The Essentials Fighter

[I'm A Banana]

Remathilis, I can't give you any more XP, but most of your posts are well worth it.

The same is true for the archer ranger and the warlock. The archer ranger is (in my exprience) very easy to play just by pointing and shooting. The warlock, on the other hand, has to do all sorts of tricky stuff to make up for its poorer baseline damage, for example by taking advantage of the possibilities for mobility opened up by its shadowwalk, its Misty Step and Eyebite (in the case of a Feylock), etc. Played like an archer ranger a warlock will be obviously inferior.

I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.

The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."

The casual player just notices that whether I have a dark pact with unpleasant forces, or a bow, I'm doing the same "point and shoot and effect" mechanics.

I know I don't care about specific power strategies or inferiority or superiority or compensating for some comparative minor difference in damage or attack rolls or eking out every +1 or whatnot.

I care about whether my warlock will have to fight and kill the things she's sworn her soul to, and whether my ranger can help my party hide in the wilderness from the orc patrol.

Some people see a +2 Damage and see a +2 on attack rolls and see a world of difference.

Some people just see that they're both bonuses to things that make killing easier, and which one to get is a toss-up.

Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.

It's not relevant to me. I am perhaps beginning to see how it could be relevant to others.

Seems like these are all doable in 4e, too.

You miss the point. It's not about "doable." It's about where the difference happens.

It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.

It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently

 

[Aegeri]

Heh, its a trip to charops for you! FWT fighter, glaive, HBO, Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, lots of dex, Tide of Iron, you can literally make a fighter that can hold up to eight monsters semi-adjacent and give them ZERO chance to ever escape. Its a very cute build and despised by DMs the world over. Does take 10 levels to get fully baked though.

Actually such a build can effectively hold monsters adjacent, but only until he drops dead now that monsters are going to turn and thump him easily. With monsters doing effective damage, the ability of such builds to shut down an encounter easily is vastly reduced - especially with the clarification to marks that they end when you drop unconscious.

It's still a good build, but multiple mark fighter builds are nowhere near as effective as they were MM3. My epic come and get it fighter drops constantly if he pulls 3 or more monsters adjacent - often due to stacking aura damage finishing him off on his own turn.

It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently

I'm not sure how you get that, as the Ranger is either a dedicated melee/ranged striker that attacks twice a round and the Warlock is usually a short ranged spell based striker. I can say the last time I had a Ranger vs. anything in the party I noticed, as the Ranger is one of the most effective strikers in 4E. The ranger loads up on out of turn attacks and the warlock actually has some pretty decent controller effects - so they do play inherently differently. I can't really see how you get these confused sorry.

 

[Remathilis]

Remathilis, I can't give you any more XP, but most of your posts are well worth it.

Same here bud.

I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.

The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."

The casual player just notices that whether I have a dark pact with unpleasant forces, or a bow, I'm doing the same "point and shoot and effect" mechanics.

I know I don't care about specific power strategies or inferiority or superiority or compensating for some comparative minor difference in damage or attack rolls or eking out every +1 or whatnot.

I care about whether my warlock will have to fight and kill the things she's sworn her soul to, and whether my ranger can help my party hide in the wilderness from the orc patrol.

Some people see a +2 Damage and see a +2 on attack rolls and see a world of difference.

Some people just see that they're both bonuses to things that make killing easier, and which one to get is a toss-up.

Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.

It's not relevant to me. I am perhaps beginning to see how it could be relevant to others.

You miss the point. It's not about "doable." It's about where the difference happens.

It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.

It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently

My point exactly KM.

I played a Cleric, Artificer, and Warlord each for a few levels (1-3 each time). Each time, I barely noticed a real, tangible difference between my healing power. Each was a minor action, usable 2/encounter, and granted a Healing Surge plus some rider (1d6, or stat bonus, or both). There was some differences here and there as to what exactly my power did, but all three of them ended up doing the same thing, spamming at will attacks (occasionally using his encounter power) and using healing power when a ally got bloody.

My fault for playing a Battle Cleric, TacLord, and Tinker artificer I guess (since all three were melee based and liked run up with the fighter-types) but I saw little difference in how all three got played except for exchanging a slide for a +2 bonus, etc. I can certainly tell you my Cleric and Artificer in 3e didn't feel alike though!

 

[MerricB]

I'm not sure how you get that, as the Ranger is either a dedicated melee/ranged striker that attacks twice a round and the Warlock is usually a short ranged spell based striker. I can say the last time I had a Ranger vs. anything in the party I noticed, as the Ranger is one of the most effective strikers in 4E. The ranger loads up on out of turn attacks and the warlock actually has some pretty decent controller effects - so they do play inherently differently. I can't really see how you get these confused sorry.

I have the same player playing a Warlock in one campaign and a Ranger in another. The two characters work entirely differently. Sure, they're both strikers, but the way they implement it feels very different. The Warlock has large doses of control - dominating opponents, slowing them down, or causing them to hang 30 feet in the air... or occasionally going on minion-destroying teleport jags - whilst the Ranger stays even further away and just hits things for lots.

Cheers!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Heh, its a trip to charops for you! FWT fighter, glaive, HBO, Polearm Gamble, Polearm Momentum, lots of dex, Tide of Iron, you can literally make a fighter that can hold up to eight monsters semi-adjacent and give them ZERO chance to ever escape.

I wasn't impressed with Polearm Gamble, and it's Paragon level, like the two reach-focused PPs. There's a feat to let your Close Weapon attacks use your weapon's reach, but it's Epic. That's what I meant about the builds being late-maturing. A 3e reach fighter could have some meaningful functionality from 1st level on.

Oh, and Tide of Iron: how does the galive-wielder get around the shield requirement?

I honestly think the whole reason 4e HAD to come along and do what it has done is that 3.x just collapsed under its own weight. 4e is up to 30+ books and shows no sign of breaking down. I'm not trying to bash 3.x, but just saying it sort of inevitably failed in the end.

Yep. I honestly think it's a natural life-cycle of RPGs. Core rules sell well, suplements less so as time goes on. Games start out with not enough material, quickly get enough, then start having unintended synergies and eventually collapse under their own weight.

It happened to 3.x, 2e and BECMI, for that matter. The only thing that saved 1e AD&D was the slow release of new books (what was it, maybe one or two a year?), but that has it's own problems - the system was notorious for variants, house ruled or from the pages of The Dragon, that made characters (and often players) from one campaign incompatible with those from others.

Anyway, some systems are resistant to the problem. The more effects-based ones, like Hero, don't add many, if any, new rules in their suplements, just new aplications of existing ones. Hero still puts out a new ed every 10 years, but I'm convinced it's solely to boost sales. 4e, with it's recyclable keywords and level progression scheme had some resistance to the rules-overload problem. But, it seem Essentials may be out to change that.

So, while Essentials may not be 4.5, it may well grease the rails to get us to 5e that much sooner...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I care about whether my warlock will have to fight and kill the things she's sworn her soul to, and whether my ranger can help my party hide in the wilderness from the orc patrol.

'Probably not,' and 'yes,' are the answers to those questions.

The Warlock will have Arcana and maybe Thievery or Bluff or something like that, while the Ranger will tend to have Perception, Nature, and Stealth. The ranger will likely have either Athletics or Acrobatics. The Warlock will likely suck at both of those, but perhaps be able to Teleport.

The Ranger will emphasize STR and/or DEX and WIS. The Warlock, CON and/or CHA and INT.

If you just look at thier stats, they couldn't easily be more different. One's strangely compelling and/or possessed of inhuman vitality, and cunning or even brilliant. The other evinces cat-like grace or bear-like strength and the quiet awareness of the hunter or zen master.

Then, one is an arcanist who makes freakish things happen to enemies he curses, while the other is a woodsy archer or warrior who tracks, stalks and kills like a predator at one with the wilderness.


So, /unless/ you're getting hung up on fairly specific mechanics, I don't see where you're getting samey from.

Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.

Hey, if the mechanical differences aren't that important to you, then the mechanical similarities shouldn't be, either. You should be focusing on the stuff, above, instead of the bland mechanical fact of being a ranged striker.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The Warlock will have Arcana and maybe Thievery or Bluff or something like that, while the Ranger will tend to have Perception, Nature, and Stealth. The ranger will likely have either Athletics or Acrobatics. The Warlock will likely suck at both of those, but perhaps be able to Teleport.

If you just look at thier stats, they couldn't easily be more different. One's strangely compelling and/or possessed of inhuman vitality, and cunning or even brilliant. The other evinces cat-like grace or bear-like strength and the quiet awareness of the hunter or zen master.

Then, one is an arcanist who makes freakish things happen to enemies he curses, while the other is a woodsy archer or warrior who tracks, stalks and kills like a predator at one with the wilderness.

But that's all on paper. In play, none of that really seems to matter. In play, the major difference is fiddly bits. Okay, my Warlock teleports 3 squares, and my Ranger shifts 3 squares, and the distinction between the two doesn't pop up often enough to be relevant.

Hey, if the mechanical differences aren't that important to you, then the mechanical similarities shouldn't be, either. You should be focusing on the stuff, above, instead of the bland mechanical fact of being a ranged striker.

Nah, the "casual player" approach that I'm coming from does care about mechanics.

It's just that the differences have to be greater than "shift 3" and "teleport 3."

A difference like "Every attack I make obliterates my foes" and "I use powerful spells, but can only use so many of them in a day before I'm spent."

The flavor needs to be backed up with big mechanical differences.

If I've got inhuman vitality, I should be able to persist in destroying my enemies even when my body is broken beyond recognition. This isn't an extra 5 hp. This is a character who can continue to battle even after 0 hp.

If I've got a hunter's awareness, I should be able to pierce an enemy's camouflage. This isn't an extra +2 to attack rolls, this is "you cannot hide from me."

Minor differences in numbers and effects aren't significant enough to be noticed by players whose style isn't so attentive to the subtle differences between shift and teleport, or attack bonus and damage bonus, or invisible and hidden.

 

[Aegeri]

But that's all on paper. In play, none of that really seems to matter. In play, the major difference is fiddly bits. Okay, my Warlock teleports 3 squares, and my Ranger shifts 3 squares, and the distinction between the two doesn't pop up often enough to be relevant.

Teleportation is always better than a Shift. There are very few exceptions to this and the difference between teleporting and shifting is huge. If you can't see why shifting isn't as good as teleporting, try playing 4E on non-planet bowling ball?

It's just that the differences have to be greater than "shift 3" and "teleport 3."

That is a massive difference.

The flavor needs to be backed up with big mechanical differences.

Not to pick on your example, but if you can't see teleporting is a massive mechanical advantage over shifting you're never going to be convinced of anything.

If I've got inhuman vitality, I should be able to persist in destroying my enemies even when my body is broken beyond recognition. This isn't an extra 5 hp. This is a character who can continue to battle even after 0 hp.

Such characters exist, Revenants and Warforged I think can both get feats that let them continue doing this.

But again, this isn't something given to you for a free lunch, you need to pay for such advantages.

If I've got a hunter's awareness, I should be able to pierce an enemy's camouflage. This isn't an extra +2 to attack rolls, this is "you cannot hide from me."

There are such abilities in 4E, but you pay for them.

We're not going back to the days where people got obscenely overpowered things and pretended "roleplaying" balanced them.

subtle differences between shift and teleport

Every time you claim this, I die a little inside.

Do you play on planet bowling ball with no terrain? Monsters that do nothing to shifting or movement (like immobilize). Never seen a monster that restrains or grabs? I mean, this is the WORST possible example you could pick. The differences between teleporting and shifting are ginormous. When you throw terrain, monsters and effects into this it's nowhere near "subtle" in terms of differences.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if this mythical "difference" I keep hearing about is effectively a "gearhead" vs. "casual player" distinction.

The gearhead notices things like "poorer baseline damage" and "possibilities for mobility" and specific power tactics and how a playstyle can make something "inferior."

The casual player just notices that whether I have a dark pact with unpleasant forces, or a bow, I'm doing the same "point and shoot and effect" mechanics.

<snip>

Maybe you gearheads see a glaring and obvious difference, and people who are less hip-deep in mechanical gristle don't see it, because it's not relevant to them.

<snip>

It's pretty clear to me that the 3e warlock and the 3e rogue were very different characters, and different types of roles could be played within those mechanics.

It's not so clear to me that the 4e warlock and the 4e ranger are different. Having played and DMed for both, I couldn't always tell you from their combat behavior which character was the one with his soul sworn to hell, and which character was the wilderness archer. They didn't act much differently

I haven't played enough 3E to have a really good sense of how a warlock and an archer ranger would compare in that system - but wouldn't both be making repeated ranged attacks in combat, doing damage and the occasional status effect?

Anyway, I don't think the difference between the 4e ranger and warlock is mythical. In combat, they played differently at my table. Out of combat they played differently also - as someone else posted, Perception and Nature for the ranger versus Arcana and Bluff for the warlock.

And as to whether the warlock's dark pace will become a focus of the game - neither 3E nor 4e has any mechanics to force this issue (contrast Sorcerer, for example). But I'd be surprised if a 3E GM who was able to bring those aspects of the PCs to life in the course of the game couldn't do the same in 4e - and I don't feel that I've had any trouble doing it in my game.

EDIT:

But that's all on paper. In play, none of that really seems to matter.

Our play experiences are quite different, then. In my game there is a big difference between a PC with Bluff and one with Nature - they take the lead in different circumstances, and approach challenges in quite different ways.

And in combat it is the same. Different PCs approach the challenge in quite different ways.

Maybe it's because my RPGing experiences for the past 20 years have been mostly with non-D&D games, but I don't feel that a difference has to be as marked as "longsword 1d8" vs "fireball 5d6" to be noticeable.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Not to pick on your example, but if you can't see teleporting is a massive mechanical advantage over shifting you're never going to be convinced of anything.

The difference obvious to a gearhead is not obvious or even important to a casual player.

Let's tell a parable.

A woman is shopping for a shade of nail polish. She can choose between "pleasantly pink" and "bubblegum." The salesperson and her both recognize there is a big difference between the two colors, and talk about details like shine and shimmer and eggshell texture and youthful glow and dignified impressions, but when she asks her loutish husband for advice, he says "They're both friggin' pink."

The loutish husband, later that night, is trying to figure out what TV show to watch. He's really interested in two shows, one called "Street Justice" and one called "Vigilante Squad." They're on opposite each other, and he, being a lout, hasn't figured out how to work his TiVo. He debates the two options in his head, and the ads try to sell it to him using words like "gritty" or "real" or "thrilling" or "suspenseful" and gunshot noises and pictures of tense-looking people staring at each other in poor lighting in cement buildings. When he asks his wife which one he should watch, she says, "I thought they were the same show."

The difference between a shift and a teleport is the difference between Pleasantly Pink and Bubblegum, or the difference between Street Justice and Vigilante Squad. A gearhead knows them, thinks they're obvious, is flummoxed by anybody who doesn't get it. But your casual participant has no idea, and, what's more, doesn't think it's worth it to get an idea, since it doesn't frikkin' matter. They're both pink. They're both shows about cops. They're both "I get to move." All the differences are situational blahbittyblah.

But again, this isn't something given to you for a free lunch, you need to pay for such advantages.
...
We're not going back to the days where people got obscenely overpowered things and pretended "roleplaying" balanced them.

Who asked to?

I'm asking for significant mechanical differences. Looks like Essentials is delivering. I now get to watch cop dramas, AND sitcoms. I now get to pick pink nail polish, AND red nail polish.

Do you play on planet bowling ball with no terrain? Monsters that do nothing to shifting or movement (like immobilize). Never seen a monster that restrains or grabs? I mean, this is the WORST possible example you could pick. The differences between teleporting and shifting are ginormous. When you throw terrain, monsters and effects into this it's nowhere near "subtle" in terms of differences.

I actually think it was one of the better ones, since it clearly illustrates that there's a vast gulf between what you think of as different, and what I think of as different (and what many people looking at D&D for the first time will see as different is probably even a few pegs up from what I do, since I'm kind of a gearhead about this game).