The Essentials Fighter

[I'm A Banana]

In looking at this class, they've managed to do something that hasn't happened in all the time 4E has been out: they've made a class I have no interest in playing whatsoever.

Really? For me, every 4e class in the first PH was one of those classes. Specifically because they all worked the same, boring, way (even if they did different things, they didn't do them differently).

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.'

In 2e, weapon speed rules meant that an axe fighter attacked less often, doing more damage per attack, and the sword fighter attacked more often, dealing slightly less damage per attack, and a hammer fighter was great for fighting skeletons.

In 3e, an axe fighter dealt higher damage on a crit.

Etc.

The differences were mostly in the weapon rules.

 

[SteveC]

Really? For me, every 4e class in the first PH was one of those classes. Specifically because they all worked the same, boring, way (even if they did different things, they didn't do them differently).

And this may mean that Essentials is the product for you, which would be a good thing for 4E. I would just say that even with the same mechanic (at-will, encounter and daily) characters in 4E played very differently. Even a group with a ranger, a rogue and a fighter you'd have three very different play experiences. At least that was my experience... your mileage obviously varied. .

This may be a stroke of marketing genius by WotC if they're able to bring back people who've left, who knows.

 

[Greg K]

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

No, Skills and Powers sucked. The other two books, "Combat and Tactics" and "Spells and Magic", were great.

 

[Markn]

Those books were good or bad depending on the individual tables preferences. From a community perspective, those books ensured no one was playing the same rules ever again!

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

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.

Depending on your chosen weapon, weapon specialization gave you a different attack rate, and bow specialists gained point-blank range. Other differences between weapons were damage (also depending on the opponent's size category), speed factor, reach and (optionally) bonuses vs. different types of armor. Certain weapons were very effective to discourage charging enemies, and Combat & Tactics also introduced knockdown rules which favored the usually low-damage bludgeoning weapons. Also: firearms rules, if the DM allowed them .

There were differences, just not to the same extent as in 4e. (I've never played 3.x, so I won't comment on that edition.)

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.

To be fair, you're comparing two editions that are almost 20 years apart; of course 4e improved on its predecessors and does things differently.
Still, 2e's early fighting styles had "drastic" effects. For example:
Weapon & Shield spec: You get an additional attack with your shield so you can parry an enemy attack or knock someone down with it.
Two-Hander spec: You're faster with your two-handed weapon. This made a lot of difference in fights against spellcasters (higher chance of interrupting their spells).
Later styles included e.g. horse archery.

And from what I remember, most kits gave permanent bonuses. The swashbuckler had good reasons to stay in light armor (AC bonus), and bonus weapon proficiencies don't exactly count as "once in a while".

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

I disagree.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

In 2e, weapon speed rules meant that an axe fighter attacked less often, doing more damage per attack, and the sword fighter attacked more often, dealing slightly less damage per attack, and a hammer fighter was great for fighting skeletons.

I think you might be remembering 1e's initiative rules here (segments). Battleaxes were slower than longswords, but the rate of attacks stayed the same in 2e. You didn't lose an attack in a round because your initiative was too high; you simply went last.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Those books were good or bad depending on the individual tables preferences. From a community perspective, those books ensured no one was playing the same rules ever again!

Good point, although I was under the impression that every table played by different rules just using the PHB and DMG. Those books alone had lots of optional rules.

 

[the Jester]

In 2e, weapon speed rules meant that an axe fighter attacked less often, doing more damage per attack, and the sword fighter attacked more often, dealing slightly less damage per attack, and a hammer fighter was great for fighting skeletons.

There was no "rate of fire" for melee weapons; all weapon speed meant was that you attacked sooner or later in the round, not more or less often.

Kits were terrible, horribly unbalanced and one of the most omni-banned bits of 2e IME. Even so, the amount of differentiation with weapon styles in 2e was laughable. What was there that didn't come straight out of the weapons' stats themselves? What was there that was user-based?

Usually a bonus to attack and damage. That's it.

There is a whole world of difference in terms of how different fighting styles work in 4e, though- a huge, immediately noticeable difference in how an axe-wielding fighter compares to a glaive-wielding fighter, for instance.

As to whether an Essentials fighter is better or worse than a PH fighter: looks to me like it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. That's good- that's how it should be. Each should sometimes have an edge; that way they end up (dare I say it?) compatible.

 

[DracoSuave]

No, Skills and Powers sucked. The other two books, "Combat and Tactics" and "Spells and Magic", were great.

Spells and Magic introduced spell points... good for many games involving spell casters, bad for 'we already made the mage the most powerful class in the game so here is some more' balance.

Combat and Tactics was... ok. But it compared to contemporary games out there, it didn't deal with 'combat styles' very well. It was an attempt to catch up to what was already obsolete.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Kits were terrible, horribly unbalanced and one of the most omni-banned bits of 2e IME.

IME the kits that were usually banned came from the infamous Complete Elves Handbook (*cough*Bladesinger*cough*), sometimes together with the Bard's and Humanoids kits. (The Humanoids Handbook was usually banned outright and for good reasons, though.)

IMO the kits from the early Complete Handbooks weren't even close to being "horribly unbalanced", and the same can be said for the kits in Skills & Powers.

Even so, the amount of differentiation with weapon styles in 2e was laughable. What was there that didn't come straight out of the weapons' stats themselves? What was there that was user-based?

Usually a bonus to attack and damage. That's it.

I've touched on this in a previous reply to DracoSuave, so I'll just list the various benefits of fighting style specializations:
Bonus to AC, an additional attack, bonus movement, lower penalties for attacks while moving or using two weapons, using two weapons of medium size, lower speed factor.
There's just one case each of getting bonus damage (+1 when wielding a versatile weapon two-handed) or an attack bonus (+1 when using a shield instead of gaining +1 AC). Not quite laughable differentiation, if you ask me.



We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on the 4e Essentials Fighter.