The Essential Knight

[UngeheuerLich]

Indeed, all of the stuff previously that is based around MBA (feats, items etc) were made with the fact that MBA are not the core of a class, they are mainly for bonus attacks that don't happen every round.

Another thing about the stances (as well as the dazed thing) is that both the stance and mark aura are minor actions to activate. In a lot of combats you will need 2 rounds to turn them both on if you want to do something meaningful in the first round.

I'm with Aegri earlier - this doesn't look any more simpler than the basic fighter, in fact it may even be slightly more complicated once all the other class powers come out.

Yes, the aura could have been made an automatic feature, but it makes sense that it is a minor action to activate:

when you charge in, a normal fighter also has to rely on his base attacks. Also I still guess the aura is the fighters secondary mark mechanic, not the first one. The other could still come with a strike of his weapon. It actuallycould have been worse, that you have to use a move action to maintain the defensive stance or something. I guess, it is ok like it is.

 

[Klaus]

A few thoughts from looking at the Knight:

- It feels more like this fighter is using combat techniques instead of just special maneuvers, by having at-will stances that alter his attacks.
- The aura is simple and far more effective, as the knight can "lock down" every adjacent enemy.
- The powers are weapon-neutral, and I suspect we will see the "special effects based on weapons" in the Weapon Talent/Mastery features.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I still guess the Aura is the knight extra, while the slayer and the knight share the battle guardian feature.

 

[RyvenCedrylle]

I awoke this morning to the sound of my TacLord laughing maniacally and screaming "Commander's Strike!" at the top of his lungs. Now I know why.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Indeed, all of the stuff previously that is based around MBA (feats, items etc) were made with the fact that MBA are not the core of a class, they are mainly for bonus attacks that don't happen every round.

Another thing about the stances (as well as the dazed thing) is that both the stance and mark aura are minor actions to activate. In a lot of combats you will need 2 rounds to turn them both on if you want to do something meaningful in the first round.

I'm with Aegri earlier - this doesn't look any more simpler than the basic fighter, in fact it may even be slightly more complicated once all the other class powers come out.

I agree. Here's another mechanical issue, a charge build. This guy is using MBAs. Charging is power limited by only allowing an MBA. Even if you want to use something better than an MBA you have to at least spend a feat or two to make it effective. As it stands now I don't see anything in the Knight's design that stops him from basically unleashing his most devastating nova on a charge. This is at least a decent amount different from existing classes. Balancing any kind of charge enhancing element is going to be pretty hard with this guy in the game.

The problem with "it won't be simpler to run" is that its much deeper than just a couple of fiddly aspects of his aura and stances. The complexity is BAKED INTO 4e. It isn't even just a matter of you have to understand complicated things like how to flank and how immediate actions work, etc. Its the fact that 4e is BUILT AROUND tactical complexity. If you succeeded in making a class that was NOT tactically complex, you aren't playing 4e anymore at all. Either the class is useless because it simply can't do anything interesting OR its horribly overpowered because if a tactically challenge person CAN be effective by just standing in one place and pounding away with a basic attack then a tactically savvy player is going to be totally OP playing the same build because the advantages of good tactics are core features of the rules, not something that comes with a class.

I also don't even think this WILL be simpler to run. It will have the ILLUSION of being simpler, but lets consider what powers did for you in that regard. They are packages of effects put together for you. To make the Knight work well he's still got to be able to do the things he could do before, but now instead of having a power that you simply trigger off, you now have to come up with how to do it on your own. Which combinations of these encounter 'buffs' do I use and in which combinations in which situations to kick butt? Its like a 'build your own power' system, but the problem with that is you have to figure out what makes an effective power, EVERY TIME YOU SWING. I don't think this is going to be at all simple to play. I don't think you CAN make a 4e class that is really fundamentally simple to play. The only approach we've seen yet is the bow ranger that just has a single massive damage output power and even the bow ranger isn't dirt simple to play well at higher levels, not compared with the old time 1e fighter for instance.

 

[P1NBACK]

...but the problem with that is you have to figure out what makes an effective power, EVERY TIME YOU SWING...

Not really.

You're thinking on the level of an experienced 4E player. If you come into the game with little to no knowledge of 4E, the Knight is the perfect class for a warrior-type who just swings and does his aura. He doesn't have to remember who he marked or whatever just that if someone is close he gets to do his .

Those "additional" elements are just that. Stepping stones to doing more complex stuff. It's a great design because you start simple, MBA, and build from the ground up.

It's a great class build for beginners.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am glad, that the books have been sent to the printer already:

no time for hasty changes because of nerdrage like at the initial release.

I agree owever with you here: In play, the knight has many choices, but building such a knight is easier, and IMHO it is easier to explain to newer players that are concerned about "martial magic".

Actually i believe the main target of the essentials line are 3.x players and new players, both of who won´t have any issues with previously published fighter variants, that are still mechanically solid, but different.

 

[Zaran]

See, I am concerned about which attribute is 20 and which not. I hate this reflavouring thing (like: I am a goliath, but i look like a gnome, I have strength 8 but i look like a brute)
If it works for you, great: Your character still has bad reflexes and is slow in combat. For me this doesn´t work.

A Dex fighter's Dexterity would still be high. My 9th level fighter has a 20 Str and 18 Dex. I focus my description on his high dex. Still I do see your point. At the same time I do not like having a fighter build that isn't compatible with the rest of the fighter builds.

I also understand that this isn't nerfing my fighter that I have now. I just think that they shouldn't make the Duplo version of DnD for new players. Rebox the game, add new powers, but stand by the mechanics of the game.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Not to beat a dead analogy, but isn't this like saying, "That restaurant's current menu is just fine. How dare they add to it! "

Well to continue your analogy:

They're adding to the menu a bunch of dishes from a different culinary tradition -- say, Chinese instead of Italian.

You can still order the Italian dishes, but there won't be any more innovation there. The lasagna the way it is on the menu now will never change.

For now there are only four Chinese dishes on the menu (the new classes). As time goes on there will be more and more Chinese dishes, and all recipe innovation will go into Chinese dishes.

I hope you like Chinese food.

If you like Italian food, you can still order it, but it's never going to get any better (or worse).

 

[P1NBACK]

I hope you like Chinese food.

That's a terrible analogy.

It's more like a super fancy Italian restaurant adding a "lunch special" at a discounted rate that is simpler fare and on a condensed one-page insert menu in the middle of the normal extensive menu.