The Essentials Fighter

[Mouseferatu]

But you misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, the knight has features/powers traits that other fighters can't take. But the knight also can't ditch those features/powers/traits for other fighter powers. Whereas, if the knight has a power that it can trade, the other fighters can also gain that power in trade for some of their own.

So as I said--a trade either works both ways, or neither.

 

[mkill]

For one thing, the preview Knight gets standard Fighter Utility powers at levels 2, 6 and 10. No need for speculation, the powers an Essentials Fighter can pick from PHB and Martial Power are right there.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure PHB fighters won't get Defender Aura or the first-level at-will stances, or any of the powers the Essentials Fighter gets at level 4, 5, 8 and 9.

The one question that's kind-of open is whether the Essentials Fighter can switch Power Strike for a different 1st level encounter power. As a DM, I'd allow it, but as a game designer I would probably not allow it to keep the writeup more clean and concise.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

With 1E I would agree, but 2E and 3E my experience is different than yours - so we disagree. Perhaps it was the people you played with or the DM you had that caused characters from earlier editions to have a sameness.

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.

IYE - again, I didn't have this experience previously. The sameness currently appears mostly with classes in the same roles - strikers seem like other strikers, defenders like other defenders, etc. However, again this could be the game style we are involved in - certain powers, rider conditions, and defensive options are just flat out better in our game - so people go for those. The changes in monster design have really driven that home.

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.

You are correct - we don't know how many things they will select from. However, I get a different impression about the class - YMMV and apparently does.

 

[Aegeri]

With 1E I would agree, but 2E and 3E my experience is different than yours - so we disagree. Perhaps it was the people you played with or the DM you had that caused characters from earlier editions to have a sameness.

We could say the same about what you're asserting about 4E to be honest on this point.

I will agree with you though that I feel some classes are a bit too similar to one another at times. My main complaint actually is that you tend to see some classes a lot and others very rarely. I can't say that the stance based dwarf fighter plays anywhere near the same as the dragonborn brawler fighter I've seen in play recently though. Other classes are not so good, Archmage Wizards invariably turn to spam the best daily with a stun or daze until end of next turn rider (Destructive Salutation and formerly Legion's Hold as an example). Even then, given some levels all the Wizards I've seen play immensely differently at paragon/epic - but at heroic feel very similar.

That's where I will put my agreement. At heroic tier, most classes can feel awfully similar because they don't have a lot that differentiates them. Combined with the directly similar power structure and it's easy to see why that is the case. I have not seen two classes play the same in 4E at paragon and above. Their concepts always differentiate fully by this point, their power selections and similar also naturally make them play different. Even with a bias to certain riders - another excellent point you make - I still have very different feeling games.

One party is always better at X, my other party good at Y and my other party good at Z. I can't design the same encounter for X that I would Z - that inherently means something has to be playing differently. Personally I think it's the classes and players that do, not just one or the other. If everything was as similar as some people say, I should be able to take an encounter designed for a defender, striker, striker, controller and leader and dump that into my other campaign with the same characters. If you're right it should play out identically or pretty close because the PCs characters should all be similar.

Fortunately that doesn't happen, what I design for one group frequently proves too hard or too easy or similar for another. That's because even with the same party composition, the nuances of how those classes play really do impact significantly on how it plays.

 

[FireLance]

HaWhat 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.

You know, this really is nothing new. Even now, some feats and powers are unique to a particular class build. Greatweapon fighters can't take Mighty Battlerage. A regular ranger gets no benefit from powers with the Beast keyword. A Thaneborn barbarian can't take swift charge.

So, to summarize: it's a new build. It's going to get stuff that other builds can't get. Maybe it will get more of such stuff. However, I'm still not seeing the problem.

 

[Abraxas]

We could say the same about what you're asserting about 4E to be honest on this point.

I did say it - in my first post. Honestly, I believe play style has more to do with how the game feels than the actual rules.

 

[Aegeri]

To be honest it also depends on tier in 4E. Early heroic tier games are basically identical to one another, as PCs don't have enough options to do unique things and are really a spread of stats. It's once paragon paths and epic destinies kick in that the true variation amongst classes and players absolutely kicks in.

I can't honestly remember many of the differences between parties from levels 1 to 3 or so.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

You mean like a fighter who doesn't have the specific at-will that you're using?

There's always going to be situations where someone isn't at peak effectiveness. If you're worried that the knight doesn't perform well when he's chain dazed for an entire combat, starting on the first round... well noone is going to perform well in that situation.

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.

If the knight is in the game, and those things exist for regular marks in multiple incarnations, it's reasonable to assume that feat support will give the knight similar stuff.

 

[Abraxas]

To be honest it also depends on tier in 4E. Early heroic tier games are basically identical to one another, as PCs don't have enough options to do unique things and are really a spread of stats. It's once paragon paths and epic destinies kick in that the true variation amongst classes and players absolutely kicks in.

That hasn't been my experience - YMOV

 

[Aegeri]

You mean like a fighter who doesn't have the specific at-will that you're using?

He has encounter and even daily powers that can be used on a charge. Lots of options means lots of ways around this.

Not that it's even relevant, because most fighters boost their MBAs due to combat challenge and combat superiority. Having a decent MBA is a basic effective decision for a regular fighter - so he's not going to be bad off. The knight will either have a small advantage or be worse off (not even benefiting from his at-will stances) in a similar position.

If you're worried that the knight doesn't perform well when he's chain dazed for an entire combat, starting on the first round... well noone is going to perform well in that situation.

Yeah, but they aren't cut off from their at-will powers. That's the key point. Being dazed and losing access to powers (essentially) is a pretty big disadvantage. Every other class can always access all their at-wills. I will say this might not be too terrible if at high levels the knight has a lot more options - but then again this is a class built around using its melee basic attack all the time.

If the knight is in the game, and those things exist for regular marks in multiple incarnations, it's reasonable to assume that feat support will give the knight similar stuff.

Oddly, what people think is "reasonable" to assume about feat support for the knight can be quite different . I would actually agree with you, but again it's important that the distinction is made because it's not a mark.