The Essentials Fighter

[Remathilis]

Two PCs are different not by rules, but by roleplaying.

Ok, lets start with the obvious answer: Duh!

However, role-playing is a bit of a easy-out answer. For example...

Why have 25+ classes? Why not have four: Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller?

Why not have one "defender" class, and allow ME to decide if his marks work through arcane insight, martial prowess, or divine wrath? I can pretend my "defender" is a battle-heartened mercenary captain, a crusading champion of goodness from the City of Greyhawk, or heir to 1,000 years of study into the mind and its inner mysteries, right? Similarly, a "Controller" class could be done and allow ME to decide if I'm using divine light, arcane bolts, mind bullets, or the siphoned power of a demonic lord to fuel my 1d6+Stat and Stun power, right?

Heck, by that logic, why don't powers serve a unitary function? Since its all "roleplaying" why don't I just name all my powers and describe their function? Why call a power "Tide of Iron" when I could be using a shield, a wall of force, the power of Spirit Bear, or a really cleverly placed bananna peal to make my foe stumble backwards. Just call it "slde back" and be done.

...

Of course, that's not how D&D has EVER worked. Role-playing is great for describing your PC, who they are, what they think etc, but its NEVER replaced the need to diverse character classes that model your character mechanically. Its the reason even OD&D didn't make one supplement without introducing the Thief and Druid class.

Is it too much to ask that not all characters use these cookie-cutter options and rely on the player to make them special snowflakes? Judging from PHB3 and Essentials, I think I know WotC's answer...

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Mike, I would like to buy you that beer.

One of my greatest laments in 4e was how the roles pegged classes mechanically. Sure, there was some wiggle room (particularly in strikers, after PHB2) but I think giving characters unique ways of handling the same "niche" is a much better way of doing it than saying "How do you want to heal: faith, yelling, song, spirit-wolf, or alchemy? Don't matter, the mechanics are pretty much Interchangeable."

Diversity is good!

 

[mkill]

Why have 25+ classes? Why not have four: Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller?

Well, I don't know what they're good for. If some people are to believed there is only one 4th edition class anyway, because they are all mechanically the same...

Maybe we need 25+ classes to trick people into buying more books?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mike, I would like to buy you that beer.

One of my greatest laments in 4e was how the roles pegged classes mechanically. Sure, there was some wiggle room (particularly in strikers, after PHB2) but I think giving characters unique ways of handling the same "niche" is a much better way of doing it than saying "How do you want to heal: faith, yelling, song, spirit-wolf, or alchemy? Don't matter, the mechanics are pretty much Interchangeable."

Diversity is good!

Mechanics =/= diversity. I'd also point out that its just pretty much totally hyperbolic to claim that all powers are nearly identical. Sure, your basic at-will melee weapon attack powers are not all going to be vastly different, but there is still a pretty amazing amount of diversity. Cleave is different from Twin Strike is different from Piercing Strike. The thing is this isn't even the main dimension of diversity. You can't isolate a single specific mechanic of similar 4e classes as what makes them different, its the whole synergistic package. Sure, a bow ranger and a warlock may each have a d6 striker bonus, but they have different class features and different powers that make these things DIFFERENT. And lets not kid ourselves, really how many different ways were there for a melee combatant to work in 3.x? Not every fighter was the same, but neither is every 4e fighter the same. I just don't buy your argument AT ALL, nay I reject it lock, stock, and barrel.

 

[Oldtimer]

Its the reason even OD&D didn't make one supplement without introducing the Thief and Druid class.

Druids appeared in supplement three. Just saying...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Indeed. The real crux of the issue is: overshadowed by how much? Dominating by how much?

Don't forget that in 4E, the difference isn't between zero and forty or more daily powers. It's more like possibly zero (if a paragon path without daily powers exists, and the knight has absolutely no once-per-day type abilities) and four.

Only time will tell. The number of spells in 4e is less, but the phenomenon of the 30-second adventuring day was never about blowing all your spells, it was about blowing a couple of your most potent spells in an unstoppable combo.

You can 'nova' like that in 4e with a daily or two, just not quite as dramatically. And, more importantly for class balance, everyone can do it to an extent.


It does depend very much on how the limitted-use of dailies is balanced vs the unlimitted-use abilities of classes that lack them. In 3.x, limitted use powers, even when you had a lot of 'em, were balance by being /very/ powerful compared to unlimitted-use ones. Clearly, Visions of Avarice beats the holy heck out of Footwork Lure, but I don't think it's to quite the degree that Disentegrate outclassed Weapon Specialization.


The good news is that, even if the Knight is outclassed, we still have the Fighter.

 

[Klaus]

Y'know, I was thinking today that there are quite a few monsters whose attack prevents characters from using anything but a basic attack, and the knight will be unaffected by them.

 

[Remathilis]

Mechanics =/= diversity. I'd also point out that its just pretty much totally hyperbolic to claim that all powers are nearly identical. Sure, your basic at-will melee weapon attack powers are not all going to be vastly different, but there is still a pretty amazing amount of diversity. Cleave is different from Twin Strike is different from Piercing Strike. The thing is this isn't even the main dimension of diversity. You can't isolate a single specific mechanic of similar 4e classes as what makes them different, its the whole synergistic package. Sure, a bow ranger and a warlock may each have a d6 striker bonus, but they have different class features and different powers that make these things DIFFERENT. And lets not kid ourselves, really how many different ways were there for a melee combatant to work in 3.x? Not every fighter was the same, but neither is every 4e fighter the same. I just don't buy your argument AT ALL, nay I reject it lock, stock, and barrel.

Cool, we'll agree to disagree.

As two your question about about melee combatants, I could build a melee that...
a.) Fought Sword and Board, defending allies.
b.) Went Two-handed, power-attack and massive damage.
c.) Spring-Attacked into-and-out-of combat.
d.) Dual-Wielded two blades.
e.) Dealt massive damage in exchange to lower-to hit and defense (rogue)
f.) Raged, improving his physical scores. (barbarian).
g.) Used Smites and Divine spells to boost combat ability (paladin).
h.) Used Hexes and debuffs to weaken foes (hexblade)
i.) Did extra damage when he moved around the battlefield (scout)
j.) Didn't need strength to be effective (swashbuckler/duelist and somewhat rogue)
k.) Could strike multiple times per day with his bare hands, dealing damage equal to steal weapons and perhaps stunning his foes while doing so (monk).
l.) Could use a powers system like spellcasting to augment powerful attacks (Tome of Battle classes)
m.) Could quickly cast offensive spells while fighting in melee (duskblade)

Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus. You couldn't play a scout like a rogue, you couldn't play a hexblade like a paladin. You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e.

A different way to do things (in case I don't like the way one class does it) is all I'm asking, and it looks like I might be getting it.

 

[mkill]

Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus. You couldn't play a scout like a rogue, you couldn't play a hexblade like a paladin. You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e.

Do you seriously want to tell people that a 3rd edition Ranger and a 3rd edition Warlock are completely different, while a 4th edition Ranger and Warlock are pretty much the same class? If that's the case, I want my two-weapon Warlock and my Beastmaster Warlock and I want them NOW. And I want my ranger's pet landshark to shoot frickin laser Infernal beams!
Mearls, deliver!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Cool, we'll agree to disagree.

As two your question about about melee combatants, I could build a melee that...
a.) Fought Sword and Board, defending allies.
b.) Went Two-handed, power-attack and massive damage.
c.) Spring-Attacked into-and-out-of combat.
d.) Dual-Wielded two blades.
e.) Dealt massive damage in exchange to lower-to hit and defense (rogue)
f.) Raged, improving his physical scores. (barbarian).
g.) Used Smites and Divine spells to boost combat ability (paladin).
h.) Used Hexes and debuffs to weaken foes (hexblade)
i.) Did extra damage when he moved around the battlefield (scout)
j.) Didn't need strength to be effective (swashbuckler/duelist and somewhat rogue)
k.) Could strike multiple times per day with his bare hands, dealing damage equal to steal weapons and perhaps stunning his foes while doing so (monk).
l.) Could use a powers system like spellcasting to augment powerful attacks (Tome of Battle classes)
m.) Could quickly cast offensive spells while fighting in melee (duskblade)

Yeah, all of them used the d20 to resolve hit/damage, but each introduced a different unique mechanic show off its classes focus. You couldn't play a scout like a rogue, you couldn't play a hexblade like a paladin. You CAN, however, play a ranger like a warlock in 4e.

A different way to do things (in case I don't like the way one class does it) is all I'm asking, and it looks like I might be getting it.

You're right there is an immeasurable gulf there, if the distinguishing feature of classes was how often they could use their best trick then indeed all 4e classes are identical! lol.

I note I can build every single one of the things you mention above in 4e. And if you come to the table and play your warlock like a bow ranger in my game he's likely to get his butt kicked. It doesn't even make sense, they have radically different powers even though they are both strikers.