From R&C: Fighters & Armor

[Bishmon]

I'm also disappointed that they took the fighter, in theory one of the most flexible classes, and have seemingly turned it into the heavy-armor-wearing-guy-who-hits-stuff-up-close. You can say, "But he's a defender!", but that to me is more of an indictment of sticking so closely to the idea that each class must specifically fill one role and only one role than it is some good justification for the lack of flexibility.

I like the ranger, but I'd also like to be able to play an archer who just had a natural affinity for the bow and became proficient in its use while serving in the city watch. Maybe he's got some perception skills, maybe some social skills from dealing with citizens and fellow soldiers, but otherwise he's just really freaking good with the bow. But that's not the role of a defender, so therefore that character option has seemingly been stricken from the fighter's suite of abilities, along with most any other combat option that doesn't involve going toe-to-toe and hitting something in the face with a manufactured weapon. That's disappointing.

And it's not just the fighter. The wizard seems to have seen the loss of many necromancy, summoning, enchantment, illusion, and possibly transmutation spells. He's not much more than a glorified evoker now. That's not necessarily bad, because surely an illusionist and a necromancer and so on will come later down the line, but it's just disappointing to see such a flexible class get stripped of much of its flexibility.

I was really hoping 4E was going to have more character options, but instead, it's looking like it'll have less. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe it means the options that are available will all be interesting and balanced. But it's certainly disappointing.

 

[Klaus]

I don't want to speak for other folks, but I would suspect that it is the latter. I believe one of the keys to D&D 4e is to decide the core concept of the character, the role, and then to find the appropriate class that best represents this concept. In many ways, it is the reverse of what we have been doing for the last 30 years.

Emphasis mine.

I think this is the biggest hurdle for me, so far.

After playing D&D for 20 years choosing class first, I'm trying to rewire my brain into "choose role, choose power source, and the rules will determine your class".

 

[OakwoodDM]

From what I'm gathering, the "specialisations" for classes like fighter (defense, two hander, "control") are very similar to WoW's talent specialisations. Don't jump on me just yet, I haven't decided if that's a good or bad thing yet. Anyway, my assumption is that the ranger will have three specialisations as well. These will be archery, two-weapon fighting, and "nature stuff". So, depending on what you specialise in, your ranger might not have to have any nature stuff at all, making your City Guardsman/Robin Hood cross eminently doable.

Likewise I assume rogues can specialise into assassin types who thrive on stealth and sneak attacks from hidden positions, or swashbuckler types who use acrobatics to get their "sneak attacks".

I kinda like it, it's like you get three classes for the price of one, even if it does smack of WoW.

So did WoW steal it from Diablo II? Cos that's what I thought of when I read your bit up there - the three trees of skills in Diablo II.

I see that as a good thing. Certainly better than the only difference between Bob the cleric of Pelor and his twin brother Dave the other cleric of Pelor being their spell selection.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Wow. Haven't people been reading the subtext? 3.X D&D fighters were weak and bland. 3.X Wizards were bland, jack-of-no-trades-masters-of-all. Don't get me started on Clericzilla. Wizrads haven't been nerfed, they've been focused. We're gonna *gasp* see Arcane classes that actually have flavor and real differences. Fighters needed focus. They needed depth. If you gave them depth everywhere, they'd be gods.

 

[Fifth Element]

OK, on the subpar side, I don't need to know the exact specifications of everything to know that if one person is spending resources to do something that someone else gets for free, they are paying *more*. 1 > 0. Thats subpar.

Yes, you do need to know the exact specifications. If the fighter has better hit points, better saves, better attack bonuses than the ranger (for example), then the ranger's "free" archery abilities could be there to balance the classes against each other. Give the fighter the same free abilities, without changing anything else, and you could unbalance the classes, making the fighter far better. And don't forget about ability synergies. Having a melee monster who is also a great archer is likely better than having just a melee machine or just a master archer.

That's just an example, since we don't have all the details yet. But your argument that you can judge the relative value of feats and class abilities without having access to the game mechanics doesn't hold any water.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What might also be missing:
4E makes the "power sources" a part of the concept of each class.

Ranger, Rogue and Fighter (and Warlord) are all "Martial" characters. Don't think anymore of "I want to play a Fighter that is good with a bow!". Think "I want a martial character that is good with a bow!" (in contrast to a arcane or divine character). The key is: I want to play someone that does rely on weapon combat, not on spells or miracles from his god.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Shooting people with arrows? What more do you want from an archer?

And not being locked into a secondary role that has nothing to do with shooting people with arrows? Presumably a decent fighter class would be good at something out of combat, but it doesn't have to be stapled down and required.

Here's where the disconnect seems to be. Why does the archer have to be a fighter? If you can build a better archer by taking the ranger, why not build it as a ranger IF the 4th ed ranger has all the woodsman stuff filed off or tucked into a talent tree you arent forced to take?

 

[Traycor]

So did WoW steal it from Diablo II? Cos that's what I thought of when I read your bit up there - the three trees of skills in Diablo II.

I lol'd at this. WoW and Diablo II were made by the same people.

 

[Mercule]

Here's where the disconnect seems to be. Why does the archer have to be a fighter? If you can build a better archer by taking the ranger, why not build it as a ranger IF the 4th ed ranger has all the woodsman stuff filed off or tucked into a talent tree you arent forced to take?

Exactly.

I'm actually kind of excited about this. I've always viewed rangers as being pretty tough and as likely to be good with melee as ranged combat. I'm hoping that the new system will allow me to just take fighter and spend my feats on grabbing the ranger woodsiness and favored enemies. Then I can stop griping that my ranger archetype isn't present and the people who like the highly-mobile, somewhat less sturdy ranger can have their way, too.

Even better would be if the ranger was tougher than in 3E and the wilder-ninja lovers could use the rogue to dip for the woodsy goodness.

 

[Cadfan]

1: Classes work best when you know what you're building them to do. Being an archer, and being a front line armored melee combatant, are very different jobs. They require different class features. The more disparate stuff you try to shoehorn into one class, the lower the quality of the class. So, archer and armored melee get split into two different classes.

2: The idea of decoupling out of combat roles from combat roles so that players can mix and match as they choose is a nice one, but ultimately quite difficult. First, the ranger's woodsman type abilities aren't strictly noncombat. His ability to hide, spot, and so forth are all combat relevant, and are particularly combat relevant to his archery abilities. Second, some noncombat abilities are pretty powerful. Decoupling would come close to requiring that these abilities be granted to everyone. Part of the purpose of a class system is to separate things out so that this doesn't happen.

3: Finally, I suspect that a 4e player who wants to make a "city guard archer" will do much of what a 3e player might do. Take Ranger as a class, choose favored enemies that fit his city training, and put his skills into city related abilities. Spot and Listen are pretty universal, Search, Handle Animal, Ride, Use Rope... etc. And if all else fails, an "urban ranger" variant did get made eventually.

I mean, honestly, a 3e fighter specializing in archery was pretty lousy. Sure, he could eke out a few more points of damage with Weapon Specialization, but he paid for it in spades with lost class abilities, spells, and important, class relevant skills like "spot." And there's only so many archery feats around.