Fighter Slayer preview

[Imaro]

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...

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.

I also wonder how this doesn't blur the lines as far as classes such as the Slayer vs. the Barbarian or Archer Slayer vs. Archery Ranger... on the other hand why isn't an Avenger just a lightly armotred Paladin build?

 

[Styracosaurus]

Yes, the name of the class only applies to the metagame now.

With so many builds, you can't just say that you are a "fighter" as per 1e.

4e seems to say, "Here are a plethora of base builds from which you can call yourself a fighter." It is very complex approach, but that complexity sits on the player and not the DM. I love the freedom it brings to me as the DM. My players have complained that 4e requires them to think and keep up with their abilities/resources. In theory, the PC can build whatever they want and simplicity can be a viable option.


In a way, this feels like "Unearthed Arcana" as presented in 3e.

 

[Scribble]

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.

Yeah that's how it was, but I think they've determined that is kind of redundant, and possibly limiting.

From what they said way back when it seemed like they had the roles defined, and then put classes into that role based on what they seemed like they were primarily used for.

In the case of the fighter in particular this did cause a lot of backlash of "my fighter doesn't always do that..."

Which is why I said it seems like they've broadened that to say ok class determines shtick, role determines how it uses that shtick.

Now you can offer more ways to utilize the "archetype" within the context of the game.

I also wonder how this doesn't blur the lines as far as classes such as the Slayer vs. the Barbarian or Archer Slayer vs. Archery Ranger... on the other hand why isn't an Avenger just a lightly armotred Paladin build?

It kind of does. I'd be willing to guess that if they were designing those classes with the new philosophy in mind they'd probably in a lot of cases end up as sub classes like this.

I'd be willing to also guess that in the future we'll see more sub classes and only see new class "categories" when whatever the driving thing it does wouldn't fall into another class. (Which obviously won't be cut and dry, giving us countless new arguments to have on the interwebs about whether it should have been a full on class or not.)

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Never fear, they'll probably update the PHB version to this one with an errata.

After all, the choice is not really so much a balance issue as one of encouraging one form of weapon use. After all, you can only use one weapon "type" at a time. Making fighters "better" just makes sense - making them choose what to be better at is less awesome, and hurts the "versatile master of weapons" archetype that is supposed to be the fighter class.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, the name of the class only applies to the metagame now.

With so many builds, you can't just say that you are a "fighter" as per 1e.

4e seems to say, "Here are a plethora of base builds from which you can call yourself a fighter." It is very complex approach, but that complexity sits on the player and not the DM. I love the freedom it brings to me as the DM. My players have complained that 4e requires them to think and keep up with their abilities/resources. In theory, the PC can build whatever they want and simplicity can be a viable option.


In a way, this feels like "Unearthed Arcana" as presented in 3e.

Uhm, I think you kind of missed the point I was getting at... it's not the fact that there are builds in 4e that I am speaking to... it's the fact that the class, up until now, was associated with a particular role, and builds were a particular approach to filling that role in a party. Now however it seems that class no longer determines your role and thus is obsolete... at least IMO.

Not sure this is Unearthed Arcana... yet (I'll wait for the previews of the RC), but it is definitely a difference in the design and assumptions 4e was originally based on.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah that's how it was, but I think they've determined that is kind of redundant, and possibly limiting.

From what they said way back when it seemed like they had the roles defined, and then put classes into that role based on what they seemed like they were primarily used for.

In the case of the fighter in particular this did cause a lot of backlash of "my fighter doesn't always do that..."

Which is why I said it seems like they've broadened that to say ok class determines shtick, role determines how it uses that shtick.

Now you can offer more ways to utilize the "archetype" within the context of the game.

I agree about the Fighter backlash and is why I said I think it's a good approach... that said I'm not seeing the clear shtick difference between a Slayer and a reskinned Barbarian... or an Archery Slayer and an Archery Ranger...

 

[Scribble]

I agree about the Fighter backlash and is why I said I think it's a good approach... that said I'm not seeing the clear shtick difference between a Slayer and a reskinned Barbarian... or an Archery Slayer and an Archery Ranger...

Yeah- 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.

My guess is a lot of it will be based not on mechanics but on the "story" of the thing.

Like a slayer is designed as a crazy damage doing beserker kind of like the barbarian, but story-wise it is supposed to exist within the confines of society.

So the martial version of whatever archetype would be a fighter. The Primal version is the barbarian. (Betcha we'll see a barbarian defender.)


I think this will do a LOT for people who want to start with a basic character story concept first, rather then a game role first.

 

[MrMyth]

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.

What has fighter ever meant? Guy who hits things? Sure, there have been countless things it can portray - duelist, soldier, mercenary, farmer turned adventurer, etc, etc.

Now, the PHB said, "The fighter is the guy who gets in the enemy's face, and uses martial training to beat them up." This... pretty much remains true to that. The Slayer is less about the 'in their face' and more about the 'beat them up', but not enough that I see anything core to the class concept being lost.

 

[MrMyth]

Never fear, they'll probably update the PHB version to this one with an errata.

After all, the choice is not really so much a balance issue as one of encouraging one form of weapon use. After all, you can only use one weapon "type" at a time. Making fighters "better" just makes sense - making them choose what to be better at is less awesome, and hurts the "versatile master of weapons" archetype that is supposed to be the fighter class.

Oh, I get that. And, honestly, anything that makes swapping between weapons functional (rather than just a bad idea) is cool in my book. Still, if this gets the boost and the PHB fighter doesn't, that is a small annoyance in an otherwise cool new concept.

 

[Imaro]

What has fighter ever meant? Guy who hits things? Sure, there have been countless things it can portray - duelist, soldier, mercenary, farmer turned adventurer, etc, etc.

Now, the PHB said, "The fighter is the guy who gets in the enemy's face, and uses martial training to beat them up." This... pretty much remains true to that. The Slayer is less about the 'in their face' and more about the 'beat them up', but not enough that I see anything core to the class concept being lost.

Are you being purposefully disingenuous? ~ Lets keep it cool guys S~ 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.