The Essentials Fighter

[Klaus]

Okay, I understand your point better.

IMHO, the aura adds another level of possible game design (expand aura, aura becomes difficult terrain, aura pushes 1 opponent, etc). And the stances, I'm eager to see what the higher-level stances will do. In fact, I think I'll pop out my PH3 and look at higher level battlemind at-wills for some ideas!

 

[SteveC]

Okay, I understand your point better.

IMHO, the aura adds another level of possible game design (expand aura, aura becomes difficult terrain, aura pushes 1 opponent, etc). And the stances, I'm eager to see what the higher-level stances will do. In fact, I think I'll pop out my PH3 and look at higher level battlemind at-wills for some ideas!

No problem... if anything I see a bit of a Star Wars Saga influence here: it kind of reminds me of some of the Jedi combat abilities. Maybe some Rodney Thompson influence?

In that case, I think it can get more interesting: there are a lot of interesting things a Jedi can do, but they can also do the +XdY damage sort of things.

 

[Aegeri]

Okay, I understand your point better.

IMHO, the aura adds another level of possible game design (expand aura, aura becomes difficult terrain, aura pushes 1 opponent, etc). And the stances, I'm eager to see what the higher-level stances will do. In fact, I think I'll pop out my PH3 and look at higher level battlemind at-wills for some ideas!

Wait until you realize this class is cut off from all its "at-will" powers when dazed, so ends up stuck in one stance all combat if they get dazed repeatedly (which can happen to a defender). Wizards have managed to make the first class in 4E that cannot use its at-will powers when dazed (or has reduced actions). That's not what I call "great" class design.

Not to mention if they take a better daily stance like Rain of Steel or Avalanche from the standard fighter, they won't be able to use any of their at-will stance powers - so they'll be stuck making a very unexciting basic attack all encounter. Of course that something like Rain of Steel is far and away better than a simple cleave or +2 damage is pretty clear - it's just the regular fighter gets that PLUS an excellent encounter length stance. I think it has been mentioned that they can take fighter powers, so if they can and they take stances, their entire "class" idea goes down instantly.

Personally from what I've seen of the Knight I think it's a boring class both to play and have at the table. It also isn't anywhere near "simple". People pretending this is simple aren't considering all the explanations you will need to give players, like needing minor actions to switch stances and that their aura excludes marks while not being a mark (so won't interact with things that interact with marks, like Mark of Warding). Not to mention that when said PC falls unconscious their aura deactivates, requiring a minor action to reactivate it as well (presumably with standing up).

Further, powers that are required to be used when you use other powers - like the additional 1[w] power are harder to explain again. Because now you're dealing with interrupt like mechanics, making it just as complicated as the traditional fighter. I've seen new PCs get very confused - just as confused with other powers - about the Half-Orcs furious assault. I don't see how this is any different.

To be honest, I still haven't seen a coherent argument why this is simpler to play. I can make a fighter that any new player can play easily. It uses 2 at-wills that are simple to grasp (Reaping Strike and Cleave), it has a 2[W] encounter power and a 3[W] daily. None of these powers have any particularly special effect whatsoever, meaning that the player just uses them and rolls the correct dice. Not to mention they don't get cut off from half their powers when dazed.

 

[Stalker0]

Wait until you realize this class is cut off from all its "at-will" powers when dazed, so ends up stuck in one stance all combat if they get dazed repeatedly (which can happen to a defender).

Yet because all of his power is in his MBAs, even when dazed he can still charge an opponent with all of his might.

Compare to that a regular fighter who wouldn't even get to use an at-will if his opponent is away from him.

 

[Aegeri]

Compare to that a regular fighter who wouldn't even get to use an at-will if his opponent is away from him.

Or the regular fighter that gets Punishing Charge (Encounter 1), which damages every enemy that takes an OA against you equal to con and does 1[W]+strength+con damage.

Oh and did you forget about threatening rush, which is a fighter at-will you can use as a melee basic attack when charging? Not to mention it handily marks each creature adjacent to you at the end of the charge. So your statement isn't even true.

Not that fighters usually have poor MBAs by any stretch, given that their opportunity attacks get + wisdom to hit and so they have good incentive to boost their OAs considerably. So making sure you have a solid melee basic attack is not off any regular fighters agenda to begin with. Regular fighters have tons of options to handle this, while what options - oh wait the knight doesn't have any. He just loses access to his at-will powers instantly. Or he could action point to change a minor benefit to another minor benefit. Doesn't seem like a good choice though and could be easily frustrating.

You seem to have utterly missed the point though, because a dazed fighter doesn't suddenly lose access to ALL his at-wills bar whatever he used last turn. That's far worse than just using your already decent MBA on a charge instead of an at-will (where you can in fact have an at-will that works on a charge, defeating your entire point anyway). Not to mention, the regular fighter could charge and make an MBA, action point and dump another at-will/encounter/daily into that creature. The knight, well he can action point to change his stance. Whoopee.

Edit: You also incorrectly assume that he can charge an enemy and use something that will actually be useful. Having to charge an enemy with cleave on is pretty worthless - especially given you have the pretty rotten choice of wasting your entire turn changing to a more useful stance or attacking. Meaning that very often, the knight can end up being no better - perhaps in fact worse off - than the fighter.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You seem to have utterly missed the point though, because a dazed fighter doesn't suddenly lose access to ALL his at-wills bar whatever he used last turn. That's far worse than just using your already decent MBA on a charge instead of an at-will (where you can in fact have an at-will that works on a charge, defeating your entire point anyway). Not to mention, the regular fighter could charge and make an MBA, action point and dump another at-will/encounter/daily into that creature. The knight, well he can action point to change his stance. Whoopee.

It's only an issue if the knight was already in a bad stance to begin with. Otherwise he's up and running just fine.

for the case of at-wills (since we only know one encounter power of the knight)

Regular fighter: charge, use a power that's worse than an MBA (no strength bonus to damage), mark adjacent foes.

Knight: charge, MBA, mark adjacent foes then get additional bonus based on my last stance, like cleaving or bonus damage

 

[DracoSuave]

The gaming groups I have been in had relatively few anime fans, and from the conversations with players that I had shortly after 4E came out, and since, the use and description of 'powers' by Martial Characters in game (particularly ones with an anime feel), tended to detract from their experience rather than enhance it - especially the long-time D&D players that have played early editions of the game.

Yes, some grognards had a lot of trouble grokking martial powers. Also, the idea of a 'fighting style' seemed to roll over their heads, and that powers were the best mechanic yet for showing a fighter that relies on actual fighting styles.

Sorry if that seems derisive, but the old school fighter was bland and boring. The only thing that made fighter a different than fighter b was an item list an the stats you lucksacked into. The characters themselves were merely a collection of inventory slots, but nothing more... and a poor representation of individuals.

It was always sad, because you'd think the class dedicated to fighting could show some variance in the manner of fighting.

3.x improved it, but 4th actually nailed it. Two fighters fight differently, because they use different fighting techniques and styles.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Sorry if that seems derisive, but the old school fighter was bland and boring. The only thing that made fighter a different than fighter b was an item list an the stats you lucksacked into. The characters themselves were merely a collection of inventory slots, but nothing more... and a poor representation of individuals.

It was always sad, because you'd think the class dedicated to fighting could show some variance in the manner of fighting.

3.x improved it, but 4th actually nailed it. Two fighters fight differently, because they use different fighting techniques and styles.

I don't know about 1e, but you're way off the mark regarding 2e. Weapon specialization from the PHB in addition to kits and fighting styles from the Complete Fighter's Handbook made a huge difference between fighters even in early 2e, both in terms of mechanics and roleplaying. The later Player's Option books added even more fighting styles and weapon mastery.

 

[DracoSuave]

I don't know about 1e, but you're way off the mark regarding 2e. Weapon specialization from the PHB in addition to kits and fighting styles from the Complete Fighter's Handbook made a huge difference between fighters even in early 2e, both in terms of mechanics and roleplaying. The later Player's Option books added even more fighting styles and weapon mastery.

Weapon specialization was the same bonus no matter what. It only changed what slot the bonus applied to, same with mastery and such. There isn't much difference between a longsword wielder with mastery and a battleaxe wielder with mastery... other than one could have +5 weapons and the other capped at +3.

When all bonuses are the same, you don't actually have 'different.' You just have 'same.' The equivalent in 3e was 'take weapon focus and weapon specialization.' Not exactly an exciting option.

Contrast that with 'An axe using fighter tends to have heavier attacks and occasionally does greater bursts of damage, but a sword fighter will be stickier and can do more with their off-turn attacks... a hammer fighter does more reliable damage, and a polearm fighter excels at zone control.'

And that's just the weapon-based stuff. That doesn't take into account difference in -styles- of combat.

I'll grant you, fighter kits did something to give options to players in terms of bonuses they could add on once in a while, but it really wasn't that drastic... not even as drastic as taking Cleave vs Reaping Strike. The two at-wills you take do more to determine a combat style than anything second edition cooked up.

And Player's Option... sucked. Yes. It sucked.

 

[MrMyth]

Or the regular fighter that gets Punishing Charge (Encounter 1), which damages every enemy that takes an OA against you equal to con and does 1[W]+strength+con damage.

Oh and did you forget about threatening rush, which is a fighter at-will you can use as a melee basic attack when charging? Not to mention it handily marks each creature adjacent to you at the end of the charge. So your statement isn't even true.

Dude, seriously, these are some pretty petty corner-cases. Comparing the Knight (for whom we know 2-3 powers) vs specific builds with specific powers?

Look, if a Knight gets Dazed, then... he's actually really well off, because he is probably already in a stance, and he is getting all sorts of benefits to his melee basic attacks by default, and can still trigger his free action encounter boosts, and he probably already has defender aura up and is doing perfectly fine at marking people.

And, as mentioned, likely better on a charge than the regular fighter stuck with his basics. Yes, the fighter could have taken some very specific powers you can use on a charge. Will most fighters take those powers? No, and it is silly to imply that they do.

In any case, assuming the Knight will regularly spend combats dazed is about as reasonable as assuming all Fighters will regularly spend combats immobilized. Sure, it might happen, but very, very rarely and isn't worth declaring a build useless because of it.

Especially when the hypotheticals you've stacked against the Knight are really not that big a deal for him. "Oh no, I'm stuck doing extra damage with all my attacks." "Oh no, I'm stuck hurting multiple enemies when I charge."

Does being dazed limit his versatility? Yes. But, like the regular fighter, it honestly causes far fewer problems for him than for most classes. Other defenders, like the Paladin, will have trouble marking while dazed. Striker's won't be able to curse/quarry enemies, or lose the mobility to get into position, or can't flank to deliver sneak attacks. Leaders can't use their healing word and attack.

I mean, I'm pretty sure the Knight comes out ahead of 90% of the classes in the game for how effective he is while dazed. And when we see the full details of the class, I wouldn't be surprised if he comes out ahead of the regular fighter, as well.