[Tony Vargas]

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...

Yeah, the Barbarian had me worried, too. But, it was just the theme of Primal classes that they had more hps, and the Barbarian's AC tended to be sub-par, so he didn't really have quite the overall toughness of a full Defender. I'm not sure what the Slayer's excuse is. Maybe "I don't have dailies?"

The Slayer doesn't defend... doesn't mark, doesn't keep people up off of other party members any better than a Barbarian would... so yeah that's why they called him a martial striker as opposed to a martial defender.... however part of the core class concept of fighter in 4e is/was the role of defender.

Part of the reason why I said it will probably give us countless hours of debate in the future about whether it should have been a class or a subclass.

WotC came right out and said that they weren't going to be putting out more martial classes, period. And, they've learned to at least keep to the plausible letter of their word.

Thus the Slayer is a sub-class of the Fighter that is a different role, rather than a 'new martial class,' since there won't be any of those.

 

[MrMyth]

I'm gonna deny that it's just a broadening of the "class bucket". I think originally class and role were pretty much tied together to the point where a class, for the most part, defined what role you were playing... now having a fighter in the party doesn't necessarily mean you have a defender. Again, I see this transition as pretty much making your class obsolete.

Ok, so what precisely do you mean by 'obsolete'? Yes, it seems like classes will no longer be tied to one role. That statement is a valid one. The following statement, that this "makes your class obsolete" - what does that mean?

Are you saying that each class now no longer has any concept it is tied to? That's obviously not true. Power source, mechanics, flavor, all of those elements are still there. The fighter is still, generally, a skilled warrior who uses martial training to be a big hero. Usually by getting in their face - some fighters are tanks that draw enemy fire, others just put them in the ground.

How is the Slayer different from the Barbarian? The Barbarian flies into berzerker rages, drawing from the primal power of the land as he destroys his enemies. He is much more mobile, tends to be less heavily armored, and thrives on tearing through the ranks of enemies.

How is the Avenger different from the Paladin? Flavor-wise, the Avenger is more of a secret agent of the faith, while the Paladin is the front line. The Paladin might go save a village and spread the good word, while the Avenger hunts creatures in their own element of the darkness, his deeds never mentioned in the light of day. Mechanically, of course, they are completely different, with one a lightly armored and mobile striker and the other a heavily armored defender who heals his allies.

What difference between the Archer Slayer and Archer Ranger? Well, the Slayer is tougher, more likely to be heavily armored, and relies on a few well placed shots and his own skill with the bow to bring down his foes. The Ranger, as noted, has a few elements tied more to nature and the wild - and even outside of those, is very much a more mobile, lightly armored character, who tends to fill the air with arrows as he brings down his enemies, and takes them out by finding their weaknesses and taking advantage of them (represented by Hunter's Quarry.)

Now, it is worth noting? That one can ignore all the above. You can get pretty far with building against type or finding your own flavor that fits your concept. Just like you could in 3rd Edition, for the most part, and possible before that. But the classes still have definite amounts of flavor tied to them conceptually, and definite mechanical differences that crop up in actual play, and I don't see how anything in Essentials will cause the class system to just fall apart or breakdown or grow obsolete.

 

[MrMyth]

Are you being purposefully disingenuous? First off I am talking about how a fighter is defined in 4e... not previous editions. Second, read page 16 PHB1... the Defender paragraph, where both Fighter and Paladin are defined as Defenders.

The Slayer doesn't defend... doesn't mark, doesn't keep people up off of other party members any better than a Barbarian would... so yeah that's why they called him a martial striker as opposed to a martial defender.... however part of the core class concept of fighter in 4e is/was the role of defender.

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.

 

[MrMyth]

WotC came right out and said that they weren't going to be putting out more martial classes, period. And, they've learned to at least keep to the plausible letter of their word.

Huh, I hadn't actually heard that they had said that. I mean, I haven't expected any more martial classes, nor do I see any obvious need for them, but it seems unexpected for them to make some sort of outright promise they never will have any (as opposed to just stating that there aren't any immediate plans for them). Do you have an exact quote on that?

 

[Scribble]

WotC came right out and said that they weren't going to be putting out more martial classes, period. And, they've learned to at least keep to the plausible letter of their word.

Did they?

Can you point me towards where they said that?

 

[DracoSuave]

The best Slayer fighter is a kobold (+2 DEX, +2 CON) who can shift 2 every turn so they can stay in the Berserker's Charge stance and charge every round.

Not very thematic at all. And makes a much worse cover for the Red Box.

Not very thematic!?!

It's a little tiny fighting kobold that darts in and out and KILLS THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLE WITH TINY FEROCIOUS ANGER.

It's like a reptilian chihuahua on steroids.

Not thematic?

That's the BEST THING EVER!

 

[Styracosaurus]

My take on this is:

It is all part of the "transparency of design" that the designers spoke of when 4e was first presented.

"Fighter" refers to the starting point and as you alter the class, you give up certain abilities to gain other abilities. All that the design team is doing is assigning a value to an ability and when they remove that ability, then it is replaced with an ability that is different but equal in value.

We end up with a spectrum of "Fighters" that range from Defender to Striker and several that have a bit of Controller thrown into the mix.

So, I agree with Imaro on his point. WotC is not sticking to the assigned roles in the PHB. The design team seems focused on maintaining balance while they diversify the class options.

You can play a martial flavored melee guy that just does damage and is different than the Ranger.

This does not bother me,because this added complexity is placed upon the player and not the DM.

The designers just have to be careful when the classes overlap in duties because you can compare apples to apples at that point and there better be some equity between the two classes or one class would be a waste of time and paper.

 

[Rex Blunder]

Not thematic?

That's the BEST THING EVER!

Ha ha. Seen that way, maybe it is pretty boss.

The FIRST time you see it. Around Kobold Slayer #3, I will get the same sort of fatigue I get when I see yet another ultra-rare angel-on-earth deva wizard.

But actually, since kobolds are small, they may not be the most optimal slayers anyway, and therefore can be relegated to "amusing but rare" category, not the annoying "rare in the world but for some reason really common as PCs" category.

 

[Tony Vargas]

... and hurts the "versatile master of weapons" archetype that is supposed to be the fighter class.

As much as I like that archetype, it hasn't been well-represented by the fighter since Unearthed Arcana - the /1e/ Unearted Arcana that introduced Weapon Specialization, that is. Ever since then, fighters have been about using a specific weapon. 4e fighters were slightly less so, being pigeonholed only into a specific style (two-hander, sword & board) or type of weapon ('heavy blades,' etc..), instead. You /could/ build a 3.x 'generalist' fighter, but it was not easy to build & play one effectively.

The increasing emphasis on /needing/ a level-apropriate magic weapon also hurt, since you were unlikely to have several.

 

[Scribble]

My take on this is:

It is all part of the "transparency of design" that the designers spoke of when 4e was first presented.

"Fighter" refers to the starting point and as you alter the class, you give up certain abilities to gain other abilities. All that the design team is doing is assigning a value to an ability and when they remove that ability, then it is replaced with an ability that is different but equal in value.

We end up with a spectrum of "Fighters" that range from Defender to Striker and several that have a bit of Controller thrown into the mix.

So, I agree with Imaro on his point. WotC is not sticking to the assigned roles in the PHB. The design team seems focused on maintaining balance while they diversify the class options.

You can play a martial flavored melee guy that just does damage and is different than the Ranger.

This does not bother me,because this added complexity is placed upon the player and not the DM.

The designers just have to be careful when the classes overlap in duties because you can compare apples to apples at that point and there better be some equity between the two classes or one class would be a waste of time and paper.

Whatever the case, I see it as a net WIN for us... More options.