Grognard's First Take On 4e

[ExploderWizard]

Honest question: what other mechanics might make a fighter truly shine as an individual class that sums up a fighter, that also gives the fighter the same level of tactical battlefield presence?

Honest answer: there are many possibilities for maneuvers that could be used. Without the rest of the 4E rules to reference I couldn't lay out specifics. I can say that I would NOT design ANY class that was created primarily to soak up damage. Why would anyone who wasn't a masochist train to be a fighter?

 

[med stud]

While the end result may be mechanically similar I think some players may become tired of thier damage rolls not mattering. Everything is new and exciting at first but after plowing through tons of 1hp minions and not getting to roll damage it might become less so.

You know, there are opponents that aren't minions, that you do get to roll damage against.

 

[med stud]

Honest answer: there are many possibilities for maneuvers that could be used. Without the rest of the 4E rules to reference I couldn't lay out specifics. I can say that I would NOT design ANY class that was created primarily to soak up damage. Why would anyone who wasn't a masochist train to be a fighter?

The fighter's primary role is not to soak up damage, it is to be the frontline. The frontline has to hold to give the other parts of your unit space to do what they do best. Why would you train to be the frontline? Some options are: You like the adrenaline. You didn't have a choice; it was being a soldier or starving. You are the best man/woman for the job.

 

[mmadsen]

Some people like games where every attack roll could be the one that kills you, others prefer games where characters only die if it's "plot-appropriate".

And D&D is designed to be neither. It is very, very difficult to one-shot anyone in D&D unless they're fragile enough to be guaranteed to go down on a second shot. Also characters don't have plot protection against spells or grapples, only against attacks to kill, and their plot protection is not tied to plot appropriateness.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The fighter's primary role is not to soak up damage, it is to be the frontline. The frontline has to hold to give the other parts of your unit space to do what they do best. Why would you train to be the frontline? Some options are: You like the adrenaline. You didn't have a choice; it was being a soldier or starving. You are the best man/woman for the job.

I totally agree. The fighters primary role should be eliminating threats as efficiently as possible while on the front line,but the rules don't support that. The rules support defenders having a "kick me" sign on.

 

[hong]

And D&D is designed to be neither. It is very, very difficult to one-shot anyone in D&D unless they're fragile enough to be guaranteed to go down on a second shot. Also characters don't have plot protection against spells or grapples, only against attacks to kill, and their plot protection is not tied to plot appropriateness.

It may not be easy to kill someone in one shot (in 3E), but it's very easy to kill them in one round. Even easier in two rounds.

 

[Tuft]

I totally agree. The fighters primary role should be eliminating threats as efficiently as possible while on the front line,but the rules don't support that. The rules support defenders having a "kick me" sign on.

The tank's job is bluffing opponents into thinking he is the biggest threat, so that they don't notice the strikers massacring them. That's why he gets the biggest, shiniest, most obvious armor, and ditto weapon...

 

[timbannock]

It may not be easy to kill someone in one shot (in 3E), but it's very easy to kill them in one round. Even easier in two rounds.

Does that still hold true in 4E? I'm sure the possibility is there, but PCs seem much more hardy based on what I've seen so far.


Edit:
Also, the pre-gen fighters (from both KoTS and the earlier ones we've seen) aren't what I'd call wimps either. The damage they can put out there doesn't appear to be of the type that I would sneeze at. Maybe I'm missing something in my comparison, though.

 

[crosswiredmind]

I know the OP may have been addressed by many in the 10 pages of posts that followed but i want to offer some personal observations from my experience running H1 and Scalegloom Hall.

1. The Rules: The rules don't feel like 3e at all, and frankly don't seem any more "streamlined" on first glance. This is essentially a new game system. It's not unlike the feeling I got when I picked up Dark Heresy or Solomon Kane - my eyes just kind of glazed over the rules, and I'm pretty adept at all three previous editions. And the replacement/redefined rules seem clunky. Is it really easier to categorize monsters by type and by minion/lurker/fodder/whatever?

The rules are different but the basic framework is still the same. You still roll a d20 add modifiers and compare it to a target number. Characters still act in rounds and take actions that allow them to move and attack. There are still hit points, levels, classes, skills, feats, etc. The players (all long time D&D'ers) had very little trouble adjusting to the changes. These were the same people that did have difficulty learning to play Call of Cthulhu, WFRP, RuneQuest, and Traveller. 4e is similar enough to make it a close cousin to 3e.

2. The Adventure: I don't like the look and feel of the adventure itself, from the new stat blocks to the mashing together of fluff, tactical encounters, and monster stats in the same page. It's not visually pleasing nor intuitive. Furthermore, nothing here makes me terrified to enter the Shadowfell.

I picked up the mod when it was mailed to my FLGS and started to run it within 15 minutes of tearing open the envelope. The format made that possible. Everything I needed for each encounter was right there on the page. The new stat block took a little time to learn but now it is second nature - everything a GM needs is right there. There are no more delays to look up spells or feats. GMing D&D has not been this easy in the original edition where the GM had to improvise nearly everything since the rules were basically a simple framework.

I've got to say it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I preordered the PHB, despite my vow not to ever run 4e, because I was still curious to see what had changed and what exciting ideas I could port into 3.5e. After seeing Shadowfell, I'm probably going to cancel it.

That's too bad and i hope you have reconsidered. 4e may not be everyone's cup of tea but it sure is a slick game to run and, from my players' recations, a real hoot to play.

 

[med stud]

I totally agree. The fighters primary role should be eliminating threats as efficiently as possible while on the front line,but the rules don't support that. The rules support defenders having a "kick me" sign on.

They still do eliminate opposition. If you look at the fighter's raw damage and the powers of a fighter you see that it can deal lots of damage. The main thing the fighter lacks is mobility and the ability to project damage long distances. The ranger and warlock, as distance strikers, can deal damage essentially everywhere they want on the battle field. The rogue has lots of movement abilities going to be able to strike where needed.

The fighter has to move up to an opponent and attack it. By doing that, it "locks" the opponent to a weak degree. It's mere presence at the front also makes it uncomfortable to run past it as the one who does that may end up sandwiched. If the the enemy doesn't want "two fronts" it has to attack the fighter who then can respond in kind.

I have run a bunch of test combats, the fighter wasn't a low damage punching bag in any of them. It might look like it, so I can see where you are coming from, but I really think you should try it out. I think you have the wrong impression of the defenders.