How do you like your martial characters?

[I'm A Banana]

We do not share the same notion of complexity.

Well, all I'm sayin' is psionics in 4e is more complex than ADEU in 4e. But yeah, our thresholds are pretty divergent!

So, you want more at-wills?

In a manner of speaking, yeah.

Stances would also be welcome, but at a certain point that line blurs into meaninglessness, and ultimately it's the same result: a martial character is defined by their constant powerful reliability. I imagine them something a little like the 3e warlock in design: what they do, they can do all day, unchangingly, always, reliably, without fail. They can have a handful of options of what to do (3 is a pretty sweet spot for me, I find), but they should always be able to do any of those, without "running out."

It should come as no surprise that I am quite fond of the 4e Slayer, from a design-intent perspective.

 

[Incenjucar]

Well, all I'm sayin' is psionics in 4e is more complex than ADEU in 4e. But yeah, our thresholds are pretty divergent!



In a manner of speaking, yeah.

Stances would also be welcome, but at a certain point that line blurs into meaninglessness, and ultimately it's the same result: a martial character is defined by their constant powerful reliability. I imagine them something a little like the 3e warlock in design: what they do, they can do all day, unchangingly, always, reliably, without fail. They can have a handful of options of what to do (3 is a pretty sweet spot for me, I find), but they should always be able to do any of those, without "running out."

It should come as no surprise that I am quite fond of the 4e Slayer, from a design-intent perspective.

But the slayer isn't reliable at all. They run out of oomph in an extended fight.

Do you want someone who puts out exactly the same amount of power every single round? So just a 2[W] attack plus a list of rider choices, one of which is just +[W] or something? Fighters should just be a perpetual source of beefy at-wills and never have extra oomph?

--

Also, psionics in 4E are cake. They just did some stupid things that mess up the balance.

 

[FireLance]

I don't see why we have to pigeonhole martial characters (or arcane, or divine, etc.) into any type resource framework.

The playtest fighter is simple. It just makes basic attacks and that's a good place to start.

You can start adding in options after that. Perhaps in place of the bonus +2 damage class feature, the player could choose to have either stances or at-will attacks.

Perhaps in place of the Fighter's Surge gained at 2nd level, the player could choose a variety of daily attack powers.

Perhaps in place of the damage increase at 3rd level, the player could opt for a maneuver that could be regained after he has taken a short rest.

The point is, you ought to be able to play a simple, Basic-style fighter if you want, and you ought to be able to play a 4e-style AEDU fighter if you want. The rules should be able to support all these options. I don't think it's that difficult.

If you don't like daily powers or abilities that are regained after a short rest, then just don't use those options. Denying them to others who do want them because you personally do not seems rather mean-spirited, in my view.

 

[Zaukrie]

I like 4E for the most part, but there are times it seems a bit much somehow. That said, I would want martial characters to be more interesting than stand at the front and swing, and then swing, and then swing. I really like the idea of crits giving you something more than just damage....maybe martial characters get access to those extra things on any roll of 16 or higher. That way they are 4 times more likely (I think) to get to do cool stuff in combat. Just thought of that, not really well thought out.

 

[BobTheNob]

Something alone the lines of the 4e Slayer is my favorite

Strong basic attack.
Stances to incorporate concepts of different fighting styles or "maneuvers".

And then maybe something big with a limited use such as a bonus action.

I found the slayer to be the best piece of design to come out of 4e. Simple, potent, distinct, playable. I know alot of people disagree on this, but the slayer was bang on for what I was looking for in a fighter.

If the finally composed fighter (including themes and background) reached this level of complexity I wouldnt complain. Any more than this I might grumble...

 

[CleverNickName]

Nah, I don't want restrictions on the number of times a fighter can do his art. I say get rid of the "super-powers" concept altogether, and use feats and skill/ability checks to handle the fancy acrobatic stuff.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think it's critical that high-level warriors be able to do more as part of a single turn than either "I attack for damage" or "I trip/disarm/grab/push." You need to be able to combine things into maneuvers.

Have you seen Batman fight in the Arkham Asylum video game? He grabs one thug, snaps his elbow, shoves him into a pair of other thugs, then shoots his grappling hook at a fourth, yanks him, and then judo flips him over a railing so he falls and is knocked out. I want that sort of stuff.

 

[billd91]

Fairly self-explanatory, I think. Describe your preferred method of powers/combat maneuvers for martial characters. Some examples might be:

These are the two I prefer.

• At-will combat maneuvers. Characters rely on a basic attack but can try other maneuvers in place of it (trip, disarm, etc.)..
• Special effects that trigger on a critical hit.

 

[RangerWickett]

Quick and Dirty Martial Combat System
At 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level, a fighter gains the ability "Martial Combo." He starts at Martial Combo 1, and ends at Martial Combo 5.

Whenever a fighter makes a weapon attack, he can a number of extra maneuvers equal to his combo rating. At 1st level a fighter knows the following two maneuvers, and he can add more through feats.

Power Strike You add 2 extra damage to your attacks that hit.

Improvised Attack This turn you can use your melee weapon as a thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 ft., or use your ranged weapon as a melee weapon.



Other maneuvers would be stuff like grab, bull rush, trip, disarm, tumble, flick dagger, cleave, hurl foe, attack multiple foes, rampage through crowds, steal enemy's weapon and throw it, etc.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think it's critical that high-level warriors be able to do more as part of a single turn than either "I attack for damage" or "I trip/disarm/grab/push." You need to be able to combine things into maneuvers.

Have you seen Batman fight in the Arkham Asylum video game? He grabs one thug, snaps his elbow, shoves him into a pair of other thugs, then shoots his grappling hook at a fourth, yanks him, and then judo flips him over a railing so he falls and is knocked out. I want that sort of stuff.

Why do you assume that each of those attacks wouldn't happen on a separate round?