The Playtest Fighter

[Campbell]

I have no real issues with the play test fighter besides giving him crappy armor. It reminds me a lot of the Essentials Slayer. The ability to nova somewhat with the surge ability is nice and pretty thematic. The fighter is aggression personified, constantly seeking to seize every advantage.

That being said I really need to see the maneuver based fighter before I can pass judgement. I really hope its a module for the fighter that takes the place of Weapon Focus or the like rather than occupying the theme design space. I'd like the flexibility to be a defender with maneuvers or slayer with maneuvers. I want maneuvers to be character defining and something that separates them from say a paladin or rogue. Of course I'm somewhat of a partisan when it comes to the fighter class. It's pretty much my favorite fantasy archetype.

 

[Walking Dad]

So, this is how you, as a DM, would run the game?

No, but I was in games like that. And not only D&D or fantasy.

 

[DMKastmaria]

No, but I was in games like that. And not only D&D or fantasy.

So, you're faulting the system because a bad dm will run it poorly? Should they make the game with bad dm's in mind? And how far should they go in that direction?

Should they hamstring good dm's, if that will mean less abuse from bad dm's?

Is it possible to "dm-proof" an rpg? While keeping the game fun, interesting and conducive to creativity for good dm's?

Would good dm's choose such a system over one that takes some skill to run, but is more enjoyable to dm?

If not, do good dm's give a fig about criticisms of the game, based on how they might be botched by bad dm's, especially when those criticisms are so worded as to imply the problem is all-pervasive and not merely confined to bad/inexperienced dm's (or, gods forbid, the occasional mistake)?

 

[eamon]

To add to this discussion: the initial character seems to have been built to have the simplest choices in terms of feats powers, and he's first level. I really don't expect this to be at all typical of fighters we'll see later on.

So a class has a very simple 1st level variant in a playtest explicitly not aiming to accurately represent character creations options. I'm not worried that this implies all fighters will be forced to be like this - at all. Judging by late-3e and 4e, there will be more than enough ways to build a complex fighter, should a player wish to do so.

I call FUD.

 

[Stalker0]

In theory, you're absolutely right. There's nothing preventing a GM of any game system from adding things like stunts and action zones.

However, categorizing all those abilities makes improvisation uncomfortable. The player can say "I swing my axe at the goblin, trying to knock him off the cliff" but how does that interplay with Tide of Iron? Should there be a penalty there? Did you just give away a power for free? Did another player waste a power slot on that power?

I agree here. The theory says that adding those powers should do nothing to affect a player's ability to improvise. But in practice I think it did, I definately noticed it in my game.

People were focusing on how to use the tools on their sheet instead of the tools in the scenario they were facing.

 

[The Little Raven]

I agree here. The theory says that adding those powers should do nothing to affect a player's ability to improvise. But in practice I think it did, I definately noticed it in my game.

People were focusing on how to use the tools on their sheet instead of the tools in the scenario they were facing.

By this argument ("More tools on the character sheet reduces player improvisation"), spellcasting classes reduce the ability of a player to improvise, since they're often composed solely of "tools on their sheets."

 

[Kinak]

I agree here. The theory says that adding those powers should do nothing to affect a player's ability to improvise. But in practice I think it did, I definately noticed it in my game.

Glad to hear we're not the only ones who experienced this.

By this argument ("More tools on the character sheet reduces player improvisation"), spellcasting classes reduce the ability of a player to improvise, since they're often composed solely of "tools on their sheets."

They sure do.

That's sort of the point. This isn't an edition war thing. AEDU doesn't cause more problems in this regard than Vancian magic.

Granted, spellcasting doesn't typically cause the same problems conflicting with stunts. But most spellcasting players will look at their sheets until they run out of spells.

I feel that's why you get so many "the wizard ran out of spells, then did this totally sweet stunt" stories. Thinking back over my personal store, a lot of those stunts were a better than shocking grasp or flaming sphere, but the spells always got exhausted first... even as daily resources.

But, if I were starting a 4e game, most of my players would go Essentials at-will builds. And when we play other editions or Pathfinder, most of my players go all at-wills. I'm just glad their chosen style of powers (read: at-wills with improvisation) seems to be supported out of the gate. And I'm glad there seem to be other options for my players that don't like that.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[jshaft37]

I have no real issues with the play test fighter besides giving him crappy armor. It reminds me a lot of the Essentials Slayer. The ability to nova somewhat with the surge ability is nice and pretty thematic. The fighter is aggression personified, constantly seeking to seize every advantage.

I was just about to post that this fighter is not enough like the essentials slayer. I just built an essentials slayer that I think many would prefer to this fighter. I don't understand why they couldn't have just included two "stances" from the slayer arsenal: Berserker's Charge +10' to move and +2 to attack and Battle Wrath +2 to Damage. Those are pretty easy to manage.

Same with the Rogue, it would have been nice to include an essentials style " combat trick" or some kind of combat benefit to the "Thief" Scheme.

 

[Stalker0]

By this argument ("More tools on the character sheet reduces player improvisation"), spellcasting classes reduce the ability of a player to improvise, since they're often composed solely of "tools on their sheets."

I have actually noticed that high level spellcasters do seem to improvise less than lower level ones...again in my experience.

When you have a bucket of spells to choose from you are always trying to figure out the correct one to use.

When your choices are limited, you improvise to get more mileage.

 

[The Little Raven]

I have actually noticed that high level spellcasters do seem to improvise less than lower level ones...again in my experience.

When you have a bucket of spells to choose from you are always trying to figure out the correct one to use.

When your choices are limited, you improvise to get more mileage.

Now, the question is whether a class that is improvisation-heavy is an advanced or beginner class? The conventional wisdom states that the Fighter is the beginner class for new players and the Magic-User (or other spellcaster) is the advanced class for advanced players. However, this doesn't make any sense if the Fighter player has to put out more effort with less knowledge/experience/understanding of the nuances of adventuring/D&D, and the Magic-User just casts a spell (or "presses a button" as people are fond of saying).

Shouldn't the class that is for beginners be the one that requires a lower effort-to-experience ratio, while the advanced classes should expect much more from the player?