The Essentials Fighter

[Rex Blunder]

I think the words "corner case" have already been mentioned in this thread so I won't mention "corner case" again after the next time I say "corner case". corner case

From my corner, it looks like a case where "different builds are different and have different pluses and minuses." In this thread, it is being argued that the knight is underpowered because he cannot switch stances while dazed. But even if your characters spend an average of two rounds in EVERY COMBAT dazed, and can charge in both (their enemy isn't around a corner; it isn't a case where the enemy is already adjacent) you'll probably hit on only one of your two attacks. That means this makes a difference of 2 damage in the entire combat.

Just in case you missed it, other people are arguing that the knight is overpowered because he gets his +2-damage stance on charges and OAs.

The knight didn't exactly corner the market on damage bonuses while charging, though: there have been cases where other classes have been given damage-boosting at-wills usable on charge. Battle Wrath is worse than howling strike, for instance.

What if we cover it with "different builds are different and have different pluses and minuses?"

If one build is definitely better than another, you may feel cornered into taking the better. This does not yet look to be one of those cases.

 

[Njall]

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, 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.

Yes, but I think his point is that nothing of these made an actual difference in how you played a fighter, since all of the fighting styles granted passive benefits: regardless of the weapon you were using, the most effective strategy ( usually move and attack, sometimes holding back one attack to block an opponent's blow ) was what you ended up using over and over; a +1 here or there didn't change that.
Compare that with 4e (and, to a lesser extent, to 3e) , where you can, for example, capitalize on OAs, focus on burst rather than sustained damage, create a fighter that relies on footwork to move his opponents around or one that is really good at grabbing them, build a hammer-wielding fighter that uses his bulk to damage his opponents even when he misses, or a spear wielder that's really good at impaling people with his spear and keeping them at bay...that's just an example of something that you just couldn't do in 2e ( and I played the hell out of 2e at the time...).

 

[the Jester]

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.)

Almost every Complete book in 2e had many many kits with advantages with no compensating disadvantages. The fighter's book- which was first- sent up big alarm bells for all of my groups. Everything after, with the possible exception of the Priest book (which was laughably underpowered) just exacerbated it... until Skills & Powers, which broke the game so thoroughly that it didn't matter that they actually balanced the kits. I made more than one cleric with massive spell ability, equal fighting ability to a fighter and a few wizard spells... in full armor and with pretty much any weapon you choose.

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.

A +1 to something buried in an optional rule sub-set that was rarely used (again, bonuses with no drawbacks- in all the years of 2e I played and dmed, I NEVER saw a single group use the fighting style stuff) hardly counts as a distinctive combat style imho. Obviously, YMMV and does.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Yes, but I think his point is that nothing of these made an actual difference in how you played a fighter, since all of the fighting styles granted passive benefits: regardless of the weapon you were using, the most effective strategy ( usually move and attack, sometimes holding back one attack to block an opponent's blow ) was what you ended up using over and over; a +1 here or there didn't change that.

My point is that the fighting style specializations did make a difference in play, and I don't consider an additional shield attack that can be used to parry an enemy attack to be a passive benefit.
And I should add that the Complete Fighter's Handbook also introduced several combat maneuvers like disarm, pull/trip, shield rush (which required you to use a shield, of course) etc.; it wasn't just the I-hit-him-with-my-sword routine over and over.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

Everything after, with the possible exception of the Priest book (which was laughably underpowered) just exacerbated it... until Skills & Powers, which broke the game so thoroughly that it didn't matter that they actually balanced the kits. I made more than one cleric with massive spell ability, equal fighting ability to a fighter and a few wizard spells... in full armor and with pretty much any weapon you choose.

Ah, those clerics . Have you ever tried to build the Forgotten Realms specialty priests with Skills & Powers? Some of them (Mystra, I'm looking at you) need far more character points than you're allowed to spend.
But yeah, just ignore chapters 2-4 in Skills & Powers and you're good to go.

A +1 to something buried in an optional rule sub-set that was rarely used (again, bonuses with no drawbacks- in all the years of 2e I played and dmed, I NEVER saw a single group use the fighting style stuff) hardly counts as a distinctive combat style imho. Obviously, YMMV and does.

Indeed . But the thing is, it's not a case of bonuses without drawbacks. Every basic fighting style had its advantages and disadvantages listed right in the book, and to receive the bonus that a fighting style specialization granted, you had to spend a weapon proficiency slot.



OK, I'll let this topic rest now. Sorry.

 

[the Jester]

OK, I'll let this topic rest now. Sorry.

It's a totally valid topic of discussion, just one where we disagree.

To follow a different tangent for a moment- 2e's specialty priests, when done well, were the best iteration of the cleric that D&D has ever seen. In an edition so full of warts, the priest rules were the shining beacon of amazing clarity and brilliance. Sadly, many (maybe even most) published specialty priests were terribly unbalanced, but a well-made homebrewed pantheon with a few dozen different types of priests, each with a spell selection actually based on its gods portfolio, was amazing.

I lurve my 4e cleric, but it doesn't feel at all like a priest of anything in particular. It certainly doesn't feel like a priest of the sea god. As compared to my the priest of Decker, the god of ships, the sea and travel- they used tridents and nets and other aquatic-themed weapons; their spells were about elemental water, travel, the weather, with unique spells that would repair or summon ships, speed their travel, etc. Each type of priest different, with special granted powers that gave them supremacy in their god's area, and sometimes restrictions related to their god to balance them out (my specialty priests of Nerull were not allowed to accept healing, but had powerful death magic available to them).

Sorry, carry on, threadjack over.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

It's a totally valid topic of discussion, just one where we disagree.

True, but we were somewhat off-topic, I think.

To follow a different tangent for a moment- 2e's specialty priests, when done well, were the best iteration of the cleric that D&D has ever seen. In an edition so full of warts, the priest rules were the shining beacon of amazing clarity and brilliance. Sadly, many (maybe even most) published specialty priests were terribly unbalanced, but a well-made homebrewed pantheon with a few dozen different types of priests, each with a spell selection actually based on its gods portfolio, was amazing.

I'm in full agreement with you on this.
Amazing potential, yet too often terrible execution.

I lurve my 4e cleric, but it doesn't feel at all like a priest of anything in particular. It certainly doesn't feel like a priest of the sea god.

The channel divinity and domain feats do mitigate this somewhat IMO, but there's not as much differentiation for 4e clerics compared to their 2e counterparts. I'm having high hopes for the Essentials cleric to improve this; the warpriest preview gave me that 2e vibe, and I totally blame Mike Mearls for that!

Sorry, carry on, threadjack over.

What he said.

 

[AllisterH]

Oh yes....I too tried making the F&A priests with Skills & Powers and I say at LEAST 33% couldn't be built.

(Mystra was obscene...think she was more than double the cost. I had a chart one time with the entire point totals written down).

Most "balanced" of the F&A was Selune's specialty priest IMO.

(Still though, the F&A series I consider the single greatest campaign specific resource and is on my top 5 list of ALL-TIME best D&D products)

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Well, I haven't left. I'm DMing 4e currently, and I'll be playing it again soon enough. I've played many games, and I've DMed just about as many, and I've maintained a DDI subscription since I think the second week it was offered. What Essentials might do for me is solve some of the problems I have with the game currently, and perhaps persuade me to buy a few more books than I presently do.

One of those problems being that the classes largely play the same. This is in my experience, not just on paper. Swordmages, assassins, barbarians, shamans, invokers, all play the same powers metagame, all gaining vaguely equivalents options (attack vs. defense = damage + role-dependent effect) at exactly the same rate and recharging them at exactly the same rate. The variety in types and methods and recovery rates and frequency of power use (from the fighter's "I can do my stuff all day long" to the wizard's "go nova, then I'm spent") was a valuable difference.

I mean, given Essentials, it looks like WotC kind of agrees. It's not just in paper. In play, this difference matters.

You'll forgive me if I grind this axe a little bit, I hope. I understand mileage may vary, but the whole "plays better than it reads, so you must not be playing it!" bogeyman smacks of attacking the messenger, rather than the message.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I haven't left. I'm DMing 4e currently, and I'll be playing it again soon enough. I've played many games, and I've DMed just about as many, and I've maintained a DDI subscription since I think the second week it was offered. What Essentials might do for me is solve some of the problems I have with the game currently, and perhaps persuade me to buy a few more books than I presently do.

One of those problems being that the classes largely play the same. This is in my experience, not just on paper. Swordmages, assassins, barbarians, shamans, invokers, all play the same powers metagame, all gaining vaguely equivalents options (attack vs. defense = damage + role-dependent effect) at exactly the same rate and recharging them at exactly the same rate. The variety in types and methods and recovery rates and frequency of power use (from the fighter's "I can do my stuff all day long" to the wizard's "go nova, then I'm spent") was a valuable difference.

I mean, given Essentials, it looks like WotC kind of agrees. It's not just in paper. In play, this difference matters.

You'll forgive me if I grind this axe a little bit, I hope. I understand mileage may vary, but the whole "plays better than it reads, so you must not be playing it!" bogeyman smacks of attacking the messenger, rather than the message.

And you'll pardon us if we are totally unable to even vaguely comprehend how a 4e shaman is even vaguely similar to a 4e barbarian. I hear this assertion all the time from people that haven't played 4e. TBH I pretty much have to wonder if anyone who makes this assertion can possibly have played anything beyond the most trivial amount of 4e. I wouldn't say 4e classes are more varied than classes in previous editions, but they are certainly EQUALLY varied.