The Essentials Fighter

[Abraxas]

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.

Just anecdotal, but, having played every other week since 4E was released (except for 2 months last fall) and through all 3 tiers - many of the classes just don't play out that different at the table IMO. Now you could blame this on our DM or our playing style, or it just might be that whatever that intangible difference I felt when playing other editions is not being supplied by the current rule set. Or it could mean the things that have been changed/eliminated are what helped give the classes and even different characters of the same class a unique flavor/feel to me and the people I game with.

I also have to comment on the the idea that the Essentials classes are going to be more difficult, or even no harder, to teach to new players. I have just started a new campaign with a group of new players (the group is both young and have never played RPGs before). It has been an absolute bear teaching them the game so far (I have gone so far as to have another player there just to help them out - he doesn't even run a character) - the Knight preview certainly looks like it would be easier to teach them. In order to ease them into the current game I intend to give them a limited list of feats/powers (no more than 3 - 4 powers and feats) at each level to select from.

 

[SteveC]

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 guess this is one case where we'll have to just agree to disagree. I will say that I do quite like Final Fantasy Zero if that helps.

I would certainly agree that it's possible to play 4X in a way where the classes are all doing the same thing, much as it is with earlier editions of the game. What I've found is that different characters, classes and roles can really have a different approach to combat. If you don't mind a few examples...

I play in a low level game where I'm playing a bard. Another character in the group is a barbarian, my character's brother. All of the time I find myself trying to keep my older brother alive, and I'll do things like send a staggering note into the enemy he's charged "get away from my brother, you oaf!" and I play it strongly to keep control over the raging inferno of destruction that seems only to be trying to get himself killed.

In a higher level game, I'm a fighter who specializes in control. I control what I refer to as the "velvet rope" where no one gets by me to attack the rest of the group unless I let them. "Are you on the list? No, I didn't think so!" I'm right in the center of the front line being a barrier to anything and everything around me.

My first character in 4X was a rogue, and he was a bit of a glass cannon. He'd approach each battle as an exercise in how to get in, get his licks in, and get out without drawing undue attention to himself.

In each of the cases, the kind of powers I selected came out of roleplaying decisions I made about the characters in question, and the choices I had available to me made those characters feel and work radically differently and seem distinct. I could easily have made the characters work in a different fashion, and have seen many other fighters, bards or rogues who've done so in entirely different ways.

The goal in a D&D combat tends to always be the same: defeat your enemies, but how you get there is where the fun comes in. I was a lit major in college, and I enjoy going to see one of Shakespeare's plays I've seen many times before simply to see a new and distinct take on the familiar.

This new fighter doesn't seem to offer much of anything that makes it unique, or have much to offer outside of "I hack," so it's going on my "meh," list. The standard disclaimer of "it this isn't an accurate picture of what the new class represents, I'll happily admit to being wrong," applies. I'll also say that if the preview for a class doesn't give an idea of what that class really is about, it isn't much of a preview.

 

[Aegeri]

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

Assuming you had the correct stance up at the beginning, which again is the entire point I'm trying to make here. If you're in one stance advantageous one round and then are dazed the next, you can end up in an entirely useless stance as you get cut off from your at-will powers. Also, not to be petty but the Knight doesn't mark adjacent foes whatsoever and has an aura with a -2 penalty, which doesn't interact with normal marks. This is important terminology, because the aura does not mark so won't interact with things that enhance or trigger off marks.

One of the core problems I see with the Knight is how they enforce enemies to stand next to them, because a fighter with the other charge power I know will be super sticky to those enemies he marked. Without knowing the Knights mark enforcement, which is hopefully an immediate interrupt or similar attack when an enemy shifts out of its aura - his aura is nowhere near as worthwhile as the fighters mark. Not to mention unlike the normal fighter, the Knight doesn't get + wisdom to OAs, so if an enemy walks away there isn't a lot the knight can do about that at all.

And again, if you take one of the currently excellent fighter daily stances (I think it's been confirmed essentials classes can take powers from the original class, but not vice versa), then he gets cut off from all his at-wills entirely. Then again, a stance to deal 1[W] damage for every enemy starting adjacent like Rain of Steel is infinitely better than a minor +2 to damage on an MBA.

Meanwhile the actual fighter gets his excellent stance cake and doesn't lose any powers in the process to use it (except another choice of another excellent stance).

 

[Mouseferatu]

(I think it's been confirmed essentials classes can take powers from the original class, but not vice versa)

Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it either way. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.

 

[Aegeri]

Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it either way. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.

That's not what I've heard, because last I heard an essentials Domain Cleric could - for example - retrain out his Domain power for a Cleric one, but a Cleric couldn't get a essentials Cleric domain power (I think). I might need to listen to the podcast again, but I'm sure they said essentials classes can take original fighter/cleric/wizard powers, but some of the original classes might not be able to access essentials class stuff.

Edit: Now I think of it, if the knight does lack dailies that probably means he can't get the original fighters far superior stances. That's probably good for compatibility because I don't see many knights bothering with a +2 damage stance over what the original fighter gets. Then again, IMHO from what I've seen thus far I don't see anyone wanting to play a Knight over the original fighter. Hopefully I'm wrong and there is something really really good in there we haven't seen yet, or an incredibly strong defender aura enforcement that makes him super sticky.

 

[Klaus]

Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it either way. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.

Yep. If the power says "Class Attack X", any member of that class can take it at level X. If it lacks a level, it belongs just to that build.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just anecdotal, but, having played every other week since 4E was released (except for 2 months last fall) and through all 3 tiers - many of the classes just don't play out that different at the table IMO. Now you could blame this on our DM or our playing style, or it just might be that whatever that intangible difference I felt when playing other editions is not being supplied by the current rule set. Or it could mean the things that have been changed/eliminated are what helped give the classes and even different characters of the same class a unique flavor/feel to me and the people I game with.

Well, all I can say is that AD&D character within the same class were VASTLY less differentiated. That changed somewhat with late 2e but it was nothing like as much of a difference as there is between a 4e Tempest fighter and a 4e FWT sword-n-board or polearm build.

There are some 4e classes that probably can seem SIMILAR to other ones, but is that really new? 2e fighters, cavaliers, barbarians, and rangers really weren't much different. You could drop one into a party in place of the other and not bat an eye. In 4e you could drop an Invoker in place of your wizard. You WILL notice some difference, though they'll also function pretty similarly and you could refluff one as the other without too much notice. Still, how much difference would you have in 3.5 between a wizard and a sorcerer? Not a heck of a lot.

I also have to comment on the the idea that the Essentials classes are going to be more difficult, or even no harder, to teach to new players. I have just started a new campaign with a group of new players (the group is both young and have never played RPGs before). It has been an absolute bear teaching them the game so far (I have gone so far as to have another player there just to help them out - he doesn't even run a character) - the Knight preview certainly looks like it would be easier to teach them. In order to ease them into the current game I intend to give them a limited list of feats/powers (no more than 3 - 4 powers and feats) at each level to select from.

Well, we don't know how many things knights will have to select from, probably a lot less, but in actual play I see NOTHING that indicates to me they'll be easier to play. The complexity of 4e combat is largely baked into the system and the knight player is still every turn deciding what stance to use, who to attack, and whether or not to toss on one of his encounter boosts. The 4e FWT fighter is choosing an at-will or an encounter or daily power to use. It seems like LESS choices needing to be made and about the same number of options to choose from.

 

[Aegeri]

To add to the above, stances and auras are arguably "up there" in complexity as far as 4E goes for new players. They are not inherently "simpler" to understand and have their own rules nuances. Of course many have pointed out that many new players will stick to one simple stance, like the +2 damage one and be done with it. In the end though, getting anywhere near the versatility of a normal fighter out of the knight will require understanding just as many rules as anything else. Different ones at that, which normally only rarely apply like stances and auras (especially in the case of PCs). Plus having to use and remember you have interrupt/free action powers to add to damage you've done is something new players frequently forget (As I often see with Furious Assault, even with experienced players!).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To add to the above, stances and auras are arguably "up there" in complexity as far as 4E goes for new players. They are not inherently "simpler" to understand and have their own rules nuances. Of course many have pointed out that many new players will stick to one simple stance, like the +2 damage one and be done with it. In the end though, getting anywhere near the versatility of a normal fighter out of the knight will require understanding just as many rules as anything else. Different ones at that, which normally only rarely apply like stances and auras (especially in the case of PCs). Plus having to use and remember you have interrupt/free action powers to add to damage you've done is something new players frequently forget (As I often see with Furious Assault, even with experienced players!).

Yeah, I agree. I think saying "I use cleave" is really not all that much different from the player deciding not to change his stance (and effectively 'cleaving') and its just as likely the player will simply not want to bother with their 'kicker' as it is that they'll just decide not to use an encounter power instead of cleave. And then as you say there are the various subtleties of stances. Stances weren't really designed to be the main way you selected powers originally, they were more of an advanced thing actually that you could avoid if you didn't want to mess with them. I think it turns out to be basically about the same either way in the long run.

 

[Aegeri]

Um, no. Everything works both ways, at least as far as I understand it. If a power/trait has a level attached to it, you can trade it either way. If it doesn't, you can't trade it at all.

Ha, I knew I wasn't going Crazy Mouseferatu as I found a direct quote to support what I was saying:

"As fighters, the slayer and the knight can both take feats, powers, and abilities that require the fighter character class. However, they also have class features and unique powers that other fighters cannot take."

The quote is from this ampersand article. What powers they can take though will depend entirely on how the knight is made and how essentials "class features" will interact with the normal power structure (this remains to be seen). The fact they clearly listed being able to take "powers" suggests to me that Knights and Slayers, despite their different set up can in fact somehow trade or get Fighter powers (or that such things are allowed under essentials rules). But note that it specifically says "unique powers", so it won't always be the case a PHB/MP fighter can take Knight/Slayer powers.