The Essentials Fighter
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
EDIT: Doh, I knew I'd be ninja'd...
A common term on the WotC boards during 3rd editions heyday. A mixture of Cleric or Druid and godzilla.
It alludes to the fact that from a certain level a Cleric or Druid can buff himself up with spells and class abilities to a point that he completely outshines every other class in the game.
4th edition avoided this effect with the simple measure that most leader buffs can only be used on allies instead of the PC himself.
)
A common term on the WotC boards during 3rd editions heyday. A mixture of Cleric or Druid and godzilla.
It alludes to the fact that from a certain level a Cleric or Druid can buff himself up with spells and class abilities to a point that he completely outshines every other class in the game.
4th edition avoided this effect with the simple measure that most leader buffs can only be used on allies instead of the PC himself.
No need to worry here, the Essentials classes will be fine, unless the devs did some major blunders on their basic game maths (again
)You genuinely feel that "you make it harder for enemies next to you to hit your allies" is 'up there in complexity' compared to, "when you make an attack, declare that it marks an enemy, and if you do so, that enemy has a harder time hitting your allies until the end of your next turn"?
I know several adult players of fighters that regularly forget to mark when they attack.
Are there levels of complexity that can build from stances and auras? Yes. Will the player who plays things as straightforward as possible not be as flexible as the player who is a master tactician with a great grasp of the rules? Absolutely!
But I think they are going a long way towards making something that can be built and played in a very simple fashion without losing a great deal of its capability. It fulfills its role just by getting near enemies. It doesn't need to make big decisions every round before attacking, it doesn't have to put a new player in the position of having to regularly retcon what they did because they forgot to announce something in advance. I think those elements will make a huge difference to new players, based on how I have seen many such players operate.
I could be wrong, they could get really confused by stances and auras as well. But it seems very unlikely to me, and I definitely don't agree that an aura you always have up is "up there" in complexity compared to the standard marking mechanics of a PHB fighter.
What percentage of fighters do you genuinely believe have encounter and daily powers that can be used on a charge? How many fighters design their characters for the potential to spend a combat permadazed?
This hypothetical situation you keep returning to is both extremely unlikely to actually come up, and likely to be more beneficial to the Knight than to most fighters. Sure, a Fighter that you have specifically designed to work well in that situation will come out ahead. But that isn't a valid comparison nor a valid criticism of the Knight.
As it is, while dazed and charging, the Knight will have access to whatever At-Will it last used, along with presumably all of its Encounter powers (which seem likely to be 'add-ons' is can use on a hit.)
Almost every other melee character in the game, on a charge, will have access to neither At-Wills nor Encounter Powers.
A very, very few will have one or two powers usable on a charge, but that leaves them still just as limited as the Knight.
I'm just not seeing any limitation here. Do you really think the Knight will often get perma-dazed, and that it will always happen when, for some reason, he has already started using a Stance that will be useless in that combat?
I don't think he is saying that. I think he is saying the Essentials Mage edges only very slightly (ie, almost negligably) towards the 3.5 god-wizard, but that the Essentials Knight goes very significantly in the direction of the 3.5 fighter, and that is where the danger lies.
I don't agree, myself - I think the Knight looks like it will be simple to play while remaining balanced against the other classes. I am a little worried that they will lack a Daily resource and break the balance paradigm in that fashion. But I'm willing to wait and see how it all comes together before coming to any real decisions.
This is just a new class. It doesn't look harder or easier to play, and whether it's less or more powerful is debatable, especially considering we don't even know what half the features are yet.
Say I'm a warlord player who hasn't even looked at Essentials, playing at the same table as a fighter from Essentials. I ask everyone at the table what they're playing. When I hear fighter, my immediate assumptions are, this guy can mark when I make him attack things, he can stop things with opportunity attacks, and takes a whack at anything shifting away from him. If I see he's got a shield, I'm also probably assuming he's got Tide of Iron to push things around when we need to. Suddenly, all these assumptions are out the window. We are not looking at a fighter here as we knew it. It's a different class, wearing the same name, sharing the same utility powers, and some of the same feats, but that's all.
It's not difficult to adjust tactics to work with the knight. As a more informed warlord player, I'll know that simply shifting the Knight adjacent to enemies, gets them into his aura so I can just Wolfpack Tactics him in there. Or if I want him to take out a couple minions that are tying him up, I can Knight's Move him into his Cleaving Assault stance, and Direct the Strike him to wipe out those two minions adjacent to him, freeing him to move where he needs to during his turn.
As a new class this doesn't look bad, I just wish it was called Knight, instead of Fighter. I can see where they want to reuse parts of the class like feats and utility powers, but they are already alienating a slew of feats by getting rid of at-will/encounter powers (most of MP2, arena style feats, etc), and feats with prerequisites such as combat challenge.
I would prefer to hear someone say "I'm playing a Knight" rather than "I'm playing a Fighter". I know it's just semantics, but the mechanics are different enough that I don't think it invokes the right picture. If they suddenly have rogues who don't deal sneak attack damage, rangers without hunter's quarry, and paladins without divine challenge, these differences will be even more pronounced. For me, Combat Challenge is what defined Fighter.
From a design perspective, reusing existing class powers and feats without making new classes is not a bad idea, as it keeps options plentiful. From the play perspective, this approach basically changes what we know as "class" from a set of features, to a keyword. So, if you play a Knight, you have the "Fighter" keyword.
Say I'm a warlord player who hasn't even looked at Essentials, playing at the same table as a fighter from Essentials. I ask everyone at the table what they're playing. When I hear fighter, my immediate assumptions are, this guy can mark when I make him attack things, he can stop things with opportunity attacks, and takes a whack at anything shifting away from him. If I see he's got a shield, I'm also probably assuming he's got Tide of Iron to push things around when we need to. Suddenly, all these assumptions are out the window. We are not looking at a fighter here as we knew it. It's a different class, wearing the same name, sharing the same utility powers, and some of the same feats, but that's all.
It's not difficult to adjust tactics to work with the knight. As a more informed warlord player, I'll know that simply shifting the Knight adjacent to enemies, gets them into his aura so I can just Wolfpack Tactics him in there. Or if I want him to take out a couple minions that are tying him up, I can Knight's Move him into his Cleaving Assault stance, and Direct the Strike him to wipe out those two minions adjacent to him, freeing him to move where he needs to during his turn.
As a new class this doesn't look bad, I just wish it was called Knight, instead of Fighter. I can see where they want to reuse parts of the class like feats and utility powers, but they are already alienating a slew of feats by getting rid of at-will/encounter powers (most of MP2, arena style feats, etc), and feats with prerequisites such as combat challenge.
I would prefer to hear someone say "I'm playing a Knight" rather than "I'm playing a Fighter". I know it's just semantics, but the mechanics are different enough that I don't think it invokes the right picture. If they suddenly have rogues who don't deal sneak attack damage, rangers without hunter's quarry, and paladins without divine challenge, these differences will be even more pronounced. For me, Combat Challenge is what defined Fighter.
From a design perspective, reusing existing class powers and feats without making new classes is not a bad idea, as it keeps options plentiful. From the play perspective, this approach basically changes what we know as "class" from a set of features, to a keyword. So, if you play a Knight, you have the "Fighter" keyword.
Remathilis
Legend
Ok, I don't want to reinstate the classic flamebait, but I'll give you a few examples on how the old way induced cries of "sameyness".
Assuming your non-human, you have 2 at wills, 2 encounters (one racial), and 1 daily power. Not counting basic attacks (or P42-inspired "stunts") you had four options in a given fight. Before I go any farther, I realized D&D always limited your options (fighters attack, mages have 1-3 spells, depending on edition, etc). However, the 4e power system creates an illusion of choice of sorts; OMG I have 4 cool options to use; which do I do? The problem is the options aren't all that different; the amount of weapon die (or spell die), the effect offered, and perhaps the defense targeted changed, but the difference between attacks wasn't as diverse as wizard spells nor as simple to adjudicate as fighters roll-n-forget.
This was further compounded by the fact early in, "the Math" wasn't all that great. Some monsters (particularly soldiers) were very hard to hit. This meant most of the time your encounter power (which you relied on for big damage or battle-changing status effects) was wasted. And dailies were too precious to use willy-nilly, so most people spammed At-Wills because they were "reliable".
Further add on that many powers were simply "X damage + Y effect" and you had a lot of powers that looked samey on paper (even if they weren't in play). Who cares if you use your shield to push your foe back or blast him with a bolt of arcane magic from your wand; your still just doing 1d8+3 damage and push 1...
Furthermore, classes within the same role ended up (for balance) having the same role-based mechanic. Every Leader got a X-Word power; it didn't matter if you were invoking the power of the Gawdz, yelling quotes of inspiration, or singing them a merry tune, the effect was similar. PHB1 had the same problem with strikers, warlocks and rangers call whose "it" and do extra d6s of damage. Rogues do an extra die of damage, but pay for it by setting up CA. Defenders mark; etc. While this was done to keep character's "viable" in there role, it also made them interchangable mechanically with one another.
Lastly, there were plenty of cool "deviations" in flavor that didn't do much mechanically. Druids could shapechange, but it was so useless all it did was restrict what powers you could use in a given round (by restricting powers to human/beast form). Shaman's got a spirit pet, but it was nothing more than fancy spell-effect and did the same X dmg/Y effect thing; no OAs, no CA, etc.
Oh, there's the "don't break your archetype" rule. It took Fighters till MP to fight two-weapon, and they still stuck at bows/missile weapons. On the other hand, a ranger can't be a decent sword-n-board fighter; grab two blades or a bow bow. And heaven forbid a rogue wants to fight with two short sword and a short bow. What were you thinking, get yourself a dagger and a crossbow like a REAL rogue!
And that doesn't begin to touch on how some early monsters were sinfully boring, magic items lacked anything "magical" about them, early modules was one show-piece fight after another with little rhyme or reason, etc.
My feeling is almost 2 years later, they've learned from there mistakes. Even if its artificial, I get a feel from the warpriest, mage, and knight they are separate classes with different roles and different abilities. They don't use the same "pick 2/1/1" formula, they are unique against each other. Magic Missile is guaranteed damage. Cleric powers depend on their god. Fighters augment basic attacks. I can't WAIT to see what the rogue does!
In short, for the first time these classes feel like separate CLASSES, not different fantasy tropes stapled to the same frame and called unique. I'll wait till Sept to see if I'm right...
Assuming your non-human, you have 2 at wills, 2 encounters (one racial), and 1 daily power. Not counting basic attacks (or P42-inspired "stunts") you had four options in a given fight. Before I go any farther, I realized D&D always limited your options (fighters attack, mages have 1-3 spells, depending on edition, etc). However, the 4e power system creates an illusion of choice of sorts; OMG I have 4 cool options to use; which do I do? The problem is the options aren't all that different; the amount of weapon die (or spell die), the effect offered, and perhaps the defense targeted changed, but the difference between attacks wasn't as diverse as wizard spells nor as simple to adjudicate as fighters roll-n-forget.
This was further compounded by the fact early in, "the Math" wasn't all that great. Some monsters (particularly soldiers) were very hard to hit. This meant most of the time your encounter power (which you relied on for big damage or battle-changing status effects) was wasted. And dailies were too precious to use willy-nilly, so most people spammed At-Wills because they were "reliable".
Further add on that many powers were simply "X damage + Y effect" and you had a lot of powers that looked samey on paper (even if they weren't in play). Who cares if you use your shield to push your foe back or blast him with a bolt of arcane magic from your wand; your still just doing 1d8+3 damage and push 1...
Furthermore, classes within the same role ended up (for balance) having the same role-based mechanic. Every Leader got a X-Word power; it didn't matter if you were invoking the power of the Gawdz, yelling quotes of inspiration, or singing them a merry tune, the effect was similar. PHB1 had the same problem with strikers, warlocks and rangers call whose "it" and do extra d6s of damage. Rogues do an extra die of damage, but pay for it by setting up CA. Defenders mark; etc. While this was done to keep character's "viable" in there role, it also made them interchangable mechanically with one another.
Lastly, there were plenty of cool "deviations" in flavor that didn't do much mechanically. Druids could shapechange, but it was so useless all it did was restrict what powers you could use in a given round (by restricting powers to human/beast form). Shaman's got a spirit pet, but it was nothing more than fancy spell-effect and did the same X dmg/Y effect thing; no OAs, no CA, etc.
Oh, there's the "don't break your archetype" rule. It took Fighters till MP to fight two-weapon, and they still stuck at bows/missile weapons. On the other hand, a ranger can't be a decent sword-n-board fighter; grab two blades or a bow bow. And heaven forbid a rogue wants to fight with two short sword and a short bow. What were you thinking, get yourself a dagger and a crossbow like a REAL rogue!
And that doesn't begin to touch on how some early monsters were sinfully boring, magic items lacked anything "magical" about them, early modules was one show-piece fight after another with little rhyme or reason, etc.
My feeling is almost 2 years later, they've learned from there mistakes. Even if its artificial, I get a feel from the warpriest, mage, and knight they are separate classes with different roles and different abilities. They don't use the same "pick 2/1/1" formula, they are unique against each other. Magic Missile is guaranteed damage. Cleric powers depend on their god. Fighters augment basic attacks. I can't WAIT to see what the rogue does!
In short, for the first time these classes feel like separate CLASSES, not different fantasy tropes stapled to the same frame and called unique. I'll wait till Sept to see if I'm right...
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
Mengu said:
Mearls has been quoted as calling them "subclasses".
I really don't get the whole "sameness" discussion. I disagree on a very deep, very basic level:
Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying
Does it really make a PC more differnt from another that his ressources are distributed by day instead of by round?
What about... His name? His background? His backstory? The way his appearance is described? The way you describe his attacks? His battlecries? His small and big personality quirks? His beliefs and dreams, his goals in life, his philosophy? His way of speaking?
There is only one way that a Swordmage can play like a Shaman, and that is if you never treat your PC more than the numbers on his character sheets and he effects on his powers. Yes, you can play D&D (any edition) like a boardgame. But if that is the problem, don't blame the rules, change your playstyle.
Now, I can agree that 4th edition doesn't do enough to help you create evocative descriptions at the table. The tendency in the community to call this "fluff" is part of the problem. It's annoying if some rules bits come without any in-game description whatsoever (feats!!). It's annoying that important rules elements to help your character history (backgrounds) are included as an afterthought. It's even worse when their purpose are disregarded by players and they are only valued by their combat benefit (compared to the out-of-combat benefit).
But the problem of bland PCs has absolutely nothing to do with unified mechanics of martial and arcane characters. This deep misconception has to go. A good player can take two completely identical character sheets and create two completely different PCs.
If a Swordmage and a Shaman feel the same to you, you need to make them different by playing them different. No fiddling with the rules will change that.
Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying
Does it really make a PC more differnt from another that his ressources are distributed by day instead of by round?
What about... His name? His background? His backstory? The way his appearance is described? The way you describe his attacks? His battlecries? His small and big personality quirks? His beliefs and dreams, his goals in life, his philosophy? His way of speaking?
There is only one way that a Swordmage can play like a Shaman, and that is if you never treat your PC more than the numbers on his character sheets and he effects on his powers. Yes, you can play D&D (any edition) like a boardgame. But if that is the problem, don't blame the rules, change your playstyle.
Now, I can agree that 4th edition doesn't do enough to help you create evocative descriptions at the table. The tendency in the community to call this "fluff" is part of the problem. It's annoying if some rules bits come without any in-game description whatsoever (feats!!). It's annoying that important rules elements to help your character history (backgrounds) are included as an afterthought. It's even worse when their purpose are disregarded by players and they are only valued by their combat benefit (compared to the out-of-combat benefit).
But the problem of bland PCs has absolutely nothing to do with unified mechanics of martial and arcane characters. This deep misconception has to go. A good player can take two completely identical character sheets and create two completely different PCs.
If a Swordmage and a Shaman feel the same to you, you need to make them different by playing them different. No fiddling with the rules will change that.
Last edited:
A quick word on balance: The roles go a long way to making sure that, even if classes have different types of powers, they all play an important and useful role in the game.
Regardless of how a wizard uses his powers, he can't duplicate the knight's ability to lock down monsters and hold them back. The real problems in terms of balance come up when class X is strictly better than class Y at almost everything, to the point that the "smart" move (in terms of overcoming obstacles) is to call on X whenever possible.
Putting everyone on the same schedule of powers can help, but it helps a lot more to give each role some area of expertise that the other roles don't intrude upon.
Regardless of how a wizard uses his powers, he can't duplicate the knight's ability to lock down monsters and hold them back. The real problems in terms of balance come up when class X is strictly better than class Y at almost everything, to the point that the "smart" move (in terms of overcoming obstacles) is to call on X whenever possible.
Putting everyone on the same schedule of powers can help, but it helps a lot more to give each role some area of expertise that the other roles don't intrude upon.
