The Essentials Fighter

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).

I'm no gearhead, I'm a role player! Maybe its something that 3.x did that spoiled people but in OD&D/BECMI/AD&D the differences between characters were nada, zippo grande. You had 4 basic classes. They worked EXACTLY the same in melee and some of them cast spells, which were different spells but still spells. I think my point is we don't need mechanics to RP, and if you play OD&D you BETTER not need numbers to make your characters stand out cause you got mighty few of them to go on and most of them didn't do diddly mechanically.

 

[mkill]

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.

Remathilis, just stop it. I think everyone here now understood that you never grasped how different 4th edition classes have widely different tactics in combat. I could start explaining the significant differences between cleric, warlord and artificer to you (both in healing and their other leader abilities), but all I would achieve is that you'll start talking about wizard and invoker 3 pages later and the dance begins again. So I won't because it's a waste of time and I won't convince you anyway.

The problem is not 4th edition, it's your perception of it. I think we all understand now that you prefer to play 3rd edition (and variants of it), so why don't you just do that?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

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?
.

A warlock had class features related to his eldricht lineage. A ranger had nature spells, a companion and track utilities.

Eldricht blast could become an area attack. Ranger could poison his arrows. Mechanics for this were different, kind of damage they dealt (physical, magic) was relevant. Monsters resistances and immunities, damage reduction made them more real, increased immersion. Gameworld mechanics made them feel different.

Be pinned to a wall by a ranged pin arrow from that complete warrior feat, be nauseated by the blast - it felt different. Warlocks were able to become a swarm of critters, rangers had heling spells. Warlock spell- likes caused attacks of opportunity.

Standard action and full attacks were different. And.. do you think that the two classes worked the same way in an Anti-Magic Field?

Seriously, that was really a bad example for an argumentation. The two classes felt really different, and mechanics were made to be sure their interaction with the gameworld assured this feel.

I'm quite surprised by the fact that people feel very different shift 3 and teleport 3 (indeed, they ARE) and feel same-y 3.5 ranged Ranger and Warlock

 

[mkill]

I'm quite surprised by the fact that people feel very different shift 3 and teleport 3

Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.

And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Remathilis, just stop it. I think everyone here now understood that you never grasped how different 4th edition classes have widely different tactics in combat. I could start explaining the significant differences between cleric, warlord and artificer to you (both in healing and their other leader abilities), but all I would achieve is that you'll start talking about wizard and invoker 3 pages later and the dance begins again. So I won't because it's a waste of time and I won't convince you anyway.

The problem is not 4th edition, it's your perception of it. I think we all understand now that you prefer to play 3rd edition (and variants of it), so why don't you just do that?

Meh. Why exclude him from the entire discussion or edition?

Remalithis played D&D 4. If he didn't see the difference between Ranger and Warlock, maybe he's just not the kind of person to give weight to the differences that you or me value.
That doesn't mean that D&D Essentials could give him the type of differences that he gives weight to.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Remember when 4th ed came out and Eladrin ("blink elves") could suddenly teleport, even at first level? Heads were asplode about it. It was the end of D&D.

And now the Internets want to tell me that it's no big deal and blink elves could just as well shift 5?

you are right - teh internet tends to overreact .

Nevertheless, it's likely that people complaining about blink elves were not Kaiyanwang, or Remathillis. The latter EVEN said that jumped happily into 4th edition, at the beginning IIRC (Remathillis, correct me if I'm wrong).

My point is that yeah, classes in 4th are quite different, but in 3rd they were MORE. For most 4th edition players the way they are different now is a feature, because of gamestyle and balance and other things they like of 4th edition.

But I explained above how in 3rd edition the system and the gameworld made them different. For someone this kind of attention was not relevant, but for ME it was.

And WotC completeli FAILED to reproduce this kind of attention in 4th, or at least to put an accent on it. Of course, this is, again, a feature for most, but for me is not.

So, you must accept that people can feel this sameness. So:

Blink Elves ---> Good.

Samey Classes---- > Bad

Mechanics of the Gameworld not Helping -----> Bad

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm no gearhead, I'm a role player! Maybe its something that 3.x did that spoiled people but in OD&D/BECMI/AD&D the differences between characters were nada, zippo grande. You had 4 basic classes. They worked EXACTLY the same in melee and some of them cast spells, which were different spells but still spells. I think my point is we don't need mechanics to RP, and if you play OD&D you BETTER not need numbers to make your characters stand out cause you got mighty few of them to go on and most of them didn't do diddly mechanically.

Sorry, can't give you xp but you said it brother.

Yeah, I think 3.x did ruin people and created the need for numbers for everything.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

But this means that the casual player isn't just a casual player, he's an inattentive one. So inattentive as to be unable to tell the difference between firing two arrows and an attack that makes you invisible to the target. (Or one that punishes them if you get hit, etc.) Yes, Eldritch Blast is like a ranged basic and pretty similar to almost any other ranged basic. But if you can't tell the fundamental difference between Eyebite and Twin Strike you aren't paying attention (or the DM isn't). And that's without getting into the other pact at wills which are even more different (other than the darkpact one). And for a Darkpact Warlock, the matter of soul fragments swirling around the body and punishing people for hitting them is non-trivial.

This isn't +1 gearhead stuff. It's fundamental. It's near-ubiquitous. And if casual players aren't picking up on even that much, I wonder what they are picking up on.

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.

And even people who don't see numbers should be able to tell the difference between invisibility and a second arrow. Or between automatically burning the enemy if he gets closer and a melee attack to provide a distraction to slip out of combat (to pick the only at will that really complements Twin Strike for an archer ranger).

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

What the hell sort of Warlock did you have? That said, for all the lovely fluff on a Warlock, it's a real gearhead class if you want to get much out of it.

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?

Reach controllers are mostly Paragon and there's much more than Polearm Gamble. For a proper reach controller you need:

Longarm Student (Heroic tier feat - because you're right, you can't Tide of Iron with a polearm - but Longarm Student adds a push to cleave).
Polearm Gamble
Polearm Momentum - anyone you push 2 squares with a polearm is knocked prone
Heavy Blade Opportunity - Use an At Will (i.e. cleave for the push) on opportunity attacks
Spear Push (or just a ring of the ram) to add a square to the one square push on Cleave.

... And the enemies go flying whenever they try to get anywhere near you.

But honestly, you don't need this for a basic polearm controller. Marking is a debuff. Mark and push - and then move elsewhere. Or lure the enemy in with a mark. You have meaningful functionality from marking + reach alone.

My point is that yeah, classes in 4th are quite different, but in 3rd they were MORE. For most 4th edition players the way they are different now is a feature, because of gamestyle and balance and other things they like of 4th edition.

Really? So a sorceror was more different from a wizard in 3e than 4e when they had the exact same spell list? And the wizard's memorised casting was functionally no different from clerical casting (other than the spontaneous heals and the almost irrelevant turns). Did they feel different? (If they did, then where's the 4e issue here?)

And before fifth level (and the Pokemount) I'll call the 3e Fighter, the Barbarian, and the Paladin less different than a brawler fighter, a battlerager fighter using daily stances, and a sword and board/tide of iron fighter with a warlord multiclass feat and whatever the L2 Endurance Skill Power is called.

Now I'll gladly accept that spellcasters were different from non-casters. And some of the classes that showed up very late in the day (Warlocks, Artificers, Magic of Incarnum, Book of Nine Swords) were different again.

But I explained above how in 3rd edition the system and the gameworld made them different. For someone this kind of attention was not relevant, but for ME it was.

And for me there's far more difference, precisely because you don't have to look at the numbers. You look at what's happening on the map. Thunderwave is not Burning Hands and a single glance at the battlemat can show the difference in a way it can't between Burning Hands and Fireball. And Tide of Iron is not Brash Assault - and both say a lot about how the person with them function.

And WotC completeli FAILED to reproduce this kind of attention in 4th, or at least to put an accent on it. Of course, this is, again, a feature for most, but for me is not.

So, you must accept that people can feel this sameness. So:

Blink Elves ---> Good.

Samey Classes---- > Bad

Mechanics of the Gameworld not Helping -----> Bad

And I once again ask why you say the classes are the same and think that the magic users or the non-magic users in 3e are not. (Or did you really expect 4e to come out with all the variety in 3e in the very first books?)

 

[Neonchameleon]

And for the difference between classes, I'm going to walk through my level 1 Warlord (now level 5).

Human. Battlefront Leader, Bravura Presence
At Wills: Brash Assault, Commander's Strike, Direct the Strike
Encounter: Powerful Warning
Daily: Stand the Fallen? (I forget the name - Immediate Reaction when an ally falls below 0HP, run over to them, attack, and they get to spend a surge).
Feats: Harlequin Style, Armoured Warlord

Martel loves the carnage of battle, and making sense of its rapid rhythms. He's very seldom the first into the fray, preferring instead to analyse it and to point out weaknesses in the opponent's defences for his allies to exploit (Direct the Strike) or to actively create them by forcing the enemy's shield off its line (Commander's Strike). And because he takes those seconds to analyse after the combat has started, he can see what the enemy is going to do before they do it, and knows his allies fighting styles well enough to not only warn them but tell what counter to use even before the enemy has launched the attack (Powerful Warning).

That's not to say he's remotely stand-offish in combat. He knows that he who hesitates is lost and because he understands the way the enemy moves so well, when he himself attacks he takes seemingly insane risks calculated to expose flaws in the enemy's combat styles (Brash Assault/Harlequin Style), and enemies who try to exploit his seemingly poor defences quickly find themselves entirely out of position with respect to everyone else. Ask Martel and he'll just say that combat is risky and that he who hesitates is lost, but there's one time when his seeming recklessness is in fact true recklessness. He saw his elder brother cut down in front of him - and the sight of one of his allies about to fall causes him to break whatever his current battleplan is and rush to their aid, irrespective of what's in the way.

There's far more to his backstory - but he plays exactly in line with the cold calculating combatant who will buy time to understand the enemy, and beat them with his head - before risking his life on his understanding of them.

Your challenge for 10: Make me an artificer or a cleric who plays anything like that. Or anything in any previous edition. (Start with the idea of allies rather than the PC making the majority of his attack rolls).

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Really? So a sorceror was more different from a wizard in 3e than 4e when they had the exact same spell list? And the wizard's memorised casting was functionally no different from clerical casting (other than the spontaneous heals and the almost irrelevant turns). Did they feel different? (If they did, then where's the 4e issue here?)

Sorcerers weren't vancian in the same way of wizards. And look at SPELLS of these classes. Class features of the sorcerers were lame, but just core spells made possible roll sorcerers dramatically different one from another.

And better not start with what Pathfinder did with sorcerers.

You said wizard? Did you remember the feel of the old spellbook? Quite different from now, I think, not just a on/off switch between powers. Clerics received spells in certain moments of the day. Wizards recovered differently from Clerics, and both from sorcerers. The latter cast spells like Dragons, adding an additional immersion element in the gameworld.

Because THIS is the point. If you read my post above, is not only a matter of difference (I recognized that the blink/shift thing is dramatical different, see). It's a matter of how the mechanics interact with the gameworld, instilling or not the feel of how the class works, or how same-y could feel instead.

And before fifth level (and the Pokemount) I'll call the 3e Fighter, the Barbarian, and the Paladin less different than a brawler fighter, a battlerager fighter using daily stances, and a sword and board/tide of iron fighter with a warlord multiclass feat and whatever the L2 Endurance Skill Power is called.

Before fifth level... so you are ignoring saves bonus, smite evil animal companion, spellcasting, track, different skill points and class skills, and don't let start with the fighter (two-hand power attacker? Two weapon fighetr? Polearm wielder? Sword and board? archer?).

Sure, not every thing I talked about was effective, but, in this case, again, just think about what pathfinder did.

Now I'll gladly accept that spellcasters were different from non-casters. And some of the classes that showed up very late in the day (Warlocks, Artificers, Magic of Incarnum, Book of Nine Swords) were different again.

We agree here - and I re-state it: I explain above from where the sameness feeling, regardless it's justified or not, comes. IMO, of course.

And for me there's far more difference, precisely because you don't have to look at the numbers. You look at what's happening on the map. Thunderwave is not Burning Hands and a single glance at the battlemat can show the difference in a way it can't between Burning Hands and Fireball. And Tide of Iron is not Brash Assault - and both say a lot about how the person with them function.

Again, you are probably right - mechanically speaking. There are several differences. But not every person feel these differences, at least in the way they stimulate their imagination.

A good ruleset should inspire the players as well as run a gameworld. AND in the latter part, IMHO, lies the issues.

And I once again ask why you say the classes are the same and think that the magic users or the non-magic users in 3e are not. (Or did you really expect 4e to come out with all the variety in 3e in the very first books?)

I suppose not. Is far more convenient delay popular classes like bard or barbarian for the second PH, and continuously produce errata for the Insider.