The Essentials Fighter

[Klaus]

But, that was one decision before, not two decisions in the same turn.


I keep forgetting about the alleged problem there. Conceded again, though that's really an entirely separate decision space. In that space, the Knight is definitely simpler.

Re: at-will vs. stance: Once you get a good aura up, you no longe have that decision point to worry about.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: at-will vs. stance: Once you get a good aura up, you no longe have that decision point to worry about.

Nonsense. One of them is a Cleave aura, for example. Great when you are adjacent to two things, useless when not. If you move, or the enemies do, or some of them die, which aura you want up is suddenly relevant again. Functionally, this is no different from choosing between "Cleave" and "Reaping Strike" every round. The difference is largely semantic.

Honestly, a great deal of the changes in Essentials break down to semantics more than syntax. AFAICT they could have avoided needing new "builds" to regain lapsed players if they had used different semantics at the outset, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.

In any case, if you play dynamic combats with lots of motion, the optimal aura will change more often than if you tend to bunch up in a scrum and whale on each other. IME, 4e is really good at dynamic and mobile, and kinda pointless in a scrum. You could just use a different system that isn't so dependent on movement and control of movement. One that doesn't use movement so often or so well.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yes, but given how obvious the choice of whether to power strike (and backstab to a somewhat lesser degree) is, it's a non-trivial distinction that the only real decision point is "Of the stances/tricks I know, which one do I use?"

That means every round, you face a choice between 2 pre-selected (and probably very different) stances/tricks, or maybe 3 if you're human and that's the human benefit. By contrast, which attack power to use is a choice between at least 4 choices (at level 1) and as many as 10 (at Level 20). Some characters can add another power (or few) to that list. Granted, some of those are dailies, and the encounters each go away after they're used, slowly whittling down your options, but it would take a long time to get down to a simple choice between your at-will powers.

I imagine there will probably be feats and so forth that add to your basic attacks. But those are probably "always on" - things you can just do "whenever." And frankly, whether you want to slow/trip/stun/daze a particular opponent is another pretty easy (and like Power Strike, reasonably intuitive) choice to make.

That's where the reduction in complexity arises, as I see it. The choices are pretty straight-forward, and non-dependent on one another. Let's say I'm out of position for combat advantage - I don't have to choose between using an at-will power that lets me shift a few squares (like Deft Strike) and an encounter one that lets me do more damage (like Torturous Strike). I can just shift 3 squares using Tumbling Trick and use Backstab. Although realistically, I'll probably be saving that backstab to use on a seriously threatening opponent.

The only advantage to Torturous Strike is that you don't have to have combat advantage to use it. But in my opinion, a rogue who willfully gives up sneak attack damage (if he can avoid it) is just dumb.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There really is none. There are three main reasons the PHB fighter is complicated:

1. You need to fiddle around with tokens or some other way to remember which monster you marked and which you didn't. You also need to remark every round.

There's /lots/ of condition tracking in 4e. This comes down to remembering who you attacked last round. Not a huge challenge.

2. There is a very subtle but significant difference between combat superiority and combat challenge, which is only apparent once you fully understood the difference between opportunity action and immediate action, shift and move etc. In my eyes the difference is complicated enough that a significant number of groups out there misunderstood these rules. I know I did.

This is quite true, but not a matter of complexity. It's a matter of confusion because (a) the names of the features are too similar and (b) because they both involve MBAs (which makes them /less/ complex, but more ambiguous and confusing).

3. You have your at-will attack powers, but despite the "at-will" moniker you can't use them in a number of common situations, which are charge, opportunity attack, combat challenge attack and attacks granted by Warlords.

I find 'at-will' only confuses old-school players who remember when it meant aproximately what 'free action' means now. But, again, this is not complexity so much as confusion over a term.

The 4e Fighter's /role/ makes it a bit more complex to play effectively within that role, compared to the simplest role, Striker. That's really about it. Most classes in 4e are of about the same level of complexity. The Controller role, and some controller classes, like the Wizard, are more complex. Some Strikers, like the Barbarian, are a bit less complex. The Fighter wasn't exactly the simplest class in 3.x, either (the Barbarian, again, probably was). The Fighter = Simple presumption is old-school, 2e and before.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

The Fighter wasn't exactly the simplest class in 3.x, either (the Barbarian, again, probably was). The Fighter = Simple presumption is old-school, 2e and before.

QFT. People keep saying 3.x fighter was simple, but it wasn't. You had to be very careful in your choices both in the build, and on the battlefield.

The "just hit him with my axe" class was indeed the barbarian, and the more the edition expanded, the more his characteristic of being a forgiving class increased (alternative class features for combat maneuvers withou prerequisites, pounce, and so on).

 

[MerricB]

This is quite true, but not a matter of complexity. It's a matter of confusion because (a) the names of the features are too similar and (b) because they both involve MBAs (which makes them /less/ complex, but more ambiguous and confusing).

It's not a problem because of basic attacks. Those are (relatively) easy.

No, it's a problem because all of these are true:

* An opponent moves, and I can't attack him.
* An opponent moves, and I can attack him.
* An opponent moves, and I can attack him, with a bonus to hit, and he stops when I hit.

It gets worse because *why* he can't attack him is confusing:

* An opponent moves, and I can't attack him...
...because he is shifting and I haven't marked him
...because he is shifting, and though I've marked him I've already attacked a marked opponent / used an immediate action this round.

To play the 4E fighter properly, you need to understand:
* Opportunity Attacks
* Shifting and Movement (as performed by the DM)
* Immediate Actions

Cheers!

 

[Jack99]

Battle guardian
Trigger: An enemy subject to your defender aura either shifts or makes an attack that targets an ally of yours but not you or an ally who has an active defender aura.

Effect: You make a melee basic attack against the triggering enemy. If the attack misses, the enemy still takes damage equal to your Strength modifier.

That should work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To play the 4E fighter properly, you need to understand:
* Opportunity Attacks
* Shifting and Movement (as performed by the DM)
* Immediate Actions

To play /any/ 4e character properly you need to understand shifting & movement and OAs. Either because you might be making OAs, or because you might need to avoid provoking them.

OTOH, to play a 4e fighter well, you hardly need any clue about minor actions, calculating cover for ranged attacks, or targeting with Area attacks, among many other things.


I've seen the problem people have with Combat Challenge vs Combat Superiority, and it's very much a matter of confusion, not complexity. Once you sort out the terms - or figure out to ignore them - you're fine.

If one was called Combat Challenge and the other was called Superior Oportunist, and each had their own attack of that name associated with them instead of invoking the MBA mechanic, there's be no confusion.

But, more complexity. Sometimes simple isn't so simple.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

If one was called Combat Challenge and the other was called Superior Oportunist, and each had their own attack of that name associated with them instead of invoking the MBA mechanic, there's be no confusion.

This.

The problem is that they failed to leverage their best asset in 4e. Make these into powers rather than class features. Put them on power cards and hang the interactions on the power system, which is clean and intuitive in addition to being always in front of you in a reasonably concise way.

 

[The Little Raven]

This.

The problem is that they failed to leverage their best asset in 4e. Make these into powers rather than class features. Put them on power cards and hang the interactions on the power system, which is clean and intuitive in addition to being always in front of you in a reasonably concise way.

Agreed. Whenever I see things that are written up in paragraph format, but are basically a power for all intents and purposes, it frustrates me. They did it with Warlock's Curse in the PHB, but actually created a power writeup for it on the Compendium warlock writeup (which really.

I've taken various skill actions from different books and written them up in power format and skills see use far more often in our games because of it. The same applies to basic actions like Bull Rush. Combat Challenge/Superiority definitely need it and I agree that these need to have more distinct names, as my players still call one the other. I'd probably have gone with Battle Challenge and kept Combat Superiority. I'd probably also separate the +Wis component of CS out into its own feature name.