Essential Fighters Preview is up

519 posts / 0 new
Last post
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...

My first impression: I'm less impressed with this than I was with the others. I'm making this intro post quick just to get it out there.

The Fighter's powers seem to modify their basic attacks, either temporarily (as with the encounter) or constantly but singularly (as with the at-wills). I don't know if I like this. It seems about as simple as just having at-wills that do the same thing, though the encounters stack with the at-wills and with MBA feats.
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
At first glance, it seems like there is a lot less choice and customization than the default fighter, thought its hard to be certain without info on all the class abilities. It looks like not only does the knight not get Dailies but misses out on choosable Encounter powers as well, and gets a bunch of baked-in class features instead.

One thing im wondering about is how many feats and other abilities can be stacked onto a Knights MBA in order to pimp it out. Is this guy going to wind up as the ultimate at-will monkey when his higher level class features stack with a bunch of feats on top of a MBA?
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...

My first impression: I'm less impressed with this than I was with the others. I'm making this intro post quick just to get it out there.

The Fighter's powers seem to modify their basic attacks, either temporarily (as with the encounter) or constantly but singularly (as with the at-wills). I don't know if I like this. It seems about as simple as just having at-wills that do the same thing, though the encounters stack with the at-wills and with MBA feats.



It's basically just like the other previews we've got; going back to previous editions. Fighters could only use basic attacks in other editions, so they're making it so the fighter does all kinds of fancy basic attacks. Naturally, this is gonna make him a total BEAST with all the options that buff MBAs, but that's par for the course.
My biggest issue is going to be with the name.  My players are very bad about thinking the name of a class is indicative of their personality, meaning anybody who plays a 'knight' must be honorable, and ride a horse, and all that crap.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
This is along the lines that I expected (I think everyone did), but I'm impressed with how far they've taken it. We have the Fighter's Defender Aura as a simplified alternative to marking, at-will stances and encounter powers that act as riders on any attacks. The end result does not look to be much different from a PHB Fighter, except they are going to be total BABs... Basic Attack Beasts. 

Who said that Warlords are dead in Essentials? If they are, their new best friend the Knight is going to be heartbroken.

Also, this is definitely more "locked in" than the other Essentials... all of their powers listed are level-less features, not powers, which means no subbing. We have our barebones basic starter class.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Don't like this at all, too much worrying bout minor actions to change stances, all for a slightly better version of the 3.x Fighter. Its really a horrible introduction to 4th because it doesn't behave like other classes, but I will agree that they will love warlords.

Also, its a knight, but charisma is a dump stat. Heck, all mental skills are dumpstats, atleast the current fighter can be wise. Its also Strength/Con making its secondary defences bad.
Who said that Warlords are dead in Essentials? If they are, their new best friend the Knight is going to be heartbroken.


Oh god.  I assume they've consider it, but... have they really considered the implications?

I'll be curious to hear how well this is actually balanced, in practice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some observations and assumptions I'm making...

  • "Defender Aura" is obviously replacing marking (it sounds awfully generic - will all defenders have a "Defender Aura"?  We'll see)... but what about a "punishment" feature?  It also strikes me that this fellow cannot mark at range (though "marking" all adjacent foes is probably a fair trade... does it make him more capable at marking than the Warden now?)

  • I'm assuming "Battle Guardian" will be the "punishment" feature, in some shape.

  • "Shield Finesse" "Shield Block" - here's hoping they are more along the lines of a "guardian" - an ability to interfere with attacks against allys, perhaps.

  • There are no "at-wills" - how will Humans (and Half-elves) interact with them?  Just not an option?  It might make sense for Half-elves, but for humans it's a hurt (though easily fixed, by specifically calling it out for humans - or just letting them pick a Fighter at-will from the other books [though you couldn't use that idea with just essentials).


So... I honestly have no idea what I think about this one yet.  I don't like the design direction, and I hope this is one aspect of the "new direction in design" that gets left by the wayside in future products - but I don't know if I actually will dislike the class in play.

EDIT:
Its really a horrible introduction to 4th because it doesn't behave like other classes


Heh, didn't think about it at first, but yeah, totally agree.  This isn't (just) "simpler" - it's wildly different.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Don't like this at all, too much worrying bout minor actions to change stances, all for a slightly better version of the 3.x Fighter. Its really a horrible introduction to 4th because it doesn't behave like other classes, but I will agree that they will love warlords.

Also, its a knight, but charisma is a dump stat. Heck, all mental skills are dumpstats, atleast the current fighter can be wise. Its also Strength/Con making its secondary defences bad.



I don't like it either. Its just so plain and boring.  I mean those At-Will stance... what's the difference between those and regular at-will that would have the MBA clause? NOTHING! Its just a name for people who don't want to use 'Powers'.

Now I admit the idea of encounter power who adds effect to one of your At-Will attack is a fun idea since you can customize your pseudo-encounter for the situation.

Problem is, despite the way the fluff goes about tactics, these are hardly tactically interesting! They don't offer anything. Essentially this guy is a striker with a Defender Aura. Heck this guy lacks the stickiness of a real fighter since he can't strike someone who shifts away!

If the Mage looked stronger than the Wizard, the Knight looks weaker than the Fighter (or even the Battlemind or PHB1 STRladin!).

Furthermore the fluff keeps talking about knight using tactical cunning and skill...huh...whut?! They got STR/CON as main stat! And the five skill to choose from. Plus it gets a bonus to FORT, the one defense it has no need of buffing. I mean at least change the basic Fighter bonus to a WILL bonus.

The only really interesting part (beside the concept of Encounter powers modifyin At-Wills) is that the Knight gets Diplomacy instead of Streetwise as a Class skill. Nice touch.

also I agree this is a VERY BAD introduction to 4e since it doesn't use the basic structure most classes use.
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
This is their new "easy class." Looks boring, but you could definitely put this build on auto pilot from the looks of it.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
who, squatting upon the ground,
held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
I said, "is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter – bitter," he answered;
"but I like it,
"beacuase it is bitter,
"and because it is my heart."

Wow, missed that it was only a fort bonus. I guess this is the return to the "melee guys are big, tough, and dumb as nails" thought of melee characters. Why is this called the knight?

I think wizards needs to learn that messing with commonly used resources (ie, at-will and encounter powerrs) is bad and open to alot of wonkiness compared to other classes. They were better off having dailies that would make your encounter powers more awesome.

I think the best weapon for the knight is the rapier, as theres an MP2 feat thats lets basic attacks with light blades to target reflex.
They say the Knight defines the frontline... I say he's just a big roung target monsters will avoid. They really should have given the guy a Tide of Iron style At-Will. Or footwork lure. Anything more tactical than '+2 to damage roll' -.- Brash Strike is more tactical that that!

Also let's not forget that with such a sucky will, any monster with a dominating power will turn those juicy basic attacks on the fighter's ally in a heartbeat. Ouch.
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
@greatfrito:

I think perhaps the Essentials versions of races will be alternatives to the existing ones, so we might see Humans that have a different version of Human versatility that takes this into account.

Or perhaps it will be very simple and they'll just an extra stance at-will at level one.

@everyone chiming in on the idea that it's a horrible introduction to 4E...

I think time will tell on that. I personally think they did a good job, because they've given us a Fighter that plays like the simple boring Fighters of ouldenne tymes but does using At-Will and Encounter Powers. Yes, they could have accomplished the same thing with standard powers or taking away powers, but by doing it this way there's a "bridge" character.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
@Undrave: Point of order - it says "You gain two of the following powers of your choice." and then lists exactly two stance powers. Ergo, we aren't seeing all the choices here... just two they picked out as examples. Chances are the others will look an awful lot like existing Fighter powers, like perhaps Tide of Iron.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
@Undrave: Point of order - it says "You gain two of the following powers of your choice." and then lists exactly two stance powers. Ergo, we aren't seeing all the choices here... just two they picked out as examples. Chances are the others will look an awful lot like existing Fighter powers, like perhaps Tide of Iron.



True. I really hope they have something like Tide of Iron, it is sorta iconic for shield bearing fighters in 4e now.

Guess I need to see the full book before passing final judgement. I just don't think 'being boring' is a good design goal and that 'being simple' and 'being boring' don't have to be synonymous.

I personally think they shouldn't have held on to the tradition of 'Fighter is the simplest class' to play and instead move that duty to the archery Ranger. A striker is by nature a lot easier to play and we wouldn't be saddled with this pseudo-defender thing.

Furthermore I think the Encounter powers should have had a level so that someone who wanted to add complexity to their play experience could do it little by little by swaping out encounter Powers to more traditionnal ones, and it could have also led to some more interesting possiblities with classic builds using those MBA modifying powers. It would have also, probably, led to more interesting and tactical versions of those, at least alongside the basic ones like the +1[W] here.
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
@greatfrito:

Or perhaps it will be very simple and they'll just an extra stance at-will at level one.


I'm just going to assume they'll do this one, for now.

@everyone chiming in on the idea that it's a horrible introduction to 4E...

I think time will tell on that. I personally think they did a good job, because they've given us a Fighter that plays like the simple boring Fighters of ouldenne tymes but does using At-Will and Encounter Powers. Yes, they could have accomplished the same thing with standard powers or taking away powers, but by doing it this way there's a "bridge" character.


?  Bridge from what?  I say you've just described it as a good "bridge" for old D&D players (and rightly so)... but I don't see how that makes it a good introductory point (for 4th edition) for new players.

@Undrave: Point of order - it says "You gain two of the following powers of your choice." and then lists exactly two stance powers. Ergo, we aren't seeing all the choices here... just two they picked out as examples. Chances are the others will look an awful lot like existing Fighter powers, like perhaps Tide of Iron.


The other one described (Measured Cut?) sounds like it will be Footwork Lure.  So there's one more for the list (probably).

Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Just the look of the progression tables reminds me of my youth.  Not sure how I feel about it.

In terms of limited view of the fighter build presented, I feel as though I would have rather played the fighter I built at first level using just PH1, which took maybe 20 minutes.  I wonder what the differences between Combat Superiority and Battle Guardian will be?  How would you rewrite the fighter punishing ability?

And I'm sure both the Knight and the other build will take Rain of Steel, which is all that really matters anyways.  Wink
RULE 0 FALLACY You can also work around some of these problems by invoking the Rule 0 Fallacy ("this rule isn't broken because I can fix it"). In this case, when the system is inappropriately reporting failure or success, the DM should simply ignore it. But if the mechanics are so broken that we need to frequently ignore them, why are we using them at all?
> I mean those At-Will stance... what's the difference between those and regular
> at-will that would have the MBA clause? NOTHING! Its just a name for people who
> don't want to use 'Powers'.

Well for one thing, if you have an MBA at-will, it will probably stack with this.

On top of that, it looks as though the encounter powers may work in tandem with the auras, so you can have an at-will equivalent MBA that you can boost even further, so their encounter powers may effectively end up being somewhere between encounter and daily strength.
@greatfrito:

You kind of answered your own question there. It's a bridge between what people who played older editions will be used to and what 4E uses. I do think it's also a potentially better introduction for people who have never played any edition and aren't immediately "getting" powers.

Actually, I think Wizards has done great here. So far we have the Wizard, which seems to use the regular power progression with the added wrinkle of spellbooks, we have the Cleric, which has a very normal power progression but (ultimately optional) pre-selected encounter powers, and now we have the Fighter, which uses the power architecture to accomplish something a much simpler system could have handled. I image the Rogue will fit on one side or the other of the Cleric in a nice progression.

It's a huge departure from the "all classes are equally interesting/complicated" design ethos of 4E, but as long as Essentials exists as an entry point/alternative approach, I don't think they've compromised themselves. Each of the Essential classes now has a regular complexity version and one that falls on the spectrum.

...

(And before somebody chimes in with "I don't see what's so hard to understand about powers.", yes, well, let's just start listing things until we get to something you don't intuitively grasp that others may find easy. How long do you suppose that will take? Just because Intelligence is a linear quantity on your character sheet doesn't mean it actually works that way.)
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Just the look of the progression tables reminds me of my youth.  Not sure how I feel about it.

In terms of limited view of the fighter build presented, I feel as though I would have rather played the fighter I built at first level using just PH1, which took maybe 20 minutes.  I wonder what the differences between Combat Superiority and Battle Guardian will be?  How would you rewrite the fighter punishing ability?

And I'm sure both the Knight and the other build will take Rain of Steel, which is all that really matters anyways.  Wink



They dont have dailies, so they can't take Rain of Steel. Also RoS isn't melee basics, its just 1W, so it wouldn't make them beter for it anyway.

Also, I bet Battleguardian will be like a melee basic attack, but not actually one so your stances dont effect it. Kinda like how Combat Agility works in MP2.

That said, Melee training makes this class so funny. You could us any ability score you want for attack and damage.
Slayer might be different, but I really doubt this build can take any PHB Fighter powers... none of their stuff seems to be "leveled", which means no swapping, and it would be potentially very broken if they could. Because they can stack a Knight at-will stance and encounter power-strike on top of any attack they do, even something that's already got encounter power damage/effects.

Okay, that might not be too terrible... expend two encounter powers and do an extra bit of damage. Still seems like this is the build in a bubble: too fragile to be exposed to the outside world.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
They can't take dailies?? I did not know that.  So Essentials Fighters powers are class powers, based on level?   So customization is picking between paths/lines and feats?  Wow. 

Is that how all the essential classes are, or just the fighter?  I'm late to the game with Essentials.

RULE 0 FALLACY You can also work around some of these problems by invoking the Rule 0 Fallacy ("this rule isn't broken because I can fix it"). In this case, when the system is inappropriately reporting failure or success, the DM should simply ignore it. But if the mechanics are so broken that we need to frequently ignore them, why are we using them at all?

That said, Melee training makes this class so funny. You could us any ability score you want for attack and damage.



OMG that's true! Hahahahaha.

Screw STR! I'll make an INT or CHA knight! Ah!
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
...wow. With the point about Melee Training, I really hope they do have a way for this class's stuff to play well with others. Because it really does bring with it a shocking level of versatility in stat distribution.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Man. You guys make me laugh. In a bad way.

There's barely half of the info we'd need to really discuss any of this, but you're already off to the races with all of the speculation and how it's already broken before it's even published (to say nothing of you actually knowing much of anything about the actual build). It's laughable. Really.

No one's spotted the plate proficiency yet?

"Oh. Knight has plate. That's so broken."

lol...

This build is actually making me want to check out Essentials instead of dismissing it, but that's just a big simple me. Bizarre marking riders gone in lieu of an aura. Great. Wacky encounter powers that can miss gone in favor of an extra damage encounter power the triggers off of a hit. Awesome. Fire and forget at-will stances instead of having to pick which normal at-will power to use again. Perfect. Why is that perfect? Because you can get all descriptive with your own bad self instead of rinse-lather-repeating the typical at-will power spam fest.

Sure, it's bland and the fluff will be re-written at 90% of the tables but who cares.  
"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge
One thing I have noticed is this class has built into it the Paragon feat Heavy Blade Opportunity with the bonus of it being for all melee weapons instead of just Heavy Blades. I have lost count of the number of players i have seen bust their nuts trying to get the stats to get this feat.
So far, this looks entirely like Essentials is going in a direction opposite of what they have been stating they are doing.

The initial statement was first: This would be D&D 4th Edition for beginners, entry level. Then they changed it to, "This is the natural way to continue forward with D&D 4th Edition."

But if we look at this, especially at the Fighter, does this really feel like 4th Edition at this point? The Cleric, arguably, works fine. The Wizard has some clear changes such as prepared encounter powers, but it still at least keeps the encounter powers system working. But even Wizard was starting to smell suspiciously like 3.5e.

And now we have the Fighter preview, in which you remove all powers in favor of abilities that modify your MBA? Again, it smells suspiciously like 3.5e and only vaguely retains the same feeling as 4th Edition.

It's like they're trying to bring back 3.5e in a form that they can claim is 4th Edition, so they can milk more money out of the people who have been refusing to move up to 4th Edition.

That said, Melee training makes this class so funny. You could us any ability score you want for attack and damage.



OMG that's true! Hahahahaha.

Screw STR! I'll make an INT or CHA knight! Ah!



Its only the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot we don't know about the Knight yet, but even so its pretty easy to see that they're going to have to do some pretty serious surgery to all feats that impact use of melee weapons. There is a LOT that can stack on top of or grant MBAs and if this guy can basically get an encounter-level power MBA attack (even if its not usable constantly) it could get real out of whack real fast.

Creating new 4e content that is usable with BOTH this and the existing 4e fighter and other martial classes is going to be sheer insanity. I think this is where we start to see compatibility become more hypothetical than actual...
That is not dead which may eternal lie
@Blackbriar:

Who's saying it's broken? I just did a search on the past three pages, and the only one who uttered the word was me... first when saying the Knight will be heartbroken at the Warlord's funeral, and then saying that they did things in a way that avoids something potentially broken.


...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Man. You guys make me laugh. In a bad way.

There's barely half of the info we'd need to really discuss any of this, but you're already off to the races with all of the speculation and how it's already broken before it's even published (to say nothing of you actually knowing much of anything about the actual build). It's laughable. Really.

No one's spotted the plate proficiency yet?

"Oh. Knight has plate. That's so broken."



No one said it was broken. We said it was boring. I think I saw a 'stupid' in there too.

To me the Knight is not a fully formed defender (at least from what we've seen so far). Its way too old school to have any real control over the battlefield. A Barbarian can be better at defending than this guy. He's no better than a Wizard's summon. He stands there attacking something big while the artillery monsters kick it in the vulnerable NADs.

And plate? Plate that's boring, nothing special, or rather it makes the Paladin's plate proficiency LESS special. Heck I think Fighters were FINE with scale and had no need for plate. 
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
Seems to me, that giving fighters plate, is another strategy in decreasing "decision points".  I remember when I made mine, I had to give half a thought to take plate mail feat or not.
RULE 0 FALLACY You can also work around some of these problems by invoking the Rule 0 Fallacy ("this rule isn't broken because I can fix it"). In this case, when the system is inappropriately reporting failure or success, the DM should simply ignore it. But if the mechanics are so broken that we need to frequently ignore them, why are we using them at all?
@Asura8 - I've already mentioned in a different post that this stinks of an attempt to convert the OSR players to the game. Which is just really dumb, in my opinion.

Impressions:

Did someone think about this class seriously before they put it together. Before, at least the fighter had to swing at a person to mark them. Now, all they have to do is stand NEXT to them... Of course, without knowing what Battle Guardian does, we can't know if this is just going to turn out to be another Battlemind "I can't stop people" or "OMG, I get to Bash everyone that leaves my aura!".

As noted before, it's compatability with humans are naught. Unless they change the human, we won't have any human Knights. Does anyone else find this  a really strange concept? Shouldn't a Knight in Shinning Armor be the standard Human Archtype?

Does anyone else think that Battle Wrath is a little broken? The lack of combat challenge is the only thing preventing me from doing +11 damage at 2nd level. Even your Eladrin is going to be running around with +8 damage at first level.

Cleaving Assault is okay, though... That ends up being somewhat situational.

Although with the power structure completely out of wack, not only is there nothing here for old PHB fighters to mine, there is nothing here that actually teaches the player to play the game. They're off playing their own unique version, and heaven help us what the Multiclass will look like.

That said, I can understand the appeal... but this doesn't look like they tested it enough with existing material. If they are actually allowed to trade out features for real powers, then this could be potentially really frightening.

Edit:

Did anyone else notice that Battle Wrath works with ANY basic Attack? Including Ranged... How many bets we're going to have new players taking the Knight and insisting they fight only using a bow?
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/0a90721d221e50e5755af156c179fe51.jpg?v=90000)
No weapon talent either so not the same accuracy as classic fighter.

I was originally interested in the new builds and I'm always up for more player content but I think I'll pass on those Essential Player book. There's nothing revealed so far that interest me. I'll just go and finally grab Martial Power 2 and make a REAL Fighter XD.

 The Monster Vault on the other hand sound like a fun pick.


Seems to me, that giving fighters plate, is another strategy in decreasing "decision points".  I remember when I made mine, I had to give half a thought to take plate mail feat or not.



It fits the Knight archetype, but if the Slayer build also gets plate then it'll feel like cheap pandering to me.
58292718 wrote:
I love Horseshoecrabfolk. What I love most about them is that they seem to be the one thing that we all can agree on.
See for yourself, click here!
No weapon talent either so not the same accuracy as classic fighter.

I was originally interested in the new builds and I'm always up for more player content but I think I'll pass on those Essential Player book. There's nothing revealed so far that interest me. I'll just go and finally grab Martial Power 2 and make a REAL Fighter XD.

 The Monster Vault on the other hand sound like a fun pick.


Seems to me, that giving fighters plate, is another strategy in decreasing "decision points".  I remember when I made mine, I had to give half a thought to take plate mail feat or not.



It fits the Knight archetype, but if the Slayer build also gets plate then it'll feel like cheap pandering to me.



Look at the level table, there actually IS a feature called "Weapon Talent". We don't know what it DOES, but its not too much of a stretch to think that it allows a to-hit bonus with some sort of weapon or other.

Honestly, I predict that it will take charops 24 hours, TOPS, to break this class wide open. Its just too different from existing class design to be really compatible with a lot of existing stuff. Its going to be a nightmare to try to adjust everything so its both not broken with existing martial classes (or classes in general) AND not broken with this totally differently designed fighter.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
*yawn*



Looking at this, to me, it'll either be a clusterf-bomb or crazy boring. I dunno, it just... it lacks zazz. I mean, it could use more zazz. I was hoping they were going to zazz it up a bit with no dailies, but more encounter attacks in their place. I'm sure there are people out there that have been waiting for this, but not me. I'm a zazzy fan of zazzy 4E powers zazziness. The zazz of zazzy powers is what really zazzes up 4E for me. To each their own, I guess.

As for the Slayer, I'm hoping for the zazzy daily-less zazzy attack powers-user that has a little less zazz on the defender side of things but a bigger zazzy focus on striker-like zazziness. That would just be full of zazz.

Zazz.

Knowing is Half the Battle. The Other Half is VIOLENCE. Imagine a lightsaber duel between Optimus Prime and Batman. You're welcome.
It's basically just like the other previews we've got; going back to previous editions.

Which made them rather boring to play.

I'll be curious to hear how well this is actually balanced, in practice.

A crap load of errata on pre-existing feats and items. Because when it comes to have a choice between Errataing option A or errating option B, WotC always choses the wrong option. Or they won't bother balancing it and people will get to feel awesome because their fighter is mathematically designed to be better then every other class.

Honestly, I predict that it will take charops 24 hours, TOPS, to break this class wide open. Its just too different from existing class design to be really compatible with a lot of existing stuff. Its going to be a nightmare to try to adjust everything so its both not broken with existing martial classes (or classes in general) AND not broken with this totally differently designed fighter.


24 hours? Sad thing is, they pretty much already have, at least on the theoretical basis. It's only theoretical given half the class features are missing, but given that the discussion has already involved the terms 'half-elf' and 'catch-22', I think it's a decent effort. It boils down to 'we'll know once we see the other class features'.

-edit- Although, it pretty much doesn't matter what the other class features are, all you have to do to semi-break the Knight is use a Master's Blade and the feats Nimble Blade and Deft blade. Extra +1 to attack with CA, +1 when in a stance, target reflex instead of AC and be in two stances at once, let's go!

As an aside, the differences in design between the Knight and the other classes most likely kills the idea of hybridised E-classes stone dead. It's bad enough fitting psionic classes on that precariously tipping pile without this at-will-less beast dancing on it.
A Beginners Primer to CharOp. Archmage's Ascension - The Wizard's Handbook. Let the Hammer Fall: Dwarf Warpriest/Tactical Warpriest/Indomitable Champion, a Defending Leader. Requiem for Dissent: Cleric/Fighter/Paragon of Victory Melee Leader Ko te manu e kai i te miro, nona te ngahere. Ko te manu e kai i te matauranga e, nano te ao katoa. It's the proliferation of people who think the rules are more important than what the rules are meant to accomplish. - Dedekine
but if the Slayer build also gets plate


Looks like scale to me. ;)

Of course, it's possible the new 'iconic' slayer fighter might just have chosen not to wear the best armour she's proficient with, but I think that's unlikely.
"There's an old saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing. I've always had a problem with that. If you do nothing to oppose evil, then how are you 'good'? To turn aside and allow evil to flourish is to collaborate with it. You ask for mercy. You claim you have done nothing. That 'nothing' is why you deserve no mercy." - Lorian Karthfaerr, drow paladin of Avandra Robin Laws says I'm a Storyteller:
Show
You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 92% Tactician 83% Method Actor 75% Butt-Kicker 67% Power Gamer 67% Specialist 58% Casual Gamer 8%
Wow, missed that it was only a fort bonus. I guess this is the return to the "melee guys are big, tough, and dumb as nails" thought of melee characters. 



Cause we need to emphasize that nerds are better than jocks.

And this is the direction for the future folks.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

You read so much into so little, Garthanos.

I hope you feel relieved the next time powers come out for the Warlord and the Wisdom-using Fighter from PHB. 
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
I am not even going to both quoting, given the number of incorrect statements I have seen here.  Some points:

1) Knights have an ability called "Battle Guardian".  It isn't defined in the preview, but most likely it function similarly to either Combat Challenge or Combat Superiority (or both).

2) Knights have an ability called "Weapon Talent".  Without any further details, there is no reason to assume it isn't the same +1 that Fighters have.

3) Knights have an ability called "Shield Finesse".  This ability is undefined.  It is possible that this is a daily attack ability.  If not, then it still is an extra ability that nobody but the designers knows what it does at this point.

4) There are more stances than the two described.  The text lists Measured Cuts and gives tantalizing details about it being movement oriented.  Thus, Knights still have a potentially tactical option and have some choice of starting at-wills.

5) Power Strike is an encounter power.  Not only that, it is an encounter power that never misses (because it activates on hit) and that can be used on opportunity attacks.  That is significantly more powerful than the average encounter power.

6) The difference between at-will stances that modify basic attacks and at-will powers that basically just equate to a basic attack with a rider are almost insignificant.  In fact, the at-will stances are slightly more powerful, because it essentially allows at-will attacks to be use on opportunity attacks and granted attacks.

-SYB
You read so much into so little, Garthanos.



They have ditched the only martial classes which use their minds entirely from the new introduction to the game. This is a completely true statement - the appearance that lends? that is subject to personal interpretation.

And the above is entirely independent of new powers ...that are pointedly of little use for the newbie introduced via the essentials.





 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."