D&D 4E Revised 4E Wizard Class with Freeform Spellcasting System
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Agreed. This is indeed the situation with the Knight and Slayer. In fact the Knight is basically so mediocre that even at lower levels its hardly worth bothering with. The Slayer starts out a bit high on the power curve, mainly due to the way its different mechanics interface with MBA/RBA assumptions, combined with an already very solid striker damage output at low levels. Even so it peters out in higher paragon and becomes downright anemic in epic, there's just nothing there to leverage! (I mean, sure you can build it into yet another charger, but its far from the best at that). It will never upset the game, but it will never be that super interesting tactical marvel to play either.
Right. If I were going to make a Slayer, it isn't at all complicated. Fighter that only gets Utility powers, no Encounter or Daily powers. It has a special basic attack that can be either Melee or Ranged that does 1w+stat and in Epic does 2w+stat. Call it Fighter's Strike.
Now, Fighter then gets a special class feature, let you do two Fighter's Strikes as a standard action as an at-will. Not basic attacks - you can't use Eldritch Strike poached from Warlock as an example.
And that's that - you do two attacks from 1-30 and you can use whatever weapon you want. Light blade+projectile weapons can use Dexterity, everything else does Strength.
Yes, it will be phenomenally boring compared to pretty much everything else in 4e. But it removes the big complaint.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
And for me a vanilla ranger (who didnt pump a bunch of controller style feats) is phenomenally boring in play.
Tony Vargas
Legend
The point pen the plaintive cries for a simple fighter was never the option of a simple fighter for those who wanted to actually play one, but the removal of balanced options from the archetype. Note that essentials delivered the simple fighter to absolutely no effect, the edition war continued with extreme prejudice.
The fighter has always been the most popular class, because it's the most relatable, heroic, archetype. Making it a trap choice is thus key to over-rewarding system mastery, without simply everyone jumping on the best classes.
Tony Vargas
Legend
As is virtually any striker, in my book, but that's just personal inclination.
I've had tons of fun playing my Dragon Magic Sorcerer.
Tony Vargas
Legend
I'm glad. One thing I noticed about roles was that they did have very different appeal.
Some strikers, like the Archer Ranger lent themselves to very simple, but, apparently, still fun, modes of play, while others could get a little more elaborate.
Controllers, OTOH were more involved, while Leaders invited you to pay careful attention to what your allies were doing, as well as managing your character.
That was too late.
D&D has a problem player — the guy who thinks he's awesome at D&D tactics, because he does a lot of damage with simple actions and things die as a result. He always plays Fighters. He doesn't usually particularly like to role-play at all and often, groups work their way around that guy by letting him nod off during the role-playing sections of games. He never has Charisma skills as a result of it too.
And that's usually not an issue. He makes a table work in low volume gaming areas or in home games. So here's what happened in 4e initially:
He sucked. Fighter's really complicated and he didn't do as much damage as everyone else.
Skill Challenges ran by initiative and some Skill Challenges were just extended Diplomacy+Intelligence checks. And he didn't have an option to just snooze or do a rational Strength guy action such as Athletics.
That guy is never going to admit to sucking at tactics, especially when he's being forced to make Diplomacy checks and failing in a party with a Face PC. He's going to claim 4e feels like an MMO and is anti-roleplaying. And when the other problem player at such tables gets pissed off because he can't wave a hand and cast a spell to bypass skill challenges...and there's another system out there(PF)…
So pointing out, "Hey, here's a simple Fighter for those people who found the 1st Fighter too complicated" isn't going to solve their issues. it is just going to annoy them. Especially when Slayer doesn't really do all that great at high levels, due to lack of multi-attacks and improperly scaling bonuses.
Tony Vargas
Legend
That's a stereotype of the guy who always plays the fighter, sure. But it's not every guy who ever plays a fighter.
But creating a simple (simply inferior) fighter 'for that guy' is like ...
...well stuff the CoC'd rather threads didn't drift into.
And fighter has consistently been the most popular class in the game - when it was hopeless back in the day, when it was OP, when it was complicated - it's just the class where most fantasy archetypes fall, especially the more relatable heroic archetypes.
Last edited:
