NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5259078" data-attributes="member: 65726">This is just a new class. It doesn't look harder or easier to play, and whether it's less or more powerful is debatable, especially considering we don't even know what half the features are yet.Say I'm a warlord player who hasn't even looked at Essentials, playing at the same table as a fighter from Essentials. I ask everyone at the table what they're playing. When I hear fighter, my immediate assumptions are, this guy can mark when I make him attack things, he can stop things with opportunity attacks, and takes a whack at anything shifting away from him. If I see he's got a shield, I'm also probably assuming he's got Tide of Iron to push things around when we need to. Suddenly, all these assumptions are out the window. We are not looking at a fighter here as we knew it. It's a different class, wearing the same name, sharing the same utility powers, and some of the same feats, but that's all.It's not difficult to adjust tactics to work with the knight. As a more informed warlord player, I'll know that simply shifting the Knight adjacent to enemies, gets them into his aura so I can just Wolfpack Tactics him in there. Or if I want him to take out a couple minions that are tying him up, I can Knight's Move him into his Cleaving Assault stance, and Direct the Strike him to wipe out those two minions adjacent to him, freeing him to move where he needs to during his turn.As a new class this doesn't look bad, I just wish it was called Knight, instead of Fighter. I can see where they want to reuse parts of the class like feats and utility powers, but they are already alienating a slew of feats by getting rid of at-will/encounter powers (most of MP2, arena style feats, etc), and feats with prerequisites such as combat challenge.I would prefer to hear someone say "I'm playing a Knight" rather than "I'm playing a Fighter". I know it's just semantics, but the mechanics are different enough that I don't think it invokes the right picture. If they suddenly have rogues who don't deal sneak attack damage, rangers without hunter's quarry, and paladins without divine challenge, these differences will be even more pronounced. For me, Combat Challenge is what defined Fighter.From a design perspective, reusing existing class powers and feats without making new classes is not a bad idea, as it keeps options plentiful. From the play perspective, this approach basically changes what we know as "class" from a set of features, to a keyword. So, if you play a Knight, you have the "Fighter" keyword.</blockquote>

Verification