# Fighter Slayer preview



## Rex Blunder (Aug 6, 2010)

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Fighter Preview, Part 2)

The Weapon Talent is a +1 bonus to ALL weapon attacks, which is a nice upgrade.

Also, 

"You gain a bonus to the damage rolls of weapon attacks. The bonus equals your Dexterity modifier." Pretty strong incentive to put some points into Dex.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

This fighter slayer build is a martial striker, instead of a martial defender?


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 6, 2010)

Maybe defender-leaning-towards striker. Which is good: a lot of people who play fighters want to hit things hard, not just coddle the squishy characters.

Note that, as one could have predicted, they have scale proficiency only. Plate is reserved for knights (the defense specialists).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> This fighter slayer build is a martial striker, instead of a martial defender?




Judging by the partial preview, I'd say "defender, leaning heavily toward striker." But I could be wrong, of course.

Edit: Ninja'd! But you know, I wouldn't mind if it _were_ a striker. I'd like to see what a (semi-)heavily armored striker looks like.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 6, 2010)

Without a mark how does this possibly function as a defender? It's pretty straightforward though at least, especially compared to other essentials classes. The stance that is -2 to hit isn't very worth while, sacrificing accuracy for a minor damage increase is rarely worth it in 4E. Confirmation at least the slayer does use stances. The charge stance is nice.

Not a lot to say really.

Edit: Without a mark this is a striker, not a defender.


----------



## OnlineDM (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, according to the article it's a striker (though I'm not sure how much the distinction really matters).  It's a little odd to break the Class -> Role matching that we've always had until now (some builds of this class are Defenders while this one is a Striker), but I don't think it really matters all that much.

*Martial Striker: *Fighters such as the slayer use overwhelming  force to take down enemies. The slayer’s use of heavy armor and a large  amount of hit points allow the slayer to stand in for a defender when  the tide of battle requires it.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 6, 2010)

Well it says striker with defender over tones. But this is good to me, none of my players like playing defenders, even less than a healbot from the old days.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 6, 2010)

"Berserker's Charge"... "Unfettered Fury"... this slayer guy is practically a barbarian. I picture him looking kind of Viking-y. Maybe something like this...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 6, 2010)

OnlineDM said:


> *Martial Striker: *Fighters such as the slayer use overwhelming  force to take down enemies. The slayer’s use of heavy armor and a large  amount of hit points allow the slayer to stand in for a defender when  the tide of battle requires it.




Huh. I somehow glossed that.

Well, good. As I said, I like the idea of a steel-wrapped striker. 

I'm surprised that they made one class build a different role than the others. I'll need to decide for sure how I feel about that, but my first instinct is that while I wouldn't have _suggested _it, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

This sounds like a partial repudiation of the striker/defender/controller/leader categorizations.  Either that, or they're examining classes which don't fit rigidly into these categorizations.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 6, 2010)

It doesn't bother me either. Take the +2 damage stance from the other fighter preview, which is far better than sacrificing -2 to hit for a measly +2 extra damage (seriously Wizards :/) and just use that with good dex. A 18 strength/18 dex slayer is dealing +10 damage in static mods without anything else at level 1. That's not a bad deal at all. Plus that's a good spread of NADs if you put some points into charisma or wisdom. So defensively it holds up. Assuming you spend your first feat on a good d12 weapon like a executioners axe or something else you can deal really solid damage.

It's also very simple to play for that reason. Just find an enemy and hit it until it dies. This is the first essentials class that _completely_ succeeds in what it is trying to do: Be very simple to play. You can stay in that +2 damage stance all day long and just swing until things die ignoring everything else.


----------



## OnlineDM (Aug 6, 2010)

I think the Slayer's strikerness is  tied to the fact that it gets to add its Dexterity modifier to all of its attacks.  Strikers generally have some damage bonus like that (Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, Flurry of Blows, etc.).  Dex mod... figure +3 at least at first level on every weapon attack (including opportunity attacks or Warlord-granted attacks).  Not bad.  Not amazing for a striker, but not bad - especially when you consider the high AC and high hit points.

As Aegeri pointed out, defenders have marks.  The Slayer doesn't, ergo it's a striker.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 6, 2010)

Also bow fighters again, win!

And Dex training feat (for hit, whatever it is called).

This is full of fighter excitement for me.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 6, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Huh. I somehow glossed that.
> 
> Well, good. As I said, I like the idea of a steel-wrapped striker.
> 
> I'm surprised that they made one class build a different role than the others. I'll need to decide for sure how I feel about that, but my first instinct is that while I wouldn't have _suggested _it, it doesn't bother me.




Well, there's also the fact that all the classes have had primary and secondary roles pretty much since the beginning. The Fighter was _always_ a defender who was...umm, "striker-curious," if you'll pardon the phrase. Just like the cleric has some controller tendencies, and so forth...

I don't know how well this class really keeps up with other strikers. The stances seem pretty important to class power.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 6, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> And Dex training feat (for hit, whatever it is called).




Ugh, I hadn't thought of that.

That does feel a little broken. My sugar high just became a sugar crash.

Now you can just dump STR, right? You can be a Single Attribute Dependency DEX build. 

The best Slayer fighter is a kobold (+2 DEX, +2 CON) who can shift 2 every turn so they can stay in the Berserker's Charge stance and charge every round.

Not very thematic at all. And makes a much worse cover for the Red Box.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 6, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> Also bow fighters again, win!
> 
> And Dex training feat (for hit, whatever it is called).
> 
> This is full of fighter excitement for me.




Don't need dex training, just go dex primary and no strength. Ranged basic attacks are dex already and you can just use those. Both class features apply to bows, so you've got no concerns. Doubling your dex on every attack though is hard to resist. Actually you could just go dex primary and double up on your dex anyway with a melee weapon as well. Get good AC and Reflex, plus have a +8 or +10 damage bonus on all attacks (depending on if you can get dex 18/20 to start with). Not to mention have fantastic initiative.

If you do feel the need to hit things, you can take melee training dex. I do wonder if melee training might get looked at because of essentials classes.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 6, 2010)

Power Strike appears to be "miscoloured" green, i.e.: as an at-will, despite that the text says it's an encounter power. I just double checked the Knight preview, and Power Strike is (correctly, I assume) coloured red in that article.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 6, 2010)

Yeah there is al sorts of char op stuff here... but I'll not panic until I have seen the class (and 4EE) entire!

But are we going to see more mix and match roles? I hope so.. Wizard strikers, Druid controllers leader, Rogue controllers, Ranger leaders etc etc. I like that idea.

While I am editing: Paladin leaders


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 6, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> But are we going to see more mix and match roles? I hope so.. Wizard strikers, Druid controllers, Rogue controllers, Ranger leaders etc etc. I like that idea.



(Psst! Druids already are controllers... )

EDIT: Technically, I posted before you edited, but obviously you saw your mistake already. Now this whole post just seems pointless... Look what you've done!


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

Wonder how a swordmage controller would work.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Wonder how a swordmage controller would work.



Myself, I'm curious about a Warlord controller, though my Eladrin TacLord/Spiral Tactician is damn near such a thing already.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

If they're going to be mixing and matching between striker/defender/controller/leader for the 4E Essentials class builds, wonder if some of the 4E non-Essentials classes will end up having approximate counterparts in the new 4E Essentials builds, such as the warlord, warden, etc ...


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 6, 2010)

As for the role thing as has already been mentioned the fighter has often been called a defender/striker anyway.


I don't know if its a misprint, but the unfettered strike says -2 to attack rolls with WEAPON POWERS and +4 to BASIC ATTACKS.

So if I'm charging, no -2, just a +4 to damage right?


I will say this guy actually looks like a very strong ranged attacker.

20 dex 1st level striker with a great bow is doing 1d12 + 10 with a +1 attack bonus. Even a ranger has to respect that!


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 6, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> As for the role thing as has already been mentioned the fighter has often been called a defender/striker anyway.
> 
> 
> I don't know if its a misprint, but the unfettered strike says -2 to attack rolls with WEAPON POWERS and +4 to BASIC ATTACKS.
> ...




As was pointed out to me on the WotC boards after I made this same observation, melee (and ranged) basic attack ARE "weapon powers" in 4e.

I understand the thought process though, believe me 

But yeah, it does make a pretty cool archer. And you missed something.

For one, nowhere is "Unfettered Fury" limited to _melee_ basic attacks. So your 20 dex first level striker with a great bow is doing 1d12 + 14 with a +6 (!) attack bonus.

+14 = +5 (dex) + 5 (heroic slayer) + 4 (UF)
+6 = +5 (dex) +1 (weapon talent) + 2 (WP greatbow) - 2 (UF)

Alternatively, w/o a stance, it's 1d12 +10 to damage with a +8 attack bonus.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 6, 2010)

its the EZBarbarian, or archer, for that player that just wants to smack stuff. 

So this can appeal to both New Old and Old Old players. Not to drag the other thread into it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 6, 2010)

I had assumed that the slayer would be a replacement for the decidedly 'secondary striker role' Greatweapon Fighter build, so the striker role isn't a shock.  Apparently, it's an alternative to both the Greatweapon and the Battlerager builds, and can be a pretty good archer into the bargain.

As with the Knight, Melee Training could be used to make it's secondary stat into it's primary, meaning only one stat need be maximized.  

It's awefully tough for a striker, having Barbarian level hps and better AC out of the box than most barbarians.  A Melee Training (DEX) take on it could have very good AC in hide, too.  


The Essentials martial classes are seriously re-imagining the place of the basic attack in the system.  I suspect there'll have to be a lot of nerfing and/or re-balancing of feats/powers/etc that relate to basic attacks in the massive October errata.  


The Essentials classes are also definitely bluring the line between 'build' and 'class.'  Where the Warpriest and Mage are clearly just builds of Cleric and Wizard, the Knight and Thief might as well be different classes from the Fighter and Rogue, and the Slayer being a different role makes it very much distinct from the Fighter, and from the Knight, for that matter.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 6, 2010)

I like that Slayer! 8D

But what I find strange is that we finally have a heavy Armor Striker, but with Dex as Secondary so he doesn't need the Armor.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

I believe, we miss following:

"This time out, let’s take a look at the second new fighter build—the slayer.* Note that I’m only showing a little bit of the 1st-level slayer.* Check out Heroes of the Fallen Lands for the complete class build when it debuts in September."

Maybe it has a defender mechanic, but it is forgotten in the list (not that i would mind).

-2, +4 damage is not that bad actually. As long as your job is only doing damage, this trade can be good (especially if fighting against a brute)

Oh, did you note, that a slayer can´t use shields, so going TWF instead of a two handed weapon seems also possible. Otherwise weapon talent could as well be +1 to attacks with 2-handed weapons.

And I miss something that makes strength useful to the slayer, lets see if he will get something, (I wouldn´t mind that much, if he doesn´t)


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

Baumi said:


> I like that Slayer! 8D
> 
> But what I find strange is that we finally have a heavy Armor Striker, but with Dex as Secondary so he doesn't need the Armor.



Scale and heavy blade require dexterity. Scale alone is a very very good armor. No armor check penalty. Also with scale armor, you are not forced to have maxed out dex and you can even go for the 20 Strength build.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Wonder how a swordmage controller would work.



Defenders are already a kind of controller in 4E to be honest. They just have a somewhat different approach to another controller, which often can't take the return attacks the way a defender can.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 6, 2010)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable that they've made a striker with defender hitpoints and surges. It just seems to me that if your choice is between a low-hitpoint, high damage striker and a high hitpoint high damage striker, the second one is the better choice every time...

It also puts the nail in the coffin of that rogue manuever that grants +cha to damage vs targets you don't have CA against: compared with getting double dex and +1 to hit ALL the time, it just pales in comparison.


----------



## Danzauker (Aug 6, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Huh. I somehow glossed that.
> 
> Well, good. As I said, I like the idea of a steel-wrapped striker.
> 
> I'm surprised that they made one class build a different role than the others. I'll need to decide for sure how I feel about that, but my first instinct is that while I wouldn't have _suggested _it, it doesn't bother me.




I guess that's why they called the new builds "subclasses" instead of just "builds".

They are free to diverge more from the roles and mechanics of the "default" PHB builds while keeping reasonably true to the overall class archetype.

Could work. After all, a heavy warrior hitter (other than barbarians) is a classic fantasy class that was somewhat missing.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 6, 2010)

I don't know if this has been mentioned regarding Dex Melee Training and dumping Str, but you can't afford to dump Str completely if you're going for a Weapon Mastery feat with melee weapons at Epic. A slayer with a fullblade will want to have Str 21 at 21st level for Heavy Blade Mastery.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 6, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable that they've made a striker with defender hitpoints and surges. It just seems to me that if your choice is between a low-hitpoint, high damage striker and a high hitpoint high damage striker, the second one is the better choice every time...
> 
> It also puts the nail in the coffin of that rogue manuever that grants +cha to damage vs targets you don't have CA against: compared with getting double dex and +1 to hit ALL the time, it just pales in comparison.




The Barbarian already got defender Hitpoints and Surges and that didn't destroy the game balance. The Slayer may be a bit tougher than the other Strikers but he is far less mobile so he cannot get away from the enemies that easily and has to be able to take some beating.

Also the Rogue comparison is bad, this is just ONE of his powers that just helps when he is not able to get CA (which should be rare). All the other ones either give him CA or make it easier to get it and CA does more damage than the Dex-Bonus of the Slayer.


----------



## igniz13 (Aug 6, 2010)

If this Slayer can function as a Ranged striker, what's the essential Ranger going to be like?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 6, 2010)

More sacred cows on the barbeque!  Yum!  And I'm glad the game's got the big simple steel-wrapped hitty class even if I have absolutely no desire to play one myself.

They do, however, probably need to errata Melee training.


----------



## erf_beto (Aug 6, 2010)

Oh my goodness! A Fighter Striker variant! I LOOOVE IT!

I absolutely adore what they are doing with Essentials! It's almost like they are deconstructing 4e, tearing it apart and reassembling it in a new way. Kinda like LEGOs...

I always thought that some classes could be any other role depending on how you approach it, or fluff it, though they chose to build whole new classes (like the Avenger, which is really just an unarmored striker Paladin). But this? So many opportunities here... 

Could the Warlord become a new Fighter 4eE build?



igniz13 said:


> If this Slayer can function as a Ranged striker, what's the essential Ranger going to be like?



 Maybe more mobile, controllery and possibly "vengeful" (interrupts and reactions, though easier all around - God, I hope so). But hey, what do I know?


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 6, 2010)

Well, that's ... unexpected. My first reaction is that I don't like it. Creating class builds with different primary roles is at best confusing and in the worst case broken.

Since you mix and match powers for a class, it opens a big can of worms. You can now create Mary-Sue characters without a clearly defined role by picking powers intended for different roles.

I'm not sure what would be worse:
Mary-Sue characters that actually work and are effective in every role or Mary-Sue characters that are dysfunctional and don't work in any role.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

> Could the Warlord become a new Fighter 4eE build?



Don´t think so,
but i strongly suspect, that the druid build will be the missing leader of the forgotten kingdom book.

I strongly hope a) weapon finesse does more than just melee training dexterity, and I hope the slayer also has something that makes him want at least medium strength (but maybe weapon specialization feats are sufficient to achieve that)


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 6, 2010)

I fear melee training will be a casualty of essentials, murdered off because it's 'too good' for the new fighter, but leaving paladins, assassins, avengers, non-Str secondary monks, and any number of other melee classes without functional basic attacks to use.  At least sword mages have their own feat.


----------



## igniz13 (Aug 6, 2010)

I doubt the Warlord will become a Defender, but the Druid becoming a Leader makes a lot of sense.

The Slayer can only take Fighter powers, without the marking and punishment, the class isn't a defender and the powers are just weapon powers.


----------



## Shin Okada (Aug 6, 2010)

It was a surprise, and a good one for me.

Yeah, as already mentioned by others, the mechanic and the concept of Barbarian class is very similar to the slayer fighter. A melee striker with good AC and defender HPs. So this is far from "broken" or "out of current game system".

And it is obvious that there is a room for armored-weapon-wielding-striker. A bunch of armor-clad warriors may have both defenders and strikers in their rank, for sure. And many of the warriors in fictions who wore armor could be classified as a striker rather than to be a defender (I think Gattsu from Berserk is a striker, maybe in heavy armor with full-blade).

Also, most fighter feats and martial-only feats are also useful for melee strikers. This new fighter is still a fighter, thus can lean them. That will double the use of many existing feats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

> And many of the warriors in fictions who wore armor could be classified as a striker rather than to be a defender




Oh, and don´t forget Marc!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 6, 2010)

Jhaelen;5271191... without a clearly defined role by picking powers intended for different roles.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I certainly don't have any problems with 'clearly defined roles' they only really work with a party of 4 (four roles). And I have 2 players. And the standard expected size is 5... go figure.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 6, 2010)

Way back, possibly in the build up to 4e I remember Mike Mearls saying that 4e could form the basis of a classless D&D and I think we are seeing evidence of that now.
Sort of like lego as noted up thread.

It remains to be seen how balance holds up but I suspect that the next iteration of class build will see a blurring of roles.
I also think that this is a good thing. One of the things I have found over the years was that where you had access to few players it was very diffcult to run combat orientated D&D when you had very few players due to lack of coverage of roles.
If you want to grow D&D you really want two to three kids to be able to have fun with D&D from the get go with out the need to hook up to existing groups or the need to recruit additional players.
In the old days this was not so much a problem but now those kids have alternatives that they know work. So D&D has to pretty much work out of the box.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

I would have liked the slayer to be a wisdom build. (with strength or dex primary depending on ranged or melee choice) I really liked fighters to have the secondary wisdom. It was a really really nice feature.

But then, who cares if we have new options


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 6, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Way back, possibly in the build up to 4e I remember Mike Mearls saying that 4e could form the basis of a classless D&D and I think we are seeing evidence of that now.
> Sort of like lego as noted up thread.




Maybe we'll see that with Gamma World.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 6, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> I certainly don't have any problems with 'clearly defined roles' they only really work with a party of 4 (four roles). And I have 2 players. And the standard expected size is 5... go figure.




Roles work fine in parties of 4 OR MORE. There's no reason why a role can't be duplicated. Especially when you figure that all the existing classes can pretty easily emphasize a different role. In any case larger parties can never have too many strikers. For that matter having 2 defenders or 2 leaders is really not an issue either. It tends to be redundant to have 2 controllers but it still works.

As for the Slayer, it seems like it should work well. I really appreciate the basic attack centered design's ability to easily accommodate both ranged and melee variations within the same framework. The technique used with the archer warlord was frankly a giant kludge.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 6, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would have liked the slayer to be a wisdom build. (with strength or dex primary depending on ranged or melee choice) I really liked fighters to have the secondary wisdom. It was a really really nice feature.




I'm seeing potential for an essentialized Str/Wis polearm fighter build/subclass.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 6, 2010)

I love that you can either go with heavy armor and use Dex merely as a little extra damage, or you can max out on Dex and go light armor, without the "hunter" overtones of the Ranger.

With two weapons, you build a Tempest fighter, Two-Weapon Ranger or Whirling Barbarian. With a two-handed weapon you build a Barbarian (if light armored) or a Greatweapon Fighter (if heavy armored). With a bow you go full-on archer. Very versatile!


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Way back, possibly in the build up to 4e I remember Mike Mearls saying that 4e could form the basis of a classless D&D and I think we are seeing evidence of that now.
> Sort of like lego as noted up thread.




I remember that, and the link to the article written by one of the math guys at WoTC...  If I remember right he pretty much argued that even in a "classless" game there will always be combinations of powers that the power-gamers will find, and always play, so you'll essentially have classes anyway, but they won't necessarily follow any sort of "archetype." In addition you'll have a wider range of power diversion between players in the game. 


I pretty much agree with this... When I run GURPS, the difference between my power gamers and my "players that pick powers based on character description," is amazing.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 6, 2010)

Baumi said:


> Also the Rogue comparison is bad, this is just ONE of his powers that just helps when he is not able to get CA (which should be rare).




One of the examples given for when it would be good was a rogue at range with a shortbow.

Mind you, I don't think it took the slayer for anyone to realize that was going to be an express elevator to sucksville.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 6, 2010)

Malisteen said:


> I fear melee training will be a casualty of essentials, murdered off because it's 'too good' for the new fighter, but leaving paladins, assassins, avengers, non-Str secondary monks, and any number of other melee classes without functional basic attacks to use.  At least sword mages have their own feat.




Actually the way they may get around it is with class specific melee trainings just like the swordmages. So the charisma paladin can still take it but the new slayer could not for example.


----------



## jimmifett (Aug 6, 2010)

I really like the slayer build. Thematicly, it makes me think of a classic samurai, can use bows and swords effectively, just throw in a mount.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 6, 2010)

Klaus said:


> I love that you can either go with heavy armor and use Dex merely as a little extra damage, or you can max out on Dex and go light armor, without the "hunter" overtones of the Ranger.
> 
> With two weapons, you build a Tempest fighter, Two-Weapon Ranger or Whirling Barbarian. With a two-handed weapon you build a Barbarian (if light armored) or a Greatweapon Fighter (if heavy armored). With a bow you go full-on archer. Very versatile!




Guess I don't really get what the 'hunter overtones' of ranger are... Granted it makes more sense if you want a heavy armored bow user to use the Slayer, but it doesn't really put anything entirely new into play as far as character types you can build, that we can see so far anyway. An archer slayer will be VERY similar to an archer ranger or mixed STR/DEX ranger. The main difference would be instead of having the option to go two weapon in melee you'll be going with a big two-hander. No doubt there will be some specific combinations that will work better with slayer but they will be things like "guy that uses a bow or charges with a two-hander", which you can kind of do now but sub-optimally. 

The new martial designs are nice and like any new builds they're going to allow for some new permutations. On the whole I think the new concept is elegant, but I don't think it's going to really add a lot of totally new possibilities, just means there are a few new ways to do pretty much what you could all ready.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I remember that, and the link to the article written by one of the math guys at WoTC... If I remember right he pretty much argued that even in a "classless" game there will always be combinations of powers that the power-gamers will find, and always play, so you'll essentially have classes anyway, but they won't necessarily follow any sort of "archetype." In addition you'll have a wider range of power diversion between players in the game.
> 
> I pretty much agree with this... When I run GURPS, the difference between my power gamers and my "players that pick powers based on character description," is amazing.




And from someone who can powergame without trying (I normally assume the mechanically encouraged options are done that way for a reason), 4e's class balance _works _- I'm going to run rings round most point buy systems compared to many players (especially if there are synergies rather than flatness as in Gumshoe).  3e has the worst of all worlds - classes broken out of the box (Druid) and others weak out of the box (Monk).  But in 4e I shouldn't be eclipsing people or making them feel useless unless we're on the same approach.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 6, 2010)

igniz13 said:


> If this Slayer can function as a Ranged striker, what's the essential Ranger going to be like?



Balanced, and without the win-button that is Twin Strike, I hope.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Aug 6, 2010)

hey they are sub-classes not build so no problem in 1st edition AD&D both the ranger and the paladin were sub-classes of the fighter....

I think of sub-classes as classes that can pick utilities, feats, paragon-paths, epic destinies that require you to have the mother class

btw this is very interesting from a design point of view

e.g.: you could have
Pyromancer (arcane striker) wizard sub-class

and so on...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

Lets make a bet:

new ranger won´t have twin strike but its second weapon will be the kicker for the striker damage (like many suggested, and similar to how it is doen with the whirling barbarian), and the ranged ranger will get something totally different...


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And from someone who can powergame without trying (I normally assume the mechanically encouraged options are done that way for a reason), 4e's class balance _works _- I'm going to run rings round most point buy systems compared to many players (especially if there are synergies rather than flatness as in Gumshoe).  3e has the worst of all worlds - classes broken out of the box (Druid) and others weak out of the box (Monk).  But in 4e I shouldn't be eclipsing people or making them feel useless unless we're on the same approach.




Yeah I think 4e found a really good "middle ground" for how to have classes yet still have the ability to customize.

It works well at keeping the power gamers and gamers who just want to model a concept at around the same level. (Power gamers can still feel like they're getting a boost without being able to throw things way out of whack.)


----------



## Klaus (Aug 6, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Guess I don't really get what the 'hunter overtones' of ranger are... Granted it makes more sense if you want a heavy armored bow user to use the Slayer, but it doesn't really put anything entirely new into play as far as character types you can build, that we can see so far anyway. An archer slayer will be VERY similar to an archer ranger or mixed STR/DEX ranger. The main difference would be instead of having the option to go two weapon in melee you'll be going with a big two-hander. No doubt there will be some specific combinations that will work better with slayer but they will be things like "guy that uses a bow or charges with a two-hander", which you can kind of do now but sub-optimally.
> 
> The new martial designs are nice and like any new builds they're going to allow for some new permutations. On the whole I think the new concept is elegant, but I don't think it's going to really add a lot of totally new possibilities, just means there are a few new ways to do pretty much what you could all ready.



The archer ranger, as it is, has mandatory training in either Nature or Dungeoneering, has "Hunter's Strike", and lots of nature-oriented powers and utilities that seem out-of-place when you want to make, say, a former army archer in chainmail who used to stand on the battlements of a city, etc.

Weapon Talent giving +1 with all weapons means a Striker with Dex 16 can pick up a bow and stand toe-to-toe with an archer ranger or thief rogue that have Dex 18.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable that they've made a striker with defender hitpoints and surges. It just seems to me that if your choice is between a low-hitpoint, high damage striker and a high hitpoint high damage striker, the second one is the better choice every time...
> 
> It also puts the nail in the coffin of that rogue manuever that grants +cha to damage vs targets you don't have CA against: compared with getting double dex and +1 to hit ALL the time, it just pales in comparison.




Except the rogue would be getting +Cha on _top_ of their existing striker damage bonus of 2d6 (or 2d8 with the feat). 

Being a big tough striker is odd, but the barbarian already does it. I think what will compensate for this is that the character, tied to standard fighter utility powers, will have a bunch of durability stuff - but be lacking the mobility options that strikers find very useful. 

I _am_ kinda bugged that Weapon Talent here is just outright better than PHB Weapon Talent. Boo. I can see why they did it (easier for new players to use), but still, it bothers me. 

This guy looks like he'll be strong, certainly. Will be interesting to see in action.


----------



## Styracosaurus (Aug 6, 2010)

Up to now, the Essentials classes seemed just as complex as the original 4e PHB.

Slayer is very straightforward and seems very FUN.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, that's ... unexpected. My first reaction is that I don't like it. Creating class builds with different primary roles is at best confusing and in the worst case broken.
> 
> Since you mix and match powers for a class, it opens a big can of worms. You can now create Mary-Sue characters without a clearly defined role by picking powers intended for different roles.




Keep in mind that roles are driven far more by class features than by powers. The Slayer doesn't get anything to mark enemies, punish them for attacking his friends, or stopping them from moving away. He can pick up some powers that help with that, but won't ever really fill the defender role - certainly no more than an existing striker who multiclasses to fighter and picks up the same powers. 

Similarly, someone could multiclass cleric and pick up various healing powers, but will never have the 'oomph' of 2-3 healing words per encounter. 

Controllers, sure, are more driven by powers than other roles, and so you could add in a controller element more easily through the right powers. 

But... none of this is _new_. From the PHB, you could already multiclass and try to fill multiple roles. You already had classes that had 'tendencies' towards a secondary role. You had paragon paths that expanded what you could do - Cleric's got one that gave them a marking mechanism. 

And since then we've seen classes that blur the line even more (druids), we've seen the rules for hybrid character, and expanded multiclassing options to actually snag class powers.

They key is, they've done a pretty good job of avoiding having any choices that let you fill multiple roles, at full capability, at the same time. Secondary roles or multiclass characters tend to be good at one thing and pick up a second role - but never be as good at that second role as a character built for it. Hybrid characters are good at fully filling two seperate roles - but never really both at the same time. 

Sure, there are some options that start to get past this, and really optimized characters might already be able to do too much... but in general, I think the role system remains perfectly intact, even when characters stretch what they can do, and I don't think this change with Essentials will break that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 6, 2010)

Klaus said:


> The archer ranger, as it is, has mandatory training in either Nature or Dungeoneering, has "Hunter's Strike", and lots of nature-oriented powers and utilities that seem out-of-place when you want to make, say, a former army archer in chainmail who used to stand on the battlements of a city, etc.
> 
> Weapon Talent giving +1 with all weapons means a Striker with Dex 16 can pick up a bow and stand toe-to-toe with an archer ranger or thief rogue that have Dex 18.



Weapon training with all two handed weapon (the old fighter one) also included the longbow. What is better now are those stances, that just increase damage by +2, -2 to hit and +4 damage, and the slayer feature that just adds dex to damage...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 6, 2010)

Klaus said:


> The archer ranger, as it is, has mandatory training in either Nature or Dungeoneering, has "Hunter's Strike", and lots of nature-oriented powers and utilities that seem out-of-place when you want to make, say, a former army archer in chainmail who used to stand on the battlements of a city, etc.
> 
> Weapon Talent giving +1 with all weapons means a Striker with Dex 16 can pick up a bow and stand toe-to-toe with an archer ranger or thief rogue that have Dex 18.




Meh, who cares what the name of a class feature is? You get to do more damage if you focus on one target. I don't really know what the 'lots of nature-oriented powers' are. The class seems to perfectly model a 'yoeman' type archer. I see exactly ONE 'nature themed' utility power in heroic tier in the PHB and that's Evade Ambush, which gives the flavor of a guy that is observant and knowledgeable at scouting, but doesn't really automatically shout 'nature guy'. In fact the automatic skill is basically the ONLY thing that really has that flavor. I mean if you're hung up about the names of powers I kind of think that wanting a WHOLE NEW CLASS so you have different power names is strange...

As for the standing toe-to-toe thing, huh? A PHB1 Archer Ranger is still unchallenged and always has been. A Slayer will probably make a decent archer, but it isn't ever going to match a ranger on pure archery, trust me.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Aug 6, 2010)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Weapon training with all two handed weapon (the old fighter one) also included the longbow. What is better now are those stances, that just increase damage by +2, -2 to hit and +4 damage, and the slayer feature that just adds dex to damage...




As it stands now, Power Strike only works for Melee Basic Attacks.  This might be a typo.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Aug 6, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Huh. I somehow glossed that.
> 
> Well, good. As I said, I like the idea of a steel-wrapped striker.
> 
> I'm surprised that they made one class build a different role than the others. I'll need to decide for sure how I feel about that, but my first instinct is that while I wouldn't have _suggested _it, it doesn't bother me.




Very interesting...and it shows a willingness to expand beyond the horizons of the design space.  There's no reason that a class has to be strictly in one role...could we see a Wizard build that is a striker too? 

I'd love to see a Psion as a striker...the Monk being the only psionic striker bothers me.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

Ok, so I have to ask... if this is the design paradigm going forward, doesn't that mean classes (as defined in PHB 1) are now kind of pointless? Don't get me wrong I honestly think it's an improvement though... but yeah "Fighter" doesn't really mean anything now... it's all based on build.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ok, so I have to ask... if this is the design paradigm going forward, doesn't that mean classes (as defined in PHB 1) are now kind of pointless? Don't get me wrong I honestly think it's an improvement though... but yeah "Fighter" doesn't really mean anything now... it's all based on build.




I think we're just seeing a broadening of what the class bucket contains.  Instead of just determining what role they will be, they will now primarily dictate what their "shtick" is... Fighters specialize in using weapons effectively to do whatever they do. 

A Fighter that's a striker seems to be about using weapons to do massive damage, as opposed to a rogue striker that seems more about using stealth and trickery to deal that damage.


I'm also guessing all the "new" roles we see in classes will cover areas they "kind of" dipped into already...


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think we're just seeing a broadening of what the class bucket contains. Instead of just determining what role they will be, they will now primarily dictate what their "shtick" is... Fighters specialize in using weapons effectively to do whatever they do.
> 
> A Fighter that's a striker seems to be about using weapons to do massive damage, as opposed to a rogue striker that seems more about using stealth and trickery to deal that damage.
> 
> ...




I'm gonna deny that it's just a broadening of the "class bucket".  I think originally class and role were pretty much tied together to the point where a class, for the most part, defined what role you were playing... now having a fighter in the party doesn't necessarily mean you have a defender. Again, I see this transition as pretty much making your class obsolete.

 I also wonder how this doesn't blur the lines as far as classes such as the Slayer vs. the Barbarian or Archer Slayer vs. Archery Ranger... on the other hand why isn't an Avenger just a lightly armotred Paladin build?


----------



## Styracosaurus (Aug 6, 2010)

Yes, the name of the class only applies to the metagame now.

With so many builds, you can't just say that you are a "fighter" as per 1e.

4e seems to say, "Here are a plethora of base builds from which you can call yourself a fighter."  It is very complex approach, but that complexity sits on the player and not the DM.  I love the freedom it brings to me as the DM.  My players have complained that 4e requires them to think and keep up with their abilities/resources.  In theory, the PC can build whatever they want and simplicity can be a viable option.


In a way, this feels like "Unearthed Arcana" as presented in 3e.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm gonna deny that it's just a broadening of the "class bucket".  I think originally class and role were pretty much tied together to the point where a class, for the most part, defined what role you were playing... now having a fighter in the party doesn't necessarily mean you have a defender. Again, I see this transition as pretty much making your class obsolete.




Yeah that's how it was, but I think they've determined that is kind of redundant, and possibly limiting.  

From what they said way back when it seemed like they had the roles defined, and then put classes into that role based on what they seemed like they were primarily used for.

In the case of the fighter in particular this did cause a lot of backlash of "my fighter doesn't always do that..."

Which is why I said it seems like they've broadened that to say ok class determines shtick, role determines how it uses that shtick.

Now you can offer more ways to utilize the "archetype" within the context of the game.



> I also wonder how this doesn't blur the lines as far as classes such as the Slayer vs. the Barbarian or Archer Slayer vs. Archery Ranger... on the other hand why isn't an Avenger just a lightly armotred Paladin build?




It kind of does. I'd be willing to guess that if they were designing those classes with the new philosophy in mind they'd probably in a lot of cases end up as sub classes like this.

I'd be willing to also guess that in the future we'll see more sub classes and only see new class "categories" when whatever the driving thing it does wouldn't fall into another class. (Which obviously won't be cut and dry, giving us countless new arguments to have on the interwebs about whether it should have been a full on class or not.)


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> I _am_ kinda bugged that Weapon Talent here is just outright better than PHB Weapon Talent. Boo. I can see why they did it (easier for new players to use), but still, it bothers me.




Never fear, they'll probably update the PHB version to this one with an errata.

After all, the choice is not really so much a balance issue as one of encouraging one form of weapon use. After all, you can only use one weapon "type" at a time. Making fighters "better" just makes sense - making them choose what to be better at is less awesome, and hurts the "versatile master of weapons" archetype that is supposed to be the fighter class.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

Styracosaurus said:


> Yes, the name of the class only applies to the metagame now.
> 
> With so many builds, you can't just say that you are a "fighter" as per 1e.
> 
> ...




Uhm, I think you kind of missed the point I was getting at... it's not the fact that there are builds in 4e that I am speaking to... it's the fact that the class, up until now, was associated with a particular role, and builds were a particular approach to filling that role in a party. Now however it seems that class no longer determines your role and thus is obsolete... at least IMO.  

Not sure this is Unearthed Arcana... yet (I'll wait for the previews of the RC), but it is definitely a difference in the design and assumptions 4e was originally based on.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yeah that's how it was, but I think they've determined that is kind of redundant, and possibly limiting.
> 
> From what they said way back when it seemed like they had the roles defined, and then put classes into that role based on what they seemed like they were primarily used for.
> 
> ...




I agree about the Fighter backlash and is why I said I think it's a good approach... that said I'm not seeing the clear shtick difference between a Slayer and a reskinned Barbarian... or an Archery Slayer and an Archery Ranger...


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I agree about the Fighter backlash and is why I said I think it's a good approach... that said I'm not seeing the clear shtick difference between a Slayer and a reskinned Barbarian... or an Archery Slayer and an Archery Ranger...




Yeah- Part of the reason why I said it will probably give us countless hours of debate in the future about whether it should have been a class or a subclass. 

My guess is a lot of it will be based not on mechanics but on the "story" of the thing. 

Like a slayer is designed as a crazy damage doing beserker kind of like the barbarian, but story-wise it is supposed to exist within the confines of society.

So the martial version of whatever archetype would be a fighter. The Primal version is the barbarian. (Betcha we'll see a barbarian defender.)


I think this will do a LOT for people who want to start with a basic character story concept first, rather then a game role first.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ok, so I have to ask... if this is the design paradigm going forward, doesn't that mean classes (as defined in PHB 1) are now kind of pointless? Don't get me wrong I honestly think it's an improvement though... but yeah "Fighter" doesn't really mean anything now... it's all based on build.




What has fighter _ever _meant? Guy who hits things? Sure, there have been countless things it can portray - duelist, soldier, mercenary, farmer turned adventurer, etc, etc. 

Now, the PHB said, "The fighter is the guy who gets in the enemy's face, and uses martial training to beat them up." This... pretty much remains true to that. The Slayer is less about the 'in their face' and more about the 'beat them up', but not enough that I see anything core to the class concept being lost.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Never fear, they'll probably update the PHB version to this one with an errata.
> 
> After all, the choice is not really so much a balance issue as one of encouraging one form of weapon use. After all, you can only use one weapon "type" at a time. Making fighters "better" just makes sense - making them choose what to be better at is less awesome, and hurts the "versatile master of weapons" archetype that is supposed to be the fighter class.




Oh, I get that. And, honestly, anything that makes swapping between weapons functional (rather than just a bad idea) is cool in my book. Still, if this gets the boost and the PHB fighter doesn't, that is a small annoyance in an otherwise cool new concept.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> What has fighter _ever _meant? Guy who hits things? Sure, there have been countless things it can portray - duelist, soldier, mercenary, farmer turned adventurer, etc, etc.
> 
> Now, the PHB said, "The fighter is the guy who gets in the enemy's face, and uses martial training to beat them up." This... pretty much remains true to that. The Slayer is less about the 'in their face' and more about the 'beat them up', but not enough that I see anything core to the class concept being lost.




Are you being purposefully disingenuous? ~ Lets keep it cool guys S~ First off I am talking about how a fighter is defined in 4e... not previous editions. Second, read page 16 PHB1... the Defender paragraph, where both Fighter and Paladin are defined as Defenders.

The Slayer doesn't defend... doesn't mark, doesn't keep people up off of other party members any better than a Barbarian would... so yeah that's why they called him a martial striker as opposed to a martial defender.... however part of the core class concept of fighter in 4e is/was the role of defender.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 6, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable that they've made a striker with defender hitpoints and surges. It just seems to me that if your choice is between a low-hitpoint, high damage striker and a high hitpoint high damage striker, the second one is the better choice every time...



Yeah, the Barbarian had me worried, too.  But, it was just the theme of Primal classes that they had more hps, and the Barbarian's AC tended to be sub-par, so he didn't really have quite the overall toughness of a full Defender.    I'm not sure what the Slayer's excuse is.  Maybe "I don't have dailies?"




Imaro said:


> The Slayer doesn't defend... doesn't mark, doesn't keep people up off of other party members any better than a Barbarian would... so yeah that's why they called him a martial striker as opposed to a martial defender.... however part of the core class concept of fighter in 4e is/was the role of defender.






Scribble said:


> Part of the reason why I said it will probably give us countless hours of debate in the future about whether it should have been a class or a subclass.




WotC came right out and said that they weren't going to be putting out more martial classes, period.  And, they've learned to at least keep to the plausible letter of their word.  

Thus the Slayer is a sub-class of the Fighter that is a different role, rather than a 'new martial class,' since there won't be any of those.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm gonna deny that it's just a broadening of the "class bucket". I think originally class and role were pretty much tied together to the point where a class, for the most part, defined what role you were playing... now having a fighter in the party doesn't necessarily mean you have a defender. Again, I see this transition as pretty much making your class obsolete.




Ok, so what precisely do you mean by 'obsolete'? Yes, it seems like classes will no longer be tied to one role. That statement is a valid one. The following statement, that this "makes your class obsolete" - what does that mean? 

Are you saying that each class now no longer has any concept it is tied to? That's obviously not true. Power source, mechanics, flavor, all of those elements are still there. The fighter is still, generally, a skilled warrior who uses martial training to be a big hero. Usually by getting in their face - some fighters are tanks that draw enemy fire, others just put them in the ground. 

How is the Slayer different from the Barbarian? The Barbarian flies into berzerker rages, drawing from the primal power of the land as he destroys his enemies. He is much more mobile, tends to be less heavily armored, and thrives on tearing through the ranks of enemies. 

How is the Avenger different from the Paladin? Flavor-wise, the Avenger is more of a secret agent of the faith, while the Paladin is the front line. The Paladin might go save a village and spread the good word, while the Avenger hunts creatures in their own element of the darkness, his deeds never mentioned in the light of day. Mechanically, of course, they are completely different, with one a lightly armored and mobile striker and the other a heavily armored defender who heals his allies. 

What difference between the Archer Slayer and Archer Ranger? Well, the Slayer is tougher, more likely to be heavily armored, and relies on a few well placed shots and his own skill with the bow to bring down his foes. The Ranger, as noted, has a few elements tied more to nature and the wild - and even outside of those, is very much a more mobile, lightly armored character, who tends to fill the air with arrows as he brings down his enemies, and takes them out by finding their weaknesses and taking advantage of them (represented by Hunter's Quarry.)

Now, it is worth noting? That one can ignore all the above. You can get pretty far with building against type or finding your own flavor that fits your concept. Just like you could in 3rd Edition, for the most part, and possible before that. But the classes still have definite amounts of flavor tied to them conceptually, and definite mechanical differences that crop up in actual play, and I don't see how anything in Essentials will cause the class system to just fall apart or breakdown or grow obsolete.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Are you being purposefully disingenuous? First off I am talking about how a fighter is defined in 4e... not previous editions. Second, read page 16 PHB1... the Defender paragraph, where both Fighter and Paladin are defined as Defenders.
> 
> The Slayer doesn't defend... doesn't mark, doesn't keep people up off of other party members any better than a Barbarian would... so yeah that's why they called him a martial striker as opposed to a martial defender.... however part of the core class concept of fighter in 4e is/was the role of defender.




The PHB also portrays Warlords as entirely front-line combatants - a later build gave them the option to fight from range. Just as I don't think that 'melee' was the one defining element of a Warlord, I don't think that 'Defender' is the one defining element of a Fighter. 

The Fighter in the PHB is a defender, yes. But most of what the PHB portrays the fighter as remains true - a skilled warrior, who bashes and slices his foes into submission. 

Look, if the Slayer was presented as an arcane caster who cuts enemies down with illusion spells, then... yeah, I would absolutely agree that wasn't a fighter. But are you really saying that 'Guy who is really good at killing things with weapons' doesn't match your mental image of a fighter? 

Or that, because the PHB Fighter was a Defender, that WotC has said that is the one defining feature of the class, and any violation of that means a complete breakdown of the class system?

Cause I just don't see it.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> WotC came right out and said that they weren't going to be putting out more martial classes, period. And, they've learned to at least keep to the plausible letter of their word.




Huh, I hadn't actually heard that they had said that. I mean, I haven't expected any more martial classes, nor do I see any obvious need for them, but it seems unexpected for them to make some sort of outright promise they never will have any (as opposed to just stating that there aren't any immediate plans for them). Do you have an exact quote on that?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> WotC came right out and said that they weren't going to be putting out more martial classes, period.  And, they've learned to at least keep to the plausible letter of their word.




Did they? 

Can you point me towards where they said that?


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 6, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> The best Slayer fighter is a kobold (+2 DEX, +2 CON) who can shift 2 every turn so they can stay in the Berserker's Charge stance and charge every round.
> 
> Not very thematic at all. And makes a much worse cover for the Red Box.




Not very thematic!?!

It's a little tiny fighting kobold that darts in and out and KILLS THE HELL OUT OF PEOPLE WITH TINY FEROCIOUS ANGER.

It's like a reptilian chihuahua on steroids.

Not thematic?

That's the BEST THING EVER!


----------



## Styracosaurus (Aug 6, 2010)

My take on this is:

It is all part of the "transparency of design" that the designers spoke of when 4e was first presented.

"Fighter" refers to the starting point and as you alter the class, you give up certain abilities to gain other abilities.  All that the design team is doing is assigning a value to an ability and when they remove that ability, then it is replaced with an ability that is different but equal in value.

We end up with a spectrum of "Fighters" that range from Defender to Striker and several that have a bit of Controller thrown into the mix.

So, I agree with Imaro on his point.   WotC is not sticking to the assigned roles in the PHB.  The design team seems focused on maintaining balance while they diversify the class options.

You can play a martial flavored melee guy that just does damage and is different than the Ranger.

This does not bother me,because this added complexity is placed upon the player and not the DM.

The designers just have to be careful when the classes overlap in duties because you can compare apples to apples at that point and there better be some equity between the two classes or one class would be a waste of time and paper.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Aug 6, 2010)

DracoSuave said:


> Not thematic?
> 
> That's the BEST THING EVER!




Ha ha. Seen that way, maybe it _is_ pretty boss.

The FIRST time you see it. Around Kobold Slayer #3, I will get the same sort of fatigue I get when I see yet another ultra-rare angel-on-earth deva wizard.

But actually, since kobolds are small, they may not be the most optimal slayers anyway, and therefore can be relegated to "amusing but rare" category, not the annoying "rare in the world but for some reason really common as PCs" category.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 6, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> ... and hurts the "versatile master of weapons" archetype that is supposed to be the fighter class.



As much as I like that archetype, it hasn't been well-represented by the fighter since Unearthed Arcana - the /1e/ Unearted Arcana that introduced Weapon Specialization, that is.  Ever since then, fighters have been about using a specific weapon.  4e fighters were slightly less so, being pigeonholed only into a specific style (two-hander, sword & board) or type of weapon ('heavy blades,' etc..), instead.  You /could/ build a 3.x 'generalist' fighter, but it was not easy to build & play one effectively.  

The increasing emphasis on /needing/ a level-apropriate magic weapon also hurt, since you were unlikely to have several.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

Styracosaurus said:


> My take on this is:
> 
> It is all part of the "transparency of design" that the designers spoke of when 4e was first presented.
> 
> ...





Whatever the case, I see it as a net WIN for us... More options.


----------



## Prestidigitalis (Aug 6, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> But actually, since kobolds are small, they may not be the most optimal slayers anyway, and therefore can be relegated to "amusing but rare" category, not the annoying "rare in the world but for some reason really common as PCs" category.




3e/3.5e had a lot of egregious side-bar text in some of the specialty books.  First they would tell you that (e.g.) Aasimar almost never became Rogues, and then point out that those Aasimar who DID become rogues had some level of diversity that was completely inexplicable given the base rarity of Aasimar and the fact that they almost never became Rogues.

It's kind of like "Left-handed, unicycle-riding trombone players with more than one wife and at least 19 children are very rare.  Those who do exist are found primarily in Cleveland and other eastern cities, and only rarely south of the Mason-Dixon line."  10 units of Demographics 101, stat!


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> As much as I like that archetype, it hasn't been well-represented by the fighter since Unearthed Arcana - the /1e/ Unearted Arcana that introduced Weapon Specialization, that is.  Ever since then, fighters have been about using a specific weapon.  4e fighters were slightly less so, being pigeonholed only into a specific style (two-hander, sword & board) or type of weapon ('heavy blades,' etc..), instead.  You /could/ build a 3.x 'generalist' fighter, but it was not easy to build & play one effectively.
> 
> The increasing emphasis on /needing/ a level-apropriate magic weapon also hurt, since you were unlikely to have several.




Some very good points.
Fighter has become the "Master of A Weapon" instead of "Master of Weapons."  While the 4E weapon groups are very much a step in the right direction, weapon category feats further compound the problem.  

The Slayer's Weapon Talent is great for bringing back "Master of Weapons."  There have been some other attempts as well, Weapon Master lets you get Weapon Focus and Expertise for all weapons you are proficient with.  Dynamic Weapon lets you change your weapon to another weapon, providing a magic weapon at the right level for any weapon.

The real issue is that specialization rewards you for using a certain type of weapon.  If you have 10 feats dedicated to the Ax, using a Hammer means your missing 10 feats.  However if you didn't specialize, the differences between an Ax and a Hammer are minor at best.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 6, 2010)

Yeah, WotC came out and said that they would not publish new martial classes after Martial Power came out - so it was some time ago, I'm not surprised folks don't remember.  I only remember because I was hoping for a Martial Controller.   

IIRC, the language used was something along the lines of.  'We have all the martial archetypes covered with the existing classes,'  'We won't publish new classes for a power source after that source's 'power book' is released' and 'we aren't going to try to 'fill the grid' by making sure each source covers all the roles.'   Of course, they went on to release the Seeker post-Primal-Power (PP /did/ hit before PH3, right? - I didn't buy either, so I'm not 100% certain) and to 'fill the grid' for every other power source in print (not counting Shadow, obviously, though I'm sure it'll get all 4 roles eventually, too).


----------



## Klaus (Aug 6, 2010)

The Slayer rules another aspect:

Heavy Thrown Weapons.

Str-based ranged attacks, with some extra Dex on top of the damage lets you don heavy armor and still have great ranged and melee capability.

I'm getting flashes of Thor throwing Mjolnir or of the Diablo II Amazon with spears and javelins!


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Of course, they went on to release the Seeker post-Primal-Power (PP /did/ hit before PH3, right? - I didn't buy either, so I'm not 100% certain) ...




Primal Power's first printing was in October 2009, so you're correct on that.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, WotC came out and said that they would not publish new martial classes after Martial Power came out - so it was some time ago, I'm not surprised folks don't remember.  I only remember because I was hoping for a Martial Controller.




Link please?

'Cuz apparently, nobody told Mike Mearls, who, when asked whether Essentials meant the end of "power-using martial classes" said something to the effect of "I could see a future weapon master class that used a system similar to the one in the PHB."

I do recall them saying that they were never going to make a Martial Controller just to "fill in the grid." If they were to make one, it would have to "have a story reason for existing." But I don't recall a specific statement of "no new martial classes."

Although if they did, maybe that's why these are "subclasses" instead.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Some very good points.
> Fighter has become the "Master of A Weapon" instead of "Master of Weapons." While the 4E weapon groups are very much a step in the right direction, weapon category feats further compound the problem.
> 
> The Slayer's Weapon Talent is great for bringing back "Master of Weapons." There have been some other attempts as well, Weapon Master lets you get Weapon Focus and Expertise to all weapons you are proficient with. Dynamic Weapon lets you change your weapon to another weapon, providing a magic weapon at the right level for any weapon.
> ...




And there are admittedly ways around that - their is a "Weapon Mastery" feat that, if you have Weapon Focus and Expertise, lets you apply them to all weapons. (There was an entire article devoted to a fighter that switches weapons through a fight.) 

The magic weapon issue remains a concern, though inherent bonuses or the ability to use a Ki Focus can get around that. 

I'm hoping Dark Sun will help with this (and the suggestion it may use inherent bonuses will go a long way.) You break your obsidian sword on the enemy's face? Grab a fallen weapon off the ground and just keep beating him with it. Makes for a great image, rather than being so tied to one weapon that even the idea of using something else causes your fighter to break out in hives.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Aug 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> And there are admittedly ways around that - their is a "Weapon Mastery" feat that, if you have Weapon Focus and Expertise, lets you apply them to all weapons. (There was an entire article devoted to a fighter that switches weapons through a fight.)
> 
> The magic weapon issue remains a concern, though inherent bonuses or the ability to use a Ki Focus can get around that.
> 
> I'm hoping Dark Sun will help with this (and the suggestion it may use inherent bonuses will go a long way.) You break your obsidian sword on the enemy's face? Grab a fallen weapon off the ground and just keep beating him with it. Makes for a great image, rather than being so tied to one weapon that even the idea of using something else causes your fighter to break out in hives.




/Facepalm
Read the middle paragraph of my post


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 6, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, WotC came out and said that they would not publish new martial classes after Martial Power came out - so it was some time ago, I'm not surprised folks don't remember.  I only remember because I was hoping for a Martial Controller.
> 
> IIRC, the language used was something along the lines of.  'We have all the martial archetypes covered with the existing classes,'  'We won't publish new classes for a power source after that source's 'power book' is released' and 'we aren't going to try to 'fill the grid' by making sure each source covers all the roles.'   Of course, they went on to release the Seeker post-Primal-Power (PP /did/ hit before PH3, right? - I didn't buy either, so I'm not 100% certain) and to 'fill the grid' for every other power source in print (not counting Shadow, obviously, though I'm sure it'll get all 4 roles eventually, too).




Runepriest would be an even better example. The problem with those kinds of statements by designers is they're really impossible promises to make. I mean who actually knows what will come down the pike a year later? All you can read them as are statements of what the devs NOW think when they make the statement.

Personally I have no problem with a Striker fighter. Honestly, the GW fighter was already pretty close. I don't really know what to make of the archer slayer. I don't really think it was a primary consideration, and I don't know that they really thought about it a whole lot. We also don't know enough yet about the slayer to say just how good an archer it will really make. Remember, archer rangers have some HUGE bennies. Just the Battlefield Archer PP alone puts them in a whole different category. Consider all the minor action attack powers, high mobility options, etc. and I doubt there's much danger the slayer will overshadow them. He might make a perfectly good alternative that just lets the enemy get in his face and doesn't care, but he's not going to be identical to the ranger.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 6, 2010)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Runepriest would be an even better example.
> 
> The problem with those kinds of statements by designers is they're really impossible promises to make. I mean who actually knows what will come down the pike a year later? All you can read them as are statements of what the devs NOW think when they make the statement.



Yeah, I came back to add the Runepriest to my post.  I didn't buy PH3 because I loathe psionics in D&D, and I had forgotten where the Runepriest even apeared...

...and, yes, they do end up making impossible promises, and taking flack for breaking them, so I can't really /blame/ them for finagling around to nominally 'keep' them.



> Personally I have no problem with a Striker fighter. Honestly, the GW fighter was already pretty close. I don't really know what to make of the archer slayer. I don't really think it was a primary consideration



I agree - the Greatweapon Fighter was a strong secondary striker, and edging it fully into the Striker role is not unreasonable.  I just don't like the all-basic-attack aproach to the martial classes - dangerous 'backsliding' is what it looks like to me.  I think getting something like effective archery back into the hands of the Fighter was a consideration - it's a complaint that's been voiced often enough, certainly.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> The PHB also portrays Warlords as entirely front-line combatants - a later build gave them the option to fight from range. Just as I don't think that 'melee' was the one defining element of a Warlord, I don't think that 'Defender' is the one defining element of a Fighter.
> 
> The Fighter in the PHB is a defender, yes. But most of what the PHB portrays the fighter as remains true - a skilled warrior, who bashes and slices his foes into submission.
> 
> ...




First off... 'Guy who is really good at killing things with weapons' ... could be a Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, etc (also, what about the Brawler Build???). So that's kind of broad to be an archtype... so I guess my answer is yes though it doesn't match my mental image of what a 4e fighter is.

Wait a minute... so now we have a "PHB Fighter" vs... exactly what? There is a 4e Fighter. The class and all of it's builds have, up to this point, been defined as defenders. 

My last point is please stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the Slayer preview was the breakdown of the 4e class system (HYPERBOLE MUCH!!!)... and I had actually stated I liked the new direction... of course your zealotry and feverish desire to quell my questioning of whether the classes were now becoming obsolete probably made you overlook that part. To clarify when I say the class system is becoming obsolete, I mean that the major defining feature of a class as it is presented in the PHB, mainly role, is now mutable... that is all.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> /Facepalm
> Read the middle paragraph of my post




Reading Comprehension _FAIL!_

Hah, wow, yeah, no idea how I blanked on that. I think seeing the word Weapon just came up too much for my brain to take it all in. Weapon Talent, Weapon Master, Weapon Focus, Weapon Expertise, Dynamic Weapons, rar!


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 6, 2010)

Imaro said:


> My last point is please stop putting words in my mouth. I never claimed the Slayer preview was the breakdown of the 4e class system (HYPERBOLE MUCH!!!)... and I had actually stated I liked the new direction... of course your zealotry and feverish desire to quell my questioning of whether the classes were now becoming obsolete probably made you overlook that part. To clarify when I say the class system is becoming obsolete, I mean that the major defining feature of a class as it is presented in the PHB, mainly role, is now mutable... that is all.




Ok, note that several lines in my post were in the form of questions. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - I'm trying to actually figure out what you are saying here. Saying, "this transition makes your class pretty much obsolete" sounds like a pretty loaded statement...

...but now that you've clarified it as "that the major defining feature of a class as it is presented in the PHB, mainly role, is now mutable" - that I pretty much agree with. It just felt like a very different statement than you originally were coming from. 

My point, largely, was that while I think role was certainly a large part of how the classes were presented, I don't think it was the only part, or even the most important part. Despite the flexibility of how one could flavor them, they still retained most of the classic concepts of each class. The mage is the student of magic, the fighter is the heavily armored guy skilled with weapons, the rogue is the lightly armored guy who uses tricks to get ahead, etc. I think those core concepts hold true even when we've seen existing variants crop up in supplements, and will remain so even with these greater variants seen in Essentials.

Now, it does sound like part of your disagreement is that you just didn't see the PHB as presenting the Fighter as anything outside of 'Martial Defender' - and maybe that is a failure on WotC's part, if they weren't able to portray more flavor than that. But in the end, for myself, I just don't see 'Martial Defender' as encapsulating the whole of the Fighter - anymore than 'Arcane Striker' can fully capture the Sorcerer and the Warlock, two classes with significant differences that nonetheless occupy the same power source and role.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 6, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Now, it does sound like part of your disagreement is that you just didn't see the PHB as presenting the Fighter as anything outside of 'Martial Defender' - and maybe that is a failure on WotC's part, if they weren't able to portray more flavor than that. But in the end, for myself, I just don't see 'Martial Defender' as encapsulating the whole of the Fighter - anymore than 'Arcane Striker' can fully capture the Sorcerer and the Warlock, two classes with significant differences that nonetheless occupy the same power source and role.




Well- I could see an argument for it. I mean really, as it stands so far class/role was kind of redundant. You could say martial - defender,  and pretty much be ok (rules wise.)

The idea of the "class" IMO was always more of a flavor thing.

Which is why I think the new "sub classes" kind of expand on that.

So we have the Fighter >> "Fighter"  which is take the fighter archetype and run it through the defender role.

And we have Fighter >>> "Slayer" take the fighter archetype and run it through the Striker role.

It's just a little confusing because it also uses non "traditionaL build style and the "Fighter" >> "Fighter" would be kind of like calling the make and model of a car the same thing. "The all new 2011 Honda, Honda!"


----------



## tyrlaan (Aug 6, 2010)

I would argue not that "class" has been made obsolete, but rather what it signifies has altered.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 6, 2010)

Tosses another log on the fire... Whoosh!

Beautiful! Now we don't need 27 classes to fill unique niches on some imaginary powersource/role grid. Classes can do more than one thing now; a fighter can strike (for massive damage) or defend (to tank for allies). Heck, it even allows two fighters on the team to be non-redundant!

I'm going to owe Mearls a brewery by the time Essentials is done!

Now, I hope that means a few other classes get "alternate" roles. Druid Controller/Leader? Warlock Striker/Controller? Paladin Defender/Leader? Not ALL classes need alternate playstyles, but the idea of a few like fighter having multiple ways of being played opens up new options and possibilities to avoid staleness.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 6, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Now, I hope that means a few other classes get "alternate" roles. Druid Controller/Leader? Warlock Striker/Controller? Paladin Defender/Leader? Not ALL classes need alternate playstyles, but the idea of a few like fighter having multiple ways of being played opens up new options and possibilities to avoid staleness.




I'm going to crosspost a list I put up on rpg.net: secondary roles for every class. Note that this is nothing but wild and totally unfounded speculation. I don't even really think they'll do anything LIKE this, but it's fun for whacky speculation. And if I get any right, I can call myself prophetic...

Cleric: Warpriest (leader) & Adept (controller)
Fighter: Knight (defender) & Slayer (striker)
Rogue: Thief (striker) & Swashbuckler (controller)
Wizard: Mage (controller) & Pyromancer (striker)

Druid: Stalker (controller) & Keeper (leader)
Paladin: Guardian (Defender) & Justiciar (striker)
Ranger: Scout (striker) & Guide (leader)
Warlock: Hellbound (striker) & Fey (controller)

Where appropriate, I ripped names from level titles in the 1e PHB. Obviously, the fighter is actually true. The others are...silly. I deliberately made rogue the martial controller to let the rangers play "Aragorn."

You'll notice this list is replete with strikers, because, IMO, striker is the most fungible of the roles. Having the wizard and warlock double in each other's secondary seems a bit silly, and frankly, I'd love to see a "wizard leader" instead, but I just don't see that happening.

This is intended to cause controversy. Let the hell break loose.

(And Mearls, if you're watching and I'm right, I didn't sneak a peak at your notes. Honest.)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Aug 6, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Tosses another log on the fire... Whoosh!
> 
> Beautiful! Now we don't need 27 classes to fill unique niches on some imaginary powersource/role grid. Classes can do more than one thing now; a fighter can strike (for massive damage) or defend (to tank for allies). Heck, it even allows two fighters on the team to be non-redundant!
> 
> ...




There never was a 'grid' to be filled, not in the minds of the 4e devs. That's all on certain people's expectations on the boards. Clearly each class was made to approximately fill given role, or more like to emphasize a certain role. In some cases they HEAVILY emphasized one role, sometimes they didn't. Warlocks, druids, paladins, etc have always been pretty clearly capable of filling more than one role from the start. Beyond that the devs specifically stated (and their actions back that up) that they had no interest in producing a set of classes that had a one-to-one correspondence to role/power source. 

At most it was a design concept and an aid to building a party to even have roles. In other words the flexibility was always there. Obviously you can't put out builds and classes to take advantage of every possibility right off. So yeah, we have more options now, but they were always implicit and in fact you could do pretty much the same stuff before that you can do now. 

Actually if anything bothers me about Essentials it is more that we're going back over old territory when there's so much else that could be done.


----------



## jimmifett (Aug 6, 2010)

For the comparisons to barbarian vs slayer, while i don't have my books in front of me, doesn't barbarian have some elemental keywords behind it's attacks, where as slayer is weapon based?


----------



## Mapache (Aug 6, 2010)

Malisteen said:


> I fear melee training will be a casualty of essentials, murdered off because it's 'too good' for the new fighter, but leaving paladins, assassins, avengers, non-Str secondary monks, and any number of other melee classes without functional basic attacks to use.  At least sword mages have their own feat.




If you want a quick fix, have Melee Training only work when it's not your turn.  That lets you use it for OAs and with your Leader buddy's attack-granting power, but not for your Standard action (which is only something MBA-based Essentials classes would want to do under normal circumstances).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 7, 2010)

Remathilis said:


> Beautiful! Now we don't need 27 classes to fill unique niches on some imaginary powersource/role grid. Classes can do more than one thing now; a fighter can strike (for massive damage) or defend (to tank for allies). Heck, it even allows two fighters on the team to be non-redundant!



It's only 20 classes to fill out the 5 power sources by four roles immaginary grid.  And, only one is missing.  But, now that a class can have more than one role, the imaginary grid is not 20 classes or even 27 (which wouldn't make sense, it'd be 28 at 7 power sources), it's 4 builds /per class/!


For instance:




Imaginary Grid-filling immagineary Essentials Fighter imaginary Preview:  the Hero

Key Abilities: Strength, Charisma

Martial Leader: Fighters such as the Hero lead by example, inspiring fellow fighters and other allies to renewed and greater efforts.  

Why This Is the Class for You: You like playing a tough character who possesses that special quality that makes him a leader of men and the stuff of legends.  


When tales are told of the of the founding of great kingdoms and the downfall of terrible tyrants, Heroes are often those the stories speak of.  Heroes are mighty warriors in their own right, but their greatest power comes from the mystique that springs up around them.  They inspire lesser men to do great things, they build legends and leave legacies that change the face of the world.

Heroes are often nobles born or other persons of standing and influence, but they can also find themselves called from all walks of life.  Wherever the people are downtrodden and hopeless, a Hero may arrise who can lead them to glory. 

The Hero combines the best traits of Leader and Defender, helping to keep allies in the battle, and enjoying superior personal durrability, himself. This class grants heavy armor proficiency and plenty of hit points, making the Hero an ideal warrior to stand beside in the front line of battle.

Class Traits 
Hit Points: You start with hit points equal to 15 + your Constitution score. You gain 6 hit points each time you gain a level. 
Bonus to Defenses: +1 to FORT, REF & WILL 
Healing Surges per Day: 9 + your Constitution modifier 
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide, chainmail, scale, light shield 
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged, military ranged 
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), History (INT)
Trained Skills: Heal plus three others from the list of class skills




HERO HEROIC TIER  
Total XP	Level	Feats Known	Class Features and Powers  
    0		 1	 	 1	Heroic Effort 1/day
					Aid & Comfort
					Fighter stances 
					Power Strike 
1,000 		2 		+1 	Utility power 
2,250 		3 		— 	Improved Power Strike 
3,750 		4 		+1 	Ability score increase 

5,500 		5 		— 	Heroic Effort 2/day
7,500 		6 		+1 	Utility power 
10,000 		7 		— 	Extra fighter stance 
					Weapon Specialization 
13,000 		8 		+1 	Ability score increase 
16,500 		9 		—	Heroic Effort 3/day
20,500 		10 		+1 	Utility power 



Level 1: Aid & Comfort.  You are an inspiration to your allies.  When you take the time to help them, your efforts are always rewarded.

Aid & Comfort  Hero Class Feature

When you use the Aid Another action or use a healing check to allow an ally to spend his Second Wind or make an extra Saving Throw, you provide greater benefits than normal:

Aid Another:  Your Aid Another action adds your CHA modifier to the ally's check even if it fails, and adds 2+ your CHA mod if it succeeds.

Heal:  When you use a Heal check to give an ally a Saving Throw, the ally gains a bonus to the Saving Throw equal to your CHA mod. If you fail, he recieves an unmodified save.

Heal:  When you use a Heal check to allow an ally to spend his Second Wind, the ally regains additional hps equal to your CHA modifier plus 1d6.  If you fail the check or if he has already use his second wind, you grant him temporary hit points equal to 1/2 your level plus your CHA mod, instead.

Level 6: 2d6 additional hit points.
Level 11: 3d6 additional hit points.
Level 16: 4d6 additional hit points.
Level 21: 5d6 additional hit points.
Level 26: 6d6 additional hit points.



Stances:


Shining Example   Hero Utility
At-Will    Martial, Stance 
Minor Action   Close Burst 5
Effect:  While the stance continues, whenever you succeed with an attack, check, or saving throw, you may grant one ally in the Burst who saw your success a bonus equal to your CHA mod to attack the same enemy, make the same skill check, or save against the same effect.  


Never Give Up     Hero Utility
At-Will    Martial, Stance 
Free Action  Personal 
Trigger:  You miss with an attack, or fail a skill check or saving throw
Effect:  You gain a +1 on your next attempt to attack the same target, make the same skill check, or save against the same condition that triggered the stance.  While the stance continues, each time you fail the same roll, the bonus increases by 1, to a maximum of your CHA bonus.  The stance ends when you succeed with the triggering roll or choose not to attempt it on your turn.


Heroic Stand      Hero Utility
At-Will    Martial, Stance 
Minor Action  Cose Burst 5
Effect:  While the stance continues, each time you hit with a basic attack, you can choose to grant one ally within the Burst either a saving throw vs one effect that a save can end, or temporary hit points equal to 1/2 your level plus your CHA modifier.



Level 1:  Heroic Effort - you can push yourself beyond normal human limits to ensure success when failure is not an option.

Heroic Effort   Hero Utility
Daily  *  Martial
Free Action  Personal 
Trigger: You miss with an attack roll or fail a skill check or saving throw.
Effect:  The failed roll succeeds. If the roll failed by more than your CHA mod, you lose a healing surge.
Special: As you gain levels, you can use this Daily more often.  Twice at 5th level and three times at 9th.  However, you can not use it twice in the same encounter.


OR 

(you knew the martial controller was coming)


Imaginary Grid-filling immaginary Essentials Fighter imaginary Preview:  the Piker

Key Abilities: Strength, Intelligence

Matial Controller:  Fighters such as the Piker do not seek glory or fight with reckless abandon.  They are thinking warriors, who stack the deck in their favor before playing the deadly game of combat. 

Why This is the Class for You:  You want to play a canny warrior who masters tactics and weapons that give him unique advantages in combat and let him exert influence over the choices of enemies as well as allies.  You may also just love the look on the DM's face when his monsters' battle plan falls to peices because of something you did.


Battles aren't always won by the flashy hero on the white horse. Most battles are won by the disciplined soldiers who hold their ground or the brilliant strategist who chooses the battles he can win, and changes the nature of other battles until they /can/ be won.  In the adventuring party, the Piker is such a warrior - he may or many not stand out or seem that heroic, but he /will/ see his party win battles they would have lost without him.

While other Fighter rush headlong into battle, the Piker prefers to let enemies come to him - and to make that as hard as possible on them, into the bargain.  Pikers use the terrain around them to their advantage, and choose 'reach' weapons for the advantages they give in critical moments, such as when battle is first joined, or when routed enemies try to escape.

The Piker combines the traits of Controller and Defender, being tough and melee-oriented, but able to deal with large numbers of enemies and decieve and weaken his opponents.

Class Traits 
Hit Points: You start with hit points equal to 15 + your Constitution score. You gain 6 hit points each time you gain a level. 
Bonus to Defenses: +2 to WILL
Healing Surges per Day: 9 + your Constitution modifier 
Armor Proficiencies: Cloth, leather, hide
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, military melee, simple ranged, military ranged 
Class Skills: Athletics (Str), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), History (INT), Bluff (CHA), Intimidate (Cha), Streetwise (Cha). 
Trained Skills: History and three others from the list of class skills



PIKER HEROIC TIER  
Total XP	Level	Feats Known	Class Features and Powers  
    0		 1	 	 1	Sieze the High Ground
					Fighter stances 
					Know Thine Enemy
					Trip 
1,000 		2 		+1 	Utility power 
2,250 		3 		— 	Disarm
3,750 		4 		+1 	Ability score increase 

5,500 		5 		— 	Spring the Trap
7,500 		6 		+1 	Utility power 
10,000 		7 		— 	Extra fighter stance 
					Weapon Specialization 
13,000 		8 		+1 	Ability score increase 
16,500 		9 		—	From the Jaws of Defeat
20,500 		10 		+1 	Utility power 



Level 1:  Know Thine Enemy  -  you have an encyclopedic knowledge of military history and legend.  You know or can deduce the weaknesses of foes and what tactics will work best against them.

Know Thine Enemy   Piker Class Feature
When you make a Knowledge Check to gain information about creatures' combat abilities, vulnerabilities, resistances, tactics, or possible motivations to fight, you can substitute a History check for the usual Religion, Arcana, Nature or Dungeneering check.  When you would make an Insight roll to guess at an opponents intentions in combat, you may also substitute a History check.


Stances:


Set Spears		Piker Utility
At-Will    Martial, Stance 
Minor Action  Personal 
Requirement: You must be using a weapon with the Reach Attribute.
Effect: While this stance continues you have Threatening Reach.  The stance ends if you hit an adjacent enemy.

Formation Fighting	Piker Utility
Effect: While this stance continues, your Basic Attack becomes a burst 1 that targets enemies within the burst.  The Stance ends if you have no allies adjacent to you.

Shortenned Grip:  	Piker Utility
You hold your spear like a quarterstaff, using the pole to block attacks and club enemies.
Requirement: You must be using a pole-arm or spear in two hands.
Effect:  Until the stance ends, you have a +1 shield bonus to AC and REF, and, when you make a Melee Basic Attack against an adjacent enemy, may make a second melee basic attack against an adjacent enemy you did not hit with the first attack.  The second MBA inflicts [1d6] damage in place of the weapon's normal [W] damage.



Level 1:  Trip - you snag an enemy with a projection on your weapon and drag him off his feet.

Trip         Fighter Attack 1
Encounter    Martial, Weapon 
Free Action  Personal 
Trigger: You hit an enemy with a melee basic attack using a weapon. 
Target: The enemy you hit 
Effect: The target is knocked prone.


Level 1: Sieze the High Ground - you position yourself idealy for the coming battle.

Sieze the High Ground    Fighter Attack 1
Daily * Martial, Zone
Move    Close Burst 2
Effect:  Sift up to your speed. The square where you end this movement is the center of a Burst 2 Zone that you can use to your tactical advantage.  When in this zone, you gain a +1 to all attacks and defenses and can slide an enemy you hit with a basic attack your INT mod once per turn. If you and an ally are both in the zone and both threaten an enemy, you gain combat advantage against that enemy.
Your allies also gain a +1 to attacks and defenses when in the zone. 
Sustain: Minor.  The Zone persists.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 7, 2010)

heheh, somebody essentialized the warlord ;p you bad boy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 7, 2010)

Actually, I tried to make the Hero as un-warlordy as possible.  He doesn't have an actual 'healing word' equivalent, making him quite distinct from other leaders, and his Stances are based (loosely) on Cleric at wills and magic items.  


Now, the 'Marshal' I posted in your Warlord thread on the WotC boards, that's an Essentialized Warlord.


And, yes, I'm feeling quite naughty today...


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 7, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Actually, I tried to make the Hero as un-warlordy as possible.  He doesn't have an actual 'healing word' equivalent, making him quite distinct from other leaders, and his Stances are based (loosely) on Cleric at wills and magic items.
> 
> 
> Now, the 'Marshal' I posted in your Warlord thread on the WotC boards, that's an Essentialized Warlord.
> .




How did I miss that?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

Wait...the other Essentials Fighter doesn't have a mark, either, but is a defender.

Kind of a mark-equivalent (-2 to hit allies when it's in the aura), but not an actual mark. 

I'm liking a striker-fighter.

I'd also like to see more defenders who don't use marks (since it's just another status to slap around), but defend in other ways.

There was a thread not to long ago that speculated on non-marking defender abilities. Like an ability that lets you designate an ally and take damage in their place, forex.

I'm liking the theoretical "non-healing-word" Leader, too. 

More Diversity Is Very Very Good.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 7, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Except the rogue would be getting +Cha on _top_ of their existing striker damage bonus of 2d6 (or 2d8 with the feat).






> It also puts the nail in the coffin of that rogue manuever that grants +cha to damage vs targets you *don't have CA against*




That's what makes the maneuver terrible: it only works if you don't get your sneak attack against the target. And the given example of why it existed was "a shortbow using rogue who attacks from range", which was bad enough in the first place, let alone after we see what the slayer is capable of from range.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 7, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> That's what makes the maneuver terrible: it only works if you don't get your sneak attack against the target. And the given example of why it existed was "a shortbow using rogue who attacks from range", which was bad enough in the first place, let alone after we see what the slayer is capable of from range.




Ah, my mistake on that. And yeah, that's an absolutely terrible justification there for it. I see it as there for the handful of times the Rogue is missing Combat Advantage and needs the extra kick. Basically, he usually gets a bit more damage out of his Striker boost than most other Strikers, in returns for having a greater chance of going without it. 

With that trick, when he goes without it, he isn't as bad off as normal. Anyone relying on that manuever is definitely in a bad place, and not going to compare favorably to other Strikers. 

I don't think the manuever is terrible - it just has a very limited application, and WotC didn't do it any favors by tossing out examples of characters who were falling into the 'trap' of building a character centered around it. Basically, it should be a last resort option, not a core approach of your build.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Aug 7, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> snip
> 
> You'll notice this list is replete with strikers, because, IMO, striker is the most fungible of the roles. Having the wizard and warlock double in each other's secondary seems a bit silly, and frankly, I'd love to see a "wizard leader" instead, but I just don't see that happening.
> 
> ...




seconded 

and why just 2 subclasses? you could go on forever and ever...

btw I also would like a mage/healer maybe a transmuter specialist? someone who polymorph for healing and since he must be a leader make also changes to the terrain/air/enemies for buffing/debuffing/directing

Mage subclass: Transmuter (leader)

but also as a warlock subclass

Warlock subclass: Domine (leader) dominion pact
this one could be more similar to a cleric with a more controllish thing


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wait...the other Essentials Fighter doesn't have a mark, either, but is a defender.
> 
> Kind of a mark-equivalent (-2 to hit allies when it's in the aura), but not an actual mark.



Think of it as an automated mark.  You don't have to declare a mark or track who you've marked, you're just always marking any adjacent enemies.  The move, they're not marked anymore.  They're marked by someone else, they're not marked by you.  

One of the 'stances,' is kinda like that, too.  You don't have an at-will power, you just have an at-will stance that makes your basic attack work almost exactly like an at-will power with a similar name.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'd also like to see more defenders who don't use marks (since it's just another status to slap around), but defend in other ways.




What he said.

Nowhere has it ever actually been stated that defenders must have a mark to be defenders. They have to be "sticky" in some shape, form, or fashion, but there are ways besides marks to do it. I'd like to see some.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 7, 2010)

I suppose you could look to the monster Soldier role for some possibilities.  For instance, there are soldier-role monsters that grab or immobilize instead of marking.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 7, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> That's what makes the maneuver terrible: it only works if you don't get your sneak attack against the target. And the given example of why it existed was "a shortbow using rogue who attacks from range", which was bad enough in the first place, let alone after we see what the slayer is capable of from range.



It is still not terrible, just an option you have, when something doesn´t work as intended... an option. Not your default move.


----------



## dbm (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm surprised no one else has said this already: the Essential Fighter is an old school fighter. Originally, fighters just whacked things, and this is what the Slayer does. This leaps out at me as one of my regular group frequently has played fighters through out the editions and constantly laments that his 4e fighter doesn't do enough damage to be a "proper" fighter.

All the "essential" builds have been more old school to my eye - I think their primary function is to draw in old school players who haven't taken to 4e so far. Kind of a 4e reaction to the demand for retro clones. 

Cheers, 
Dan


----------



## Marshall (Aug 7, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Huh. I somehow glossed that.
> 
> Well, good. As I said, I like the idea of a steel-wrapped striker.




Then keep looking. Unless there are some heavy-hitting class features missing from the preview, the DEX secondary nature of the slayer means that despite having Scale proficiency every slayer will be in Hide.

This also slams the door on 4ee not being 4.5. Whole swaths of 4e design tenets have been thrown out the window. The level of errata to non-4ee rules necessary to balance these classes is massive. 4ee classes dont play like their 4e cousins with whole new rules and massive redefinitions of game terms/class features. Combined with all the rules update docs from the last two years, this is a larger sea-change than 3.5 dreamed of.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 7, 2010)

Marshall said:


> Then keep looking. Unless there are some heavy-hitting class features missing from the preview, the DEX secondary nature of the slayer means that despite having Scale proficiency every slayer will be in Hide.




Wrong.

depending on race, hide + 16/14 dex is worse than scale armor. Also hide needs con to upgrade.

Only if you chose melee training + 20 dex and con as secondary instead of strength, you will have higher AC than with scale.

Also scale is better armor, because of no ACP, and with scale specialization even no movement speed reduction.

I hope there are some incentives to have strength high in the slayer build, to make melee training a viable choice instead of a powergaming nobrainer...



> This also slams the door on 4ee not being 4.5. Whole swaths of 4e design  tenets have been thrown out the window. The level of errata to non-4ee  rules necessary to balance these classes is massive. 4ee classes dont  play like their 4e cousins with whole new rules and massive  redefinitions of game terms/class features. Combined with all the rules  update docs from the last two years, this is a larger sea-change than  3.5 dreamed of.




New design tenets are not bad in itself. Also I can´t see those terrible imbalances. Also i can´t see too much updates coming. Most of the necessary rules updates are done/will be done on essential release. After this we will be back to normal rate of updates. Definitively no 4.5.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Aug 7, 2010)

Marshall said:


> Whole swaths of 4e design tenets have been thrown out the window.




Such as?



Marshall said:


> The level of errata to non-4ee rules necessary to balance these classes is massive.




Such as?



Marshall said:


> 4ee classes dont play like their 4e cousins with whole new rules and massive redefinitions of game terms/class features.




Such as?

It's really easy to say the sky is falling.  It's a lot harder to show somebody where it landed.


----------



## Puggins (Aug 7, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Cleric: Warpriest (leader) & Adept (controller)
> Fighter: Knight (defender) & Slayer (striker)
> Rogue: Thief (striker) & Swashbuckler (controller)
> Wizard: Mage (controller) & Pyromancer (striker)




Why use pyromancer when evoker is still available?

I do very much like the concept of the slayer- it does indeed fill a niche currently vacant.  Trying to build a character like- say- Jaime Lannister from a Song of Ice and Fire was difficult.

The dex secondary definitely promotes hide use, but any race that doesn't get a +dex bonus (and doesn't go the weapon training route) will want to be using scale, so it works, in my mind.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Aug 7, 2010)

Slayer is meant to be striker, knight is defender. Mearls says role is assigned after the class concept is fully thought out rather than something the concept is built around in essentials. He says we can expect more of the dual role in the essentials sub classes but not as a rule, just as the story and concept permit.

Very cool.

( that was my question at the gencon d&d q and a. Maybe some blogger will have a better record of everything later. )

And they have listened about cool magical items. Mordenkainens magical emporium ( book) will have all new items with great flavor that fit into a common, uncommon, and rare design. The items mechanically might still be dry but there was no specifics, but I hope for the best. DM only is in control of where uncommon and rare items go, common items you can make with enchant magic item ritual normally.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Aug 7, 2010)

Marshall said:


> ...this is a larger sea-change than 3.5 dreamed of.



In what way is this a _*sea*_-change?

It is a change, certainly; but a *sea*-change?  Not so much...

sea change

Sorry; ordinarily I'm not one to nitpick grammar on internet message boards, but that one is a pet peeve of mine that is growing far too common in modern English...


----------



## Zaphling (Aug 7, 2010)

Rex Blunder said:


> Ugh, I hadn't thought of that.
> 
> That does feel a little broken. My sugar high just became a sugar crash.
> 
> ...




Hmmm. Thanks for finding that brokeness, or should I say 'crack' of the issue.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 7, 2010)

dbm said:


> I'm surprised no one else has said this already: the Essential Fighter is an old school fighter. Originally, fighters just whacked things, and this is what the Slayer does. ...
> 
> All the "essential" builds have been more old school to my eye - I think their primary function is to draw in old school players who haven't taken to 4e so far. Kind of a 4e reaction to the demand for retro clones.
> 
> ...



Yes, it's been said.  Yes, it's quite plausible.  

Essentials was originally supposed to be to draw in new players - Encounters was to have drawn in lapsed players.  I guess Encounters didn't succeed to the degree hoped for, so they've re-purposed Essentials to target both new and lapsed players.  It could work, I suppose, only time will tell, but it seems to me that those are very different potential customers with very different needs in a 'point of entry' product.   At best, Essentials might draw both in, but each with a somewhat mixed impression of the game.  At worst, it will draw in neither.


----------



## Klaus (Aug 7, 2010)

What about Grazing Shot (adds "Miss: Dex damage" to your ranged basic attacks)? That ought to work well for a Slayer and a Thief.


----------



## Marshall (Aug 7, 2010)

Greatwyrm said:


> Such as?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2010)

Puggins said:


> Why use pyromancer when evoker is still available?



One might expect that an evoker would have evocations, and unfortunately that term is already spoken for in 4E. Would that it weren't, but that's where we are.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

> Mearls says role is assigned after the class concept is fully thought out rather than something the concept is built around in essentials.




YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 7, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> One might expect that an evoker would have evocations, and unfortunately that term is already spoken for in 4E. Would that it weren't, but that's where we are.




Except that, as of the mage, we already have two meanings of "evocation." So it's already confusing!

That and the fact that there's already an "Invoker" that's a divine controller class. I surmised WotC wouldn't want to be that confusing. But based on the 2 meanings of "evocation," perhaps it was hasty of me.

I guess I just felt like typing "pyromancer."


----------



## fuzzlewump (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.




Fair enough. I think the seeker concept is awesome and the mechanics are meh. I'm still enjoying my seeker thrower paragon though.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I think the seeker concept is awesome and the mechanics are meh. I'm still enjoying my seeker thrower paragon though.




Different values for awesome, I guess. "I shoot magic nature arrows" doesn't seem like a very awesome concept to me (at least when compared with most other classes; seems more like a mechanical trick). That doesn't mean it's not fully enjoyable if you can infuse it with something beyond the "I shoot magic nature arrows" aspect of it, or if you really love shooting magic nature arrows, though. 



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That and the fact that there's already an "Invoker" that's a divine controller class. I surmised WotC wouldn't want to be that confusing. But based on the 2 meanings of "evocation," perhaps it was hasty of me.




You mean WotC, the company responsible for gaming words like shardmind, battlemind, warforged, warden, warlord, wilden, and fell taint, are having difficulty with naming conventions?

I'm _shocked_! Just..._shocked_! Shocked, I tell you!

*shocked*!


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less *narm* like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.




The battlemind and seeker were supposed to be tragic and heart stirring, but ended up comical? I guess you have a wider variety of things that you judge funny.

Mind you, I would have thought if the concepts had started with role and weapon, they might have gone for something a bit more flavourful, like using implements... I think it was more role and power source and not much else.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! One hopes this will lead to less narm like the Battlemind and the Seeker, wherein the concept is not thought out much beyond the "what role and what weapon?" stage.




Yeah just finished my first read of PHB3, they are 'Meh to Max (TM)' (Min?). Weird they are in the same book as the Monk and Hybrid which are so good.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 7, 2010)

Saeviomagy said:


> The battlemind and seeker were supposed to be tragic and heart stirring, but ended up comical? I guess you have a wider variety of things that you judge funny.
> 
> Mind you, I would have thought if the concepts had started with role and weapon, they might have gone for something a bit more flavourful, like using implements... I think it was more role and power source and not much else.




Well, Battlemind and Seeker could have been great concepts.

Seeker was an attempt at "Primal Ranger."

Battlemind was another shot at "Medieval Jedi."

I may be totally off-base, but I suspect those are class concepts people would have totally gotten behind. They do, however, kinda require shelving tight adherence to rolls.

Primal Ranger says "Striker/Controller" with some leader-esque aid powers. The Seeker's magic bow totally works with the concept. Some people think the ranger's a prime candidate for being a martial controller, and it's easier with magic...

"Medieval Jedi" implies something totally different from what the battlemind IS. They were in trouble with the battlemind the minute they gave him a shield. One potentially cool idea woulda been to take the 3e concept of the "soulknife" and give it to the psionic defender class. Something like that coulda been super-nifty. Maybe rods as implements?

(Yes, it's very "lightsaber." So?)


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You mean WotC, the company responsible for gaming words like shardmind, battlemind, warforged, warden, warlord, wilden, and fell taint, are having difficulty with naming conventions?



IMHO, shardmind, battlemind, and warden are all fairly weak concepts with fairly weak names. Wilden seems a decent concept with a weak name. Warlords are a great concept with a name that perhaps had too much baggage. Warforged are a great concept, whose silly name can be forgiven by virtue of the fact that it long precedes (IIRC) all the rest of these silly names. And as for fell taints, well, I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what the opposition to their name is; does it evoke some kind of wacky East Coast slang? Because in my Prairie-English (General American accent, although I live in Canada), "fell taint" doesn't mean anything... except for maybe "evil corruption".

PS: I lol'd over your post.


----------



## Henry (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You mean WotC, the company responsible for gaming words like shardmind, battlemind, warforged, warden, warlord, wilden, and fell taint, are having difficulty with naming conventions?
> 
> I'm _shocked_! Just..._shocked_! Shocked, I tell you!
> 
> *shocked*!




Ever looked at Gary Gygax's screed in the 1st ed PHB where he talks about a 9th level character delving into the 6th dungeon level and attacking a 7th level monster with a 4th level spell? 
*
fell taint away!*


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 8, 2010)

Henry said:
			
		

> Ever looked at Gary Gygax's screed in the 1st ed PHB where he talks about a 9th level character delving into the 6th dungeon level and attacking a 7th level monster with a 4th level spell?




Gygaxian prose, admittedly, has its own awkwardness. I mean, I don't think Zagyg and Ixixachitl and Iggwilv and the rest of 'em exactly roll off the tongue. And "large scorpions" being size M while "huge scorpions" were size L certainly delights in the land of confusion. And I'm sure instead of "fell taint" he would've used the words "daemonical perineum," which is hardly an improvement.  

But after "shadowdark," there's no saving WotC, either.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 8, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> Yeah there is al sorts of char op stuff here... but I'll not panic until I have seen the class (and 4EE) entire!
> 
> But are we going to see more mix and match roles? I hope so.. Wizard strikers, Druid controllers leader, Rogue controllers, Ranger leaders etc etc. I like that idea.
> 
> While I am editing: Paladin leaders






doctorhook said:


> (Psst! Druids already are controllers... )
> 
> EDIT: Technically, I posted before you edited, but obviously you saw your mistake already. Now this whole post just seems pointless... Look what you've done!




Haha that was very funny.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And I'm sure instead of "fell taint" he would've used the words "daemonical perineum," which is hardly an improvement.



..._That's_ what fell taint means?!?


----------



## Greatwyrm (Aug 8, 2010)

Marshall said:


> Role defines class being the primary one. Archer Fighters dont exist because the Fighter is a Defender and class mechanics dont function at range. If you want the "bow fighter" archetype you play a DEX ranger. If you want to be a high-damage sword fighter you play a Ranger or Rogue or Barbarian.




Can you show me where a Fighter hitting or missing with a ranged attack still doesn't mark a target?

And as far as role defining class, about half the classes are 2/3 something and 1/3 something else.  Druids are controllers with some striker.  Warlocks are strikers with a little controller.  Fighters were already defender with some striker (20 STR, +1 to hit with 2h weapons, swinging a d12 at you).  I don't think the roles are that tightly defined even back to PHB1.



Marshall said:


> Aside from the Melee training issue, Humans fall apart without classes having at-will attacks, race rebuilds, the whole swath of Basic-Attack feats and items.....




Fighters still get at-will attacks.  The new builds don't have any, but the 17 or so existing ones are still there to choose from.  There's also a ton of feats and items that affect basic attacks already.  Put the words "basic attack" in the compendium and hit search.



Marshall said:


> Put a Knight and a S&B Fighter next to each other, the only similarities you find are in terms that have been redefined and a power list that gets gutted for one half or the other.




Name two terms that have been "redefined".

A Knight and an SBF would play practically identically.  You just buy a Knight off-the-rack and get an SBF tailor-made.


----------



## the_amnesiac (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And I'm sure instead of "fell taint" he would've used the words "daemonical perineum," which is hardly an improvement.





I actually used Fell Taints in my game recently. "The Fell Taint hits you with Tendril Caress!" They could not keep a straight face throughout the entire fight. It didn't help that I was also using a Cursechanged Beggar who kept spamming Awesome Blow and Fist Frenzy...


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Aug 8, 2010)

the_amnesiac said:


> I actually used Fell Taints in my game recently. "The Fell Taint hits you with Tendril Caress!" They could not keep a straight face throughout the entire fight. It didn't help that I was also using a Cursechanged Beggar who kept spamming Awesome Blow and Fist Frenzy...




When I used fell taints (no slang problem in the UK) the reaction to tendril caress was basically eeewww!


----------



## Zaphling (Aug 8, 2010)

Note: I didn't read everything on this thread because it takes too long to finish.

Here are my opinions:

Actually I was hesitant at first being traditional myself. But as I open my mind, these new subclasses (The knight and slayer) are a pretty good addition to the Fighter class, with the understanding that Wotc will not make any more martial classes.

I just imagine the Fighter class having three options: Original, Knight, and of course Slayer.

The Knight subclass having heavier armor than its other counterparts and the Defender Aura marking system. As what I understand the Defender Aura only gives the normal penalties of a mark condition, -2 attack if marker is not included. Except that it only automatically marks all enemies inside the aura. That's its advantage compared to the Original's Combat Challenge marking system, which only marks 1 target, after an attack is made; but its oomph is on the interrupting basic attack, compared to the Defender's Aura's auto-mass marking.

Which leads me to this: Is the Knight and Original capable of switching class features? I mean, ca the Original also trade its Combat Challenge for Defender's Aura? or vice versa for the Knight? (I'm pretty sure they can't have both marking systems)

Also is the Knight capable of substituting its Defender's Aura for Slayer's Heroic Slayer? (This also includes the Original). I'm just saying.


Another one: Is the Knight capable of substituting one of its Class Features: Battle Guardian, Weapon Talent, or Shield Finesse for Battlerage Vigor, Tempest Technique, or Brawler Style? Because the Original trades its Fighter Weapon Talent for the said builds.

I assume that Battle Guardian is the close equivalent of Combat Superiority. Can this be traded for Combat Agility?


I have no qualms on the at-will stances because the Original can also use them and vice versa, including Power Strike.


----------



## Zaphling (Aug 8, 2010)

JohnSnow said:


> Except that, as of the mage, we already have two meanings of "evocation." So it's already confusing!
> 
> That and the fact that there's already an "Invoker" that's a divine controller class. I surmised WotC wouldn't want to be that confusing. But based on the 2 meanings of "evocation," perhaps it was hasty of me.
> 
> I guess I just felt like typing "pyromancer."






My thoughts are similar to yours as well. But I just made this false hope for myself: Since primal powers are called Evocations because they evoke the primal fury of nature.

Wotc said: The spells of the school of evocation are a mage’s most brutally effective weapons. An evocation spell channels magic to produce bolts of lightning, howling gales that can freeze enemies in their tracks, and explosive orbs of fiery energy. Evocation spells are never subtle, and they encompass some of the most potent combat powers in the game.

Since evokers also use lightning, ice, and fire which is pretty primal. Maybe evokers borrowed the primals powers through arcane. *Arcane, by itself, is a pretty broad power source. :-/

To think Divine also have holy lightning, holy ice, and holy fire.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 8, 2010)

It helps if you know what the words mean.

Evocation and Invocation as words come from the words 'evoke' and 'invoke.'

Invokers are called that because they invoke.  Invoke means to call upon a higher power for assistance.  That's what invokers do, they call upon the higher power of their diety in order to accomplish their goals.

To evoke means to call up, or to summon, specifically in a spiritual sense.  Thus, evocations summon things.  They're appropriate for Primal characters because primal characters are spirit summoners, each and every one of them.  

Evocation as a spell type is an old school reference, for when the school was called 'Invocation/Evocation' and pertained to magic that summoned bursts of energy from whereever such bursts of energy were stored.

And yes, it makes a terrible keyword for powers when 'evocation' is the name for Primal Powers.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 9, 2010)

Ah-HA!

Well, Mearls just answered the big question about Melee Training.  It only gives 1/2 the stat modifier to damage.

That makes sense.

-O


----------



## Zaphling (Aug 9, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Ah-HA!
> 
> Well, Mearls just answered the big question about Melee Training.  It only gives 1/2 the stat modifier to damage.
> 
> ...




Where is this? i want to read it for myself


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 9, 2010)

Zaphling said:


> Where is this? i want to read it for myself



It's in a new (posted today) free article on the WotC website.


----------



## Zaphling (Aug 9, 2010)

I've read it. Hmmm. I know they, Wotc, stated that Essentials will not be replacing the Old PHBs. But technically they've been updating a number of powers from phb. Even the races are now like PHB3's. Hmmm. I like it though. But I just think that 4eE will be replacing 4e.

Hmmm. Unless they won't be printing the rules on combat and the basics for skill challenges and all basic rules in PHB to the Essentials. If this is true, then Essentials won't be replacing old PHBs


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 9, 2010)

Greatwyrm said:


> Can you show me where a Fighter hitting or missing with a ranged attack still doesn't mark a target?



Fighters can mark with ranged attacks.  The impediment to an 'archer' Fighter is that there is no RBA-stat-swapping option comparable to the MBA-stat-swapping of Melee Training.  Thus, a Fighter is much better off using a Heavy Thrown weapon rather than a bow.  

The Slayer, which is DEX secondary, gets around this problem.  It can just go DEX primary and be an archer, it still gets those basic attack enhancers that aply to RBAs, and is effectively getting double it's DEX bonus for damage.  For melee backup, it can go Melee Training, which, even with the mild nerf just announced, will still dish better damage than a regular Fighter's MBA.



> A Knight and an SBF would play practically identically.  You just buy a Knight off-the-rack and get an SBF tailor-made.



Not quite.  The mechanical differences are great enough that you would definitely notice the difference in play.  They do both model the same character concept, though, so are alternative mechanics for the same thing - a shield-using martial defender.   If the Knight were merely 'off the rack' it would just be a fighter with it's powers granted in a defined sequence instead of picked.  You'd be able to switch out for fighter powers once you got the hang of the system, like you can (presumably) do with the domain-selected powers of a warpriest.



Zaphling:  The answer to all your questions about Knights and Fighters swapping out features and abilities is 'no.'   Essentials Classes can swap powers with explicit levels with their 4e counterparts.  So Mages can take wizard powers and vice-versa, and warpriests and clerics can freely swap powers.  The Essentials Martial classes get basic-attack-enhancing abilities that may be at-will or encounter, but they are not labeled as at-will or encounter /attacks with an explicit level/ so cannot be swapped.  They do, however, get utilities at the same levels as 4e Martial classes, so those presumably can be swapped.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Aug 9, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> Fighters can mark with ranged attacks.  The impediment to an 'archer' Fighter is that there is no RBA-stat-swapping option comparable to the MBA-stat-swapping of Melee Training.  Thus, a Fighter is much better off using a Heavy Thrown weapon rather than a bow.
> 
> The Slayer, which is DEX secondary, gets around this problem.  It can just go DEX primary and be an archer, it still gets those basic attack enhancers that aply to RBAs, and is effectively getting double it's DEX bonus for damage.  For melee backup, it can go Melee Training, which, even with the mild nerf just announced, will still dish better damage than a regular Fighter's MBA.




but the Slayer don't have any Marking power or I missed something?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Aug 9, 2010)

Sorry, that didn't quite get accross what I was trying to say.

The complaint that often gets raised about Fighters that they "can't be archers," isn't raised because people want to play an archer-defender.  It's raised because people are accustomed to 3.x fighters, which could be very good archers, indeed (rivaling and, in some ways, surpassing the 3.x Ranger).  In 4e, the archer archetype was given over entirely to the Ranger (and now Seeker).   

The Slayer, though a Striker, is /technically/ a Fighter.  About all that means is that he can take Fighter utilities, but he's still a Fighter in some sense.  Enough of a sense, hopefully, to satisfy those people who were whining that their Fighter "couldn't be an archer."

The Slayer would make a pretty decent archer, who, with the right feat, could also be a pretty decent melee type.  It's defender-like toughness would be a bit superflous for a dedicated ranger, but that was the case in earlier eds, too, and this is one of those complaints about 4e that boils down to "it's not exactly like it was in the past."


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 9, 2010)

Tony Vargas said:


> and this is one of those complaints about 4e that boils down to "it's not exactly like it was in the past."




I call that one in this context  "class name envy"... not getting that Martial is fighter.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Aug 13, 2010)

the_amnesiac said:


> I actually used Fell Taints in my game recently. "The Fell Taint hits you with Tendril Caress!" They could not keep a straight face throughout the entire fight. It didn't help that I was also using a Cursechanged Beggar who kept spamming Awesome Blow and Fist Frenzy...


----------

